On November 28, John Moynihan, filed a whistleblower complaint with the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office alleging that Jack Smith, the Special Prosecutor investigating Donald Trump, was involved in an extortion scheme while working at the International Court of Justice. (Link to complaint to article by Patrick Byrne.) It is no accident that, in the aftermath of that lawsuit, Jack Smith made an unexpected move on Monday (December 11), seeking the United States Supreme Court to rule on whether Donald Trump had immunity from the allegations brought by Smith. Moynihan’s case was submitted on November 28, 2023, and Smith decided to skip the Appeals Courts 13 days later. It has the odor of politics.
The Moynihan complaint is political dynamite which gives circumstantial evidence to back Donald Trump’s claim that Jack Smith is not just political but also crooked. To prevent suspicions that this was a staged strike, the Trump team has prudently refrained from heaping on the story.
Let us begin with the guy who filed the complaint. John Francis Moynihan is a former Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) official who has been my business partner since 1998. We have followed various interests during the previous four years, but we stay in constant communication and sometimes collaborate on initiatives. John is without a doubt the world’s foremost authority on money laundering and financial crimes.
He lays out his credentials in the opening paragraph of the complaint:
I am currently a consultant to the DEA and other United States law enforcement agencies. I have thirty-five years expe1ience investigating domestic and international money laundering cases in both criminal and civil matters. The cases I have worked on involve complex domestic and international financial transactions and have resulted in indictments, plea agreements, criminal convictions, large scale seizures of money, and settlements in the billions of dollars. I continue to assist the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department in money laundering and other cases, some of which are currently ongoing.’ All of which is to say that I am a recognized expert in the areas of money laundering and financial investigations.
According to the complaint, John heard of Jack Smith’s alleged participation via a tip from a buddy and DEA Agent who had a confidential informant who alerted him to the extortion plan at the ICJ.
Affidavits from four persons with links to Kosovo are included in the complaint: Milaim Zeka, Edlira Qefalija, Halit Sahitaj, and Darko Perovic. I want to concentrate primarily on Halit Sahitaj’s sworn evidence because it gives the most detailed description of Jack Smith’s maneuvers at the ICJ and raises major concerns about the Court’s and its trials’ legitimacy.
Sahitaj, an Albanian by birth, lives in Spain and is a wealthy businessman with contacts throughout the Balkans and Russia. According to his sworn affidavit, Sahitaj says he learned of the extortion scheme from a man who used the name “Florian”, who claimed to be an American working for the CIA. “Florian’s” real name is Faik lmeri and he is listed as a Belgian, not an American on his driver’s license. Florian/Imeri first contacted Sahitaj in February 2022.
Imeri is not just some bloke masquerading as a CIA asset. He had a direct relationship with Jack Smith and he introduced Halit to Jack Smith and, according to the affidavit:
induced [Halit Sahitaj[ into doing the bidding of the Specialist Prosecutors office to extort Russian oligarchs and the family and friends of Thaci in exchange for leniency. Specifically, Imeri directed Halit to find Russian oligarchs who are on the U.S. sanction list so they could offer “assistance” to get them off the list or, for those oligarchs who were not on the list, to keep them off.
Halit describes in detail 6 interactions with Smith and Imeri over the course of two years (June 2020 to April 2022). Halit’s first introduction to Jack Smith was via phone in June 2020, after he received tasking from Imeri to develop a relationship with a Russian businessman, Valeri Subbotin.
During this conversation, Florian received a phone call. He held the phone for me to see and the display said “Jack Smith” and it had a picture of justice scales for the contact photograph. Florian answered and said, “Hello sir, I am with our new man from Spain.” Florian put the phone on speaker and a male voice in perfect English said, “Hello, it is nice to meet you.” We finished the meeting and I returned to Spain.
Exhibit C, page 2
In July 2020, Imeri told Halit that Jack Smith wanted his help in gathering evidence to be used against Albanian government officials.
I continued daily contact with Florian throughout July. One day, Florian called and informed me that Jack Smith is preparing to arrest the entire top government people in Kosovo. We continued to talk about this subject for several days and weeks. During one conversation, Florian told me that Jack Smith thinks that I could help him prepare for court proceedings. l readily agreed to help.
Exhibit C, page 2
In August 2020, Imeri contacted Halit and tasked him with contacting three “war criminals” in Kosovo. Imeri said that Jack Smith’s office was going to leak dossiers on the three individuals and that Halit’s job was to contact them and solicit a bribe. Halit did as instructed and incurred the wrath of the three targets. His next conversation with Imeri was unpleasant, with Imeri accusing him of botching the bribe request. To earn the trust of Smith’s operation, Halit was asked to “donate” more than $400,000 to a black fund used by the Prosecutor’s office. Halit did as instructed:
Two or three days later, Florian called. He told me that someone wanted to thank me for my donation. He put someone else on the phone who thanked me very much for my donation. I recognized the voice as Prosecutor Jack Smith as we had one discussion on the phone in June of 2020. He said that Florian would be in touch with me about future operations. Florian and I resumed our daily phone conversations.
Exhibit C, page 3
Halit’s next task was to provide false testimony at The Hague against Kosovo’s President Thaqi
Florian asked if I would be ready in two or three hours. He asked me if I had a pen to take notes of my instructions. I heard a person in the background, and I recognized the voice. Florian called him by name, Jack. Jack spoke to him in English, and Florian spoke to me in Albanian. I took notes of my instructions in my notebook of the testimony I was to give. After this conversation, Florian told me to go to the hotel that he provided close to the Prosecutor’s office in The Hague.
Exhibit C, page 4
Halit’s affidavit describes in detail his testimony presented under questioning by one of Jack Smith’s long time associates, David Harbach. Halit reports this conversation with Harbach:
As small talk, I asked David, “Where is Prosecutor Jack Smith?” David said, “At the moment, Jack Smith is not here but I have been informed by Jack that you will come for this testimony.”
Exhibit C, page 4
Halit did not have to wait long. After leaving the Hague by car he got a text message from Imeri.
About two hours into my trip, Florian sent me a screenshot of a phone message he received from Jack Smith. In the screenshot, the message said, “Your Spanish friend has done a good job” with a thumb’s up emoji.
Exhibit C
Halit’s work for Jack Smith’s office was not over. His next targets, Russian oligarchs:
After I returned home, I maintained daily contact with Florian. He mostly asked about Russian oligarchs. He tasked me with finding Russian oligarchs who were on the U.S. sanction list so that we could offer to assistance to get them off the list or keep them off the list. I asked Florian what the procedure would be if I found people on the sanction list. Florian explained that there are two important criteria for the individuals. First, they would have to sign a contract to work for the Agency and give us information about Vladimir Putin. Second, they would have to pay money into the black fund for operational expenses. I immediately said to Florian that if this is not true, please do not make trouble for me with the Russians. I did not want to risk my life nor the lives of my family if this was not true. Florian explained that he had spoken directly to Prosecutor Jack Smith about this. Smith had told him that he had colleagues in OFAC and this was all possible. He told me that during this operation I would be working directly for Jack Smith.
Exhibit C, page 5
Halit concern that such activities could create some real problems for him were not unfounded. Imeri, sensing his discomfort, provided Halit with the best reassurance — a call from Jack Smith.
On November 7, 2020, Florian called. He said I have someone that wants to speak with you. Then, Jack Smith got on the phone. He said he is very grateful for my help in Kosovo. Smith also said that they could not have made the arrests without my help.
Exhibit C, page 5
During the next 11 months, Halit’s world was turned upside down. He was arrested and imprisoned in Spain on money laundering and weapons charges. If you think those developments were sufficient to scare off Jack Smith from continuing a relationship with Halit, think again. Halit got another phone call from Jack.
Two days later, Florian called. He stated that Prosecutor Jack Smith wanted to speak with me. I could hear Smith speaking in English to Florian who translated to me. Smith said that he was sorry about what happened to me and my family. He said he had done everything he could to help me get out of prison. Smith also said that it would be good for me to continue to speak with the Russian oligarch regarding his case.
Exhibit C, page 6
According to Hilat, Smith’s interest in the Russians had a U.S. connection — Hillary Clinton.
Near the end of January, Florian called me to tell me that he had spoken with Jack Smith. He told me that Jack Smith wanted to know if Potanin was still in possession of evidence of corruption by Hillary Clinton. Or, if he had shared the evidence with anyone in the Secret Service.
Exhibit C, page 7
How did Jack Smith know that the Russian Potanin possessed incriminating evidence about Hillary Clinton? And why was a prosecutor with the International Court of Justice meddling in that area? Legitimate questions that merit an investigation.
As time progressed Halit realized he had been used maliciously to prosecute President Thaqi and tried to make amends. He contacted the ICJ and confessed that he had fabricated testimony at the behest of Imeri and Jack Smith. That got some attention.
On approximately April 22, 2022, I received a Signal call from Alan Teiger. On the call was a translator, Alan Tieger, and two investigators. We spoke for around one and half hours. Mr. Alan Tieger can provide the details of the conversation. However, Mr. Tieger informed me that they were going to record the conversation, and everyone consented, so I recorded it as well. I can provide a true and accurate copy of that recording.
Weeks later, I received a phone call from my intermediary with the two Russian oligarchs. The intermediary told me that my CIA contact had extorted $16,000,000 in USD from the Russians. I asked how the CIA had done that. The intermediary told me that Michal Prochorov had paid seven million and Vladimir Potanin paid nine million. The intermediary told me that Prochorov said that I know owe him seven million dollars.
Exhibit C, page 9
So far Halit is still alive. He is in a pickle because the Russian, Michal Prochorov, blames him for having to pay $7,000,000 dollars. But that is not the meat of this story. What the hell was Jack Smith doing?
The allegations by Halit and the others are backed up with significant documentary/electronic evidence. But there are broader issues at play and these demand answers. If the allegations of Milaim Zeka, Edlira Qefalija, Halit Sahitaj and Darko Perovic are true then it calls into question the objectivity and fairness of the ICJ. The affiants’ accounts of the coercive and illegal activities allegedly carried out by Jack Smith indicate that this Court was engaged in a political mission in service of U.S. foreign policy rather than a search for justice.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) expressed doubts about Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) ability to retain the gavel, stating that he remains undecided on whether he can support Johnson in the upcoming Friday floor vote, despite the endorsement from President-elect Trump.
“I remain undecided, as do a number of my colleagues, because we saw so many of the failures last year that we are concerned about that might limit or inhibit our ability to advance the president’s agenda,” Roy said during an appearance on “Varney & Co.” on Fox Business.
Roy went on to clarify that Johnson does not currently have enough support to secure the position of Speaker.
“Right now, I don’t believe he has the votes on Friday,” Roy said.
Several Republicans, including Reps. Andy Harris (Md.), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), and Victoria Spartz (Ind.), are withholding their support for Johnson, despite Trump’s endorsement. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has signaled he will vote for someone other than Johnson, indicated that Trump’s backing hasn’t changed his stance.
With only one Republican defection allowed in the January 3 Speaker election, assuming all members are present and voting, Johnson’s chances of retaining the gavel are precarious. The House’s incoming 215 Democrats are all expected to vote for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), and Republicans are anticipated to have 219 members in attendance that day.
Roy mentioned alternatives to Johnson, including Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
“People say, well, Chip, who would you choose otherwise? Mike’s a friend and maybe he can answer the call and deliver an agenda and a plan. Byron Donalds is a good man and a good friend. I nominated him two years ago. Jim Jordan’s a good man and a good friend. There are other members of leadership in the conference who could do the job,” Roy said.
While Jordan has shown support for Johnson following Trump’s endorsement, and Donalds expressed his support for Johnson in December, Roy remains firm in his concerns about Johnson’s leadership.
Despite respecting Trump’s endorsement of Johnson and considering him a friend, Roy highlighted several actions by Johnson over the past year that have raised alarm, particularly the short-term spending deal that went through multiple iterations before being passed just before Christmas.
“We violated the 72-hour rule twice, which means we didn’t have time to read a bill. We had to have Elon [Musk] and Vivek [Ramaswamy] and the president and JD [Vance] come in to kill a 1,500-page monstrosity, cut it down to 100 pages. It still spent $110 billion unpaid for,” Roy said.
He added that the spending deal before Christmas is indicative of the challenges that lie ahead, emphasizing the need for a change in how the conference organizes to effectively deliver for the American people.
“The failure before Christmas, I cannot overstate, it’s a glimpse to come if we don’t organize the conference to be able to deliver for the American people. We are not going to be able to bend on the things that matter. We must cut spending if you want inflation to go down and for people to afford to live in this country.”
In a fiery call to action, newly appointed California Senator Adam Schiff (D) urged his colleagues in the Senate on Sunday to reject Kash Patel’s nomination for FBI director. This latest salvo in Schiff’s long-standing feud with Patel underscores their deeply entrenched political rivalry, which dates back to explosive revelations about surveillance abuses during the Obama administration.
Patel, a former Trump administration official, first clashed with Schiff in 2017 when he played a key role in exposing alleged misconduct by members of the outgoing Obama administration. Specifically, Patel helped uncover the misuse of intelligence tools to “unmask” the identities of Americans caught on foreign wiretaps—a controversial practice. This revelation led to widespread criticism of the prosecution of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, over debunked allegations of collusion with Russia.
As ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, Schiff vehemently opposed Patel’s findings. He authored a memo attempting to justify the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. However, a subsequent Department of Justice Inspector General report discredited Schiff’s defense, validating Republican concerns about FBI overreach in its use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Patel’s connection to Trump made him a recurring target during Schiff’s leadership of high-profile investigations. During Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, which Schiff spearheaded, Democrats floated unsubstantiated claims that Patel had acted as a secret “back channel” to Russia. Schiff’s impeachment report even cited phone records between Patel and Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, though no evidence of wrongdoing emerged.
Schiff’s pursuit of Patel continued with the January 6 Committee, where he again sought to tie Patel to nefarious activities. The committee ultimately found no wrongdoing, only releasing Patel’s closed-door testimony after considerable delay—a move critics argued was politically motivated.
The Biden administration’s nomination of Patel to lead the FBI has reignited tensions. Schiff contends that Patel’s past criticisms of the media and government officials signal an intent to pursue partisan prosecutions. Patel, however, has consistently maintained that individuals who broke the law in efforts to undermine the Trump presidency—whether in government or media—should face accountability.
For his part, Patel has accused Schiff of abusing his power as a member of Congress, citing Schiff’s role in perpetuating the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative and his mishandling of evidence collected during the January 6 Committee investigation. Patel has also criticized Schiff for violating defendants’ rights by failing to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence.
Schiff’s opposition to Patel coincides with broader scrutiny of the Biden administration. As of Monday morning, Schiff had yet to address President Joe Biden’s controversial pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. Critics argue that Schiff’s refusal to question Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, weakens his prior claims that Trump’s request for a Ukraine investigation was baseless.
The Senate faces a pivotal decision on Patel’s nomination, one that could reshape the FBI’s leadership and direction. While Schiff’s opposition reflects ongoing partisan battles, it also underscores broader divisions in Washington over accountability and the rule of law. Whether Patel’s nomination proceeds or stalls, the debate surrounding his candidacy highlights the enduring polarization in American politics.
Kamala Harris is now more popular than Joe Biden or Donald Trump have been at any point in the 2024 election cycle, according to a new survey.
A Morning Consult poll of 11,538 registered voters between July 26 and 28 found 50 percent have a favorable view of Harris, while 46 percent have an unfavorable view. According to the pollster, “Harris’s 4-point net favorability is a higher rating than Biden or Trump have posted all cycle.”
Harris quickly established herself as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee after President Biden announced he was pulling out of the race and gave her his endorsement on July 21. The vice president has picked up the support of enough Democratic National Convention delegates to have herself confirmed as the party’s 2024 nominee, along with endorsements from prominent leaders like former President Barack Obama.
The latest Morning Consult survey gives Harris a 50 percent approval rating, significantly higher than the one conducted a week before, when her favorability was 43 percent and 51 percent had an unfavorable perception of her.
The 12-point swing in net approval was primarily driven by a surge in Harris’s popularity with Democrats from 80 percent approval to 89 percent and independents from 31 percent to 48 percent. When Morning Consult asked respondents who they would vote for in a presidential election, 47 percent said Harris against 46 percent for former President Trump. According to the pollster, the Harris figure was higher than the support Biden recorded when he was seen as the most likely Democratic nominee going back to late 2022.
Notably, the poll showed support for third-party candidates, such as independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., had shrunk to 4 percent of the vote, well below the 8 percent it was at in Morning Consult’s final survey for Biden v. Trump before the incumbent president announced he was not seeking reelection.
According to the poll, 47 percent of voters said they had heard something positive about Harris over the past week, compared to 35 percent who’d heard something negative.
On Monday, during an appearance on The Ingraham Angle on Fox News, Trump declined to guarantee he would debate with Harris ahead of the 2024 election.
Speaking to host Laura Ingraham, the Republican candidate said he will “probably end up debating” but “can also make a case for not doing it.”
In a response on X, Harris spokesperson Ammar Moussa asked: “Why won’t Donald Trump give a straight answer on debating Vice President Harris?”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login