National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden's shocking revelations of massive illegal government surveillance was swiftly met by the Obama administration's routine response to whistleblowers, criminal prosecution in federal court. The program he exposed is nothing less than a full-scale government effort to completely eliminate individual privacy. The federal regime, in homage to their ostensible ideological forbearers, the East German Stasi, has at least in practice adopted the Stasi's motto of "to know everything." Snowden was charged with a variety of offenses directly flowing from his whistleblowing, including theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person, in a criminal complaint dated June 14th.
by google images
The U.S. government, as was the case in East Germany, is using state security agencies to destroy privacy in a quest to "know everything"
Snowden now joins a long and growing list of whistleblowers designated as enemies of the Obama administration and prosecuted mercilessly by his Department of Justice (DOJ), headed by Attorney General Eric Holder. The administration's tactics with targeted whistleblowers involves a strategy of charging them criminally and then using compliant reporters, who are essentially acting as agents of the government, to disseminate damaging information on the source of the government leaks while completely ignoring the exposed wrongdoing. Obama is hardly the first president to use the DOJ for blatantly political purposes, but he is now disturbingly doing so as a matter of course.
by google images
Barak Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush. Two presidents, one uninterrupted regime?
Snowden and other high profile whistleblowers have received the bulk of the media's attention on this topic, but they represent only a fraction of the criminal cases brought by federal prosecutors at the behest of the Obama administration. Countless lesser-known whistleblowers and other enemies of the administration have been maliciously prosecuted for offenses that at first glance have nothing to do with taking a principled stand. These people are subjected to the microscope wielded by federal prosecutors and examined until a suitable offense can be found. The ever-expanding federal code offers creative prosecutors all they need to make convenient cases against targeted individuals. Working with their judicial partners on the federal bench who continue to expand the scope of already ridiculously broad and amorphous statutes, federal prosecutors rarely come away empty handed.
Harvey Silvergate, author of Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, explains how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from legal tradition and asserts that prosecutors can now pin crimes on anyone for practically nothing at all. The problem, he says, is modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number and become impossibly broad and vague. According to Silvergate, "Justice has become sufficiently perverted in this nation that federal prosecutors, if they put their minds to it, could find a way to indict almost any one of us for almost anything." This malleability makes federal prosecution the weapon of choice for the Obama administration's ongoing war against whistleblowers.
by google images
Criminal justice advocate Harvey Silvergate claims that the average American unknowingly commits multiple federal crimes on a daily basis
While not nearly as well-known as Edward Snowden, Matthew Hutcheson was similarly targeted and prosecuted by Obama's DOJ as a result of whistleblowing activities. Until his recent problems brought on by the Obama administration, Hutcheson was a highly regarded and nationally renowned 401(k) fiduciary advocate. He may have been the single most respected expert in his field, repeatedly sought out by various branches of the federal government for his insight and opinions. Hutcheson's problems began in 2009 when he gave explosive testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee that revealed a Wall Street "skim machine." In response to these revelations, industry lobbyists were dispatched to pressure the Department of Labor (DOL) into silencing Hutcheson so that the profitable skim and corresponding unjust enrichment could continue unabated.
by google images
Renowned 401(k) advisor Matthew Hutcheson's exposure of corruption within the Obama administration was met with swift federal prosecution
Hutcheson was soon thereafter asked to file a false declaration in federal court that would have had the effect of negating the allegations made through his whistleblowing. Unlike so many others who readily relent to pressure from the administration, Hutcheson held firm to his principles and refused to make the requested false statement. His defiance in the face of government tyranny caused him to be labeled as a political dissenter and enemy of the Obama administration.
It is interesting to note that shortly before assuming office, President Barak Obama explicitly promised that "Transparency and rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." Yet despite this lofty promise, Obama's reign has been that of a lawless regime. The outrageous transgressions of his predecessor, which were largely responsible for Obama's historic election, have long been eclipsed by the current regime despite endless empty assurances to the contrary.
Barak Obama campaigned on the slogan of "hope and change" while mendaciously pledging an adherence to transparency and the rule of law
This administration that pledges adherence to the rule of law reserves special retributive action for truth tellers who dare to defy the regime. Opportunistic flip-floppers who change like the weather and dance to whatever tune the administration plays are rewarded while principled citizens like Hutcheson are viciously attacked for the courage of their convictions. Obedience and capitulation are the characteristics that Washington's current regime seeks to instill in its citizens.
The administration's assault on Hutcheson began on August 25, 2011 when the DOL announced the initiation of a criminal investigation into Hutcheson's activities. As is the case in so many other criminal matters, neither Hutcheson nor his attorneys were advised of the investigation prior to its pronouncement in the media. Despite the DOL's purported fact finding objective to the investigation, Hutcheson and his attorneys were not asked in any way to cooperate with the DOL's largely predetermined inquiry.
The investigation may have had an outward appearance of legitimacy, but its impetus was Hutcheson's recalcitrance. Soon after Hutcheson's initial revelations of wrongdoing at the DOL, a lawyer disclosed to him that the aforementioned skim machine was being used to curry favor within the department. One specific case involved a skim of $10M, most of which was used to buy influence (the skimmer was a lobbying organization) with DOL leadership. The DOL attempted to sidestep Hutcheson's allegations and ignore the entire matter. When Hutcheson threatened to move forward and expose details of the crime, the DOL basically accused him of the exact criminal behavior in which the DOL was engaged. Hutcheson's enemies within the Obama administration were further angered by his meeting with presidential candidate Mitt Romney and by his making further disclosures to Congress about the DOL skimming scandal.
The government's vindictive investigation into Hutcheson expanded. In March of 2012, Hutcheson's computer hard drive was remotely hacked and copied through sophisticated means, strongly suggesting government culpability. Soon thereafter, he was advised by a political operative to make a large contribution to an Obama PAC with the assurance that his problems with the DOL would in turn be favorably resolved. A threat was communicated to Hutcheson that Eric Holder would throw him in jail if the requested contribution was not made. Fearing further retribution, Hutcheson succumbed to the extortion and made the contribution.
Screen shot of a text message to Hutcheson evidencing the Obama official's extortionate demand
As is so often the case, the government's promise of resolution was empty and on April 12, 2012, Hutcheson was arrested at his home and charged with theft of pension funds and wire fraud. The arrest was all show as Hutcheson could have easily been summoned through counsel to appear voluntarily. It was also completely unnecessary as Hutcheson maintains that had the government ever made a meaningful effort to learn the true nature of the transactions in question, they "could have been explained in 15 minutes."
by defense submission
Letter and receipt detailing extortionate payment to Obama operatives
Hutcheson's arrest and prosecution had already been thoroughly scripted and nothing was going to alter an outcome that was largely predetermined. His subsequent trial in federal court followed a familiar path. A jury of laypersons sat in judgment of a series of extremely complex financial transactions. Unable to grasp the intricacies or determine the requisite intent, the jury chose the path of least resistance and endorsed the government's allegations. This tactic of presenting an extremely complex fact pattern to relatively unsophisticated jurors has been a winning strategy for government prosecutors. Present a complex scenario that by design cannot be easily followed, and jurors will settle on the idea that the defendant "must have done something." Utilizing these proven tactics, all the DOJ has to do is select a target like Hutcheson and let what passes for justice in federal court to run its course.
Eric Holder's DOJ is one of the most brazenly corrupt federal agencies in America's history
Despite the fact that Hutcheson's trial was a complex affair playing out over eight days, his jurors reached a guilty finding on all 17 counts after only three hours of deliberation. Assistant U.S. attorney Ray Patricco was predictably "pleased" with the jurors' rubberstamp. Conversely, defense counsel Robert Schwartz honed in on the issue of requisite intent and said, "No matter how the government wants to spin it, they cannot tell you what his intent is, what was going on in his mind. People are not infallible, but what's important in this case is Mr. Hutcheson was trying to do the right thing."
Because the government succeeded in bringing completely unrelated charges against Hutcheson, his conviction, at least officially, has nothing to do with whistleblowing. His documented whistleblowing and the retributive nature of his charges could not even be introduced by the defense. Hutcheson's defense counsel was specifically asked to explore this avenue at trial but demurred for political reasons, citing a political loyalty to the puppeteers of their legal adversaries. In reality, even if counsel had attempted to explore this avenue of defense, the government's likely objection would have almost certainly been sustained by the court. The rules in federal court are cleverly designed to obstruct such defenses while bolstering the claims of the prosecution. As the current 99% conviction rate in federal court attests, it is anything but a level playing field.
The ever-expanding Federal Criminal Code offers prosecutors numerous choices in bringing meritless charges against desired targets
Hutcheson's conviction on charges that seemingly have no connection to his whistleblowing beg the question of how many other such cases have been prosecuted in federal court. Americans are indoctrinated with the notion that there is no such thing as political prisoners in their country, but the blatantly political nature of Hutcheson's case belies this canard. Nevertheless, the administration has sent an important message through Hutcheson's prosecution that whistleblowing and other forms of dissent will not be tolerated. While the government paints Hutcheson as nothing more than a criminal who breached his fiduciary duty, it plays a duplicitous game of signaling with a wink and a nod to other would be whistleblowers that this is how disloyalty to the administration will be met.
(Originally published at Online Publishing Company, http://www.onlinepublishingcompany.info)