FBI Gave Dems Info on Whistleblowers



[INSIDE JW]

Justice Department Admits Transcript of Biden Interviews Is Inaccurate

[[link removed]]
The White House admitted
[[link removed]]
to a federal court that the transcript of President Joe Biden’s
testimony to Special Counsel Robert Hur is not accurate. It is missing
“filler words (such as ‘um’ or ‘uh’)” and words that
“may have been repeated when spoken (such as ‘I, I’ or ‘and,
and’)” which were sometimes “only listed a single time in the
transcripts.”

In a new filing, the Biden Justice Department makes extraordinary
assertions of executive privilege and privacy to hide the Biden audio.
The agency makes the unprecedented assertion that because “AI”
could be used to alter Biden’s words the material should be kept
secret.

The Justice Department filing, filed around 11:00 p.m. last Friday
night, May 31, includes a statement by Bradley Weinsheimer, associate
deputy attorney general, which reads in part:

13. After the interview, SCO [Special Counsel Office] created written
transcripts of the audio recording with the assistance of a trained
professional court reporter – one transcript for each day of the
interview. I have read the entirety of the written transcripts of the
interview. As I listened to the audio recording, I compared it to the
transcripts of the audio recording and specifically listened for
differences between the transcripts and audio recording. In a few
instances, the transcripts indicate that some words from the audio
recording are indiscernible. In listening to the audio recording and
reviewing the transcripts, I agree that in those instances the words
are indiscernible.

14. The interview transcripts are accurate transcriptions of the words
of the interview contained in the audio recording, except for minor
instances such as the use of filler words (such as “um” or
“uh”) when speaking that are not always reflected on the
transcripts, or when words may have been repeated when spoken (such as
“I, I” or “and, and”) but sometimes was only listed a single
time in the transcripts. Besides these exceedingly minor differences,
based on my simul­taneous review of the transcripts while listening
to the audio recording, the transcripts accurately capture the words
spoken during the interview on the audio recording with no material
differences between the audio recording and transcripts. None of the
minor differences include any audible substantive exchanges – that
is, based on my review, there is no material omission of words be­
tween the audio recording and transcripts. Special Counsel Hur and FBI
personnel who attended the interview and compared the audio recording
to the transcripts also informed me of their determination that the
transcripts accurately reflect the words spoken on the audio recording
aside from the minor instances I described above. Special Counsel Hur
emphasized to me that it was important for purposes of his
investigation that the interview transcripts be accurate.
Wow. Our Freedom of Information Act lawsuit forced the Biden team
to admit what everyone suspected – that the transcript is not
accurate and was changed in a way to help Biden. There is nothing
ordinary about this, and the transcript inaccuracy issues seem to help
Biden’s political campaign needs. We have since initiated a _new_
FOIA request on Biden’s Nixonian tape scandal.

Judicial Watch has several ongoing FOIA lawsuits about Biden’s
document scandals and the related unprecedented partisan prosecutorial
and judicial abuses of former President Donald J. Trump.

On March 11, 2024, we filed a FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the U.S. Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia after the Department of Justice failed to
respond to a February 2024 FOIA request for records of all Special
Counsel interviews of President Biden (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S.
Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-00700)). A redacted transcript of the Biden interview was
released on April 15
[[link removed]].

In April, the Justice Department told the court
[[link removed]]
that it would not disclose the audio recordings of special counsel
interviews with President Joe Biden in order to protect Biden’s
“privacy
[[link removed]
interests.

On February 5, 2024, Hur issued
[[link removed]]
the “Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into
Unauthorized Removal, Retention, and Disclosure of Classified
Documents Discovered at Locations Including the Penn Biden Center and
the Delaware Private Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.”

In the report, Hur called Biden a “well-meaning, elderly man with a
poor memory” and declined to charge Biden with a “serious
felony:”
We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present
himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a
sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on
our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone
for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would
be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a
former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that
requires a mental state of willfulness.
Prior to the finalization of the report, the White House issued a
letter
[[link removed]]
to the Special Counsel’s office attacking the report’s
“treatment of President Biden’s memory,” and added “there is
ample evidence from your interview that the President did well in
answering your questions …”

The Heritage Foundation and a CNN-led media coalition were recently
joined
[[link removed]]
with our lawsuit.

RECORDS SHOW FBI PROVIDED DEMOCRATS WITH INFORMATION ON WHISTLEBLOWERS

Troubling records we received in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
lawsuit show how the FBI colluded with Democrats hostile to FBI
whistleblowers who were set to testify to Congress.

We received
[[link removed]
pages
[[link removed]]
of records from the Department of Justice that show the FBI Office of
Congressional Affairs (OCA) providing a Democrat staffer with
information on FBI whistleblowers who detailed the bureau’s
targeting of political opponents and retaliation for their testifying
at a May 18, 2023, hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the
Weaponization of the Federal Government.

A May 23, 2023,
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
from Damon Marx, senior counsel in the office of New York Democrat
Rep. Dan Goldman, shows that the FBI provided documents apparently
pertaining to the whistleblowers that were “very helpful” to
Goldman.

Marx writes to an FBI Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA) official
whose name is redacted:

> We spoke last week before the Weaponization hearing on Thursday.
> Thanks again for sending over those documents. They were very
> helpful to the Congressman.
>
> Francesco (my colleague cc’ed here) and I will be good points of
> contact for you going forward. Both of us broadly cover law
> enforcement; however, in terms of specifics, I cover cybersecurity,
> counterterrorism, and much of the Congressman’s committee work,
> while Francesco covers issues ranging from immigration to gun
> violence.
>
> We would love to meet in person next time you have the chance.
> Please let us know when you’re available for coffee or just to
> swing by the office. And don’t hesitate to reach out on any other
> matters!
The CC’d colleague is
[[link removed]
Arreaga
[[link removed]],
then a Democrat
staffer on the House Homeland Security Committee and former Elizabeth
Warren campaign staffer.

On May 18, 2023, a
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
was held by the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
of the hearing include:

> It is clear from these disclosures, and especially in wake of
> Special Counsel John Durham’s report, that the FBI has become
> politically weaponized.
>
> To date, the Committee and Select Subcommittee have received
> whistleblower testimony from several current and former FBI
> employees who chose to risk their careers to expose abuses and
> misconduct in the FBI. Some of these employees—Special Agents
> Garret O’Boyle and Stephen Friend, Supervisory Intelligence
> Analyst George Hill, and Staff Operations Specialist Marcus
> Allen—have chosen to speak on the record about their experiences.
During the hearing, Allen was allowed to discuss the suspension he
incurred for merely forwarding open-source news articles to his
colleagues, as his job required:

> Q. And why exactly did you send th[e] email[s]?
>
> A. I sent [the emails] just for awareness because the[y] . . .
> indicated potential problems with the investigation as far as
> informants were concerned, and our organization’s potential
> forthrightness about the utilization of informants there on that
> day. That might have some impact on our cases and the subjects that
> we’re looking up, and just a general awareness overall for the
> investigation as a whole, that there might have been some kind of
> potential Federal involvement with the activities on January 6th,
> and I thought it was important enough that it like warranted our
> attention, you know.
>
> Q. Is it safe to say that you sending th[ose] email[s] was part of
> your job at the time?
>
> A. Yes.
The Committee explained that “[b]ecause these open-source articles
questioned the FBI’s handling of the violence at the Capitol, the
FBI suspended Allen for ‘conspiratorial views in regards to the
events of January 6th . . . .’”

The day before the hearing, the FBI
[[link removed]
the security clearances
[[link removed]]
of three agents who testified, Steve Friend, Garret O’Boyle, and
Marcus Allen, according to a letter the bureau sent to congressional
investigators and obtained by ABC News. Allen’s clearance was
recently reinstated.

The records include a May 16, 2023,
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
to an FBI OCA official, whose name is redacted, from Marx, who writes:


> It’s my understanding that you’re out this week, but if you have
> a moment to chat about some of the witnesses for Thursday’s
> Weaponization hearing, it would be super helpful. Please let me know
> if you’re available tomorrow when you have a chance.
The FBI OCA official responds:

> Sure, give me a call when you can.
In a May 9, 2023,
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
to Goldman’s then-Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director
Erin Meegan, an FBI OCA official whose name is redacted writes:

> I was disappointed I didn’t get the opportunity to meet you during
> our trip to Quantico. We are planning to take another trip there,
> maybe later this summer, so hopefully you’ll be able to join us
> then. I serve as [redacted]. OCA plays a key role in communicating
> with lawmakers and their staffers about FBI activities and is the
> primary point of contact for all Congressional matters.
>
> I would like an opportunity to meet with you to properly introduce
> myself and tell you more about the mission of OCA, along with
> providing information about what OCA can offer your office. I would
> also like to know what issues Rep. Goldman and your office are
> interested in to see if there is any way I can assist in those
> areas. Additionally, based on my background, I think I may be able
> to provide insight or answer some questions about issues that do not
> require senior FBI leadership briefings or hearings.
The Judicial Watch October 2023
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
that uncovered these documents was filed after the Justice Department
failed to respond to a May 18, 2023, FOIA request (_Judicial Watch,
Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:23-cv-03003)). Judicial Watch asked for:

> All records of communication between any official or employee of the
> Federal Bureau of Investigation and any member of the House Select
> Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, any
> staff member for the subcommittee, or any staff member for any
> subcommittee member between April 1, 2023, and the present.
>
> For purposes of clarification, in the request, Judicial Watch
> provided the following link, which identified the members of the
> committee:
>
[[link removed]
Judicial Watch is in the forefront of uncovering the weaponizing of
the federal government against whistleblowers.

Judicial Watch represented Marcus Allen, a decorated veteran, FBI
analyst and
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
before the
Weaponization Subcommittee, in
[[link removed]
lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against FBI Director Christopher Wray for violating Allen’s
constitutional rights by falsely accusing him of holding
“conspiratorial views,” stripping his security clearance, and
suspending him from duty without pay. On May 31, 2024, Allen’s
security clearance was
[[link removed]
[[link removed]].

In June 2023, Judicial Watch
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
for all FBI
communications from bureau officials using several systems and
databases regarding investigations carried out after an October 4,
2021, memo from Attorney General Merrick Garland instructing
investigators to target American parents due to an alleged “increase
in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school
board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public
schools” In a March 21, 2023,
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
on the Garland memo, the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the
Federal Government cited FBI data which states that 25 inquiries under
the threat tag “EDUOFFICIALS” had been opened since the bureau
began tracking the alleged incidents.

In September 2022, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
for all
records in the possession of FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst
Brian Auten regarding an August 6, 2020, briefing provided to members
of the U.S. Senate. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that
raised concerns that the briefing was intended to undermine the
senators’ investigation of Hunter Biden.

Judicial Watch recently
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for all agency records relating
to the Department of Justice or Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
investigations of Hunter Biden and all records relating to efforts to
interview lawyer Patrick Kevin Morris regarding Hunter Biden.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES HHS FOR RECORDS ON RESPONSE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC

The Anthony Fauci-led federal response to the Covid-19 pandemic was
panicked, political, and put the lives and liberties of Americans at
risk. We filed a new lawsuit to get to the bottom of this disaster.

Our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
is against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for
records from the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for
Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR
[[link removed]])
regarding after action
reports, review of procedures, or studies concerning the preparation
for and response to the Covid-19 pandemic (_Judicial Watch v. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-01352)).

We sued after HHS failed to comply with an August 19, 2022, FOIA
request for:

> Records and/or communications of the Assistant Secretary for
> Preparedness and Response, Department of Health and Human Services,
> that refer to and/or document any after action reports, lessons
> learned, after action reviews, review of procedures, analysis,
> studies, [or] “hot washes,” concerning preparing and/or
> responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In January 2022, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released
its
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
titled “COVID-19: HHS
and DOD Transitioned Vaccine Responsibilities to HHS, but Need to
Address Outstanding Issues,” which included “Recommendations for
Executive Action” such as:

> In July 2022, HHS stated that as it conducts after-action reviews
> and gathers lessons learned, it aims to include key stakeholders
> including, but not limited to federal partners, manufacturers, and
> others as appropriate. In January 2024, HHS provided an update on
> its lessons learned activities, noting that it had completed its
> efforts to obtain and incorporate input from these stakeholders. We
> reviewed the documentation and in February 2024, requested
> additional specificity on how HHS conducted the lessons learned
> effort and with which agencies they coordinated. As of April 2024,
> we have not yet received HHS's response.
>
> In May 2022, DOD stated that it is supportive of gathering and
> documenting lessons learned. It further stated that HHS, as the sole
> successor organization to the CAG, should assume responsibility to
> obtain and incorporate additional inputs from key external
> stakeholders. In April 2024, DOD stated that it does not plan to
> take action in response to the recommendation. We recognize HHS's
> role, and agree that it should take lead responsibility for
> obtaining and incorporating input from external stakeholders. We
> further recognize the critical role that DOD played as part of the
> CAG and the important functions that several of its component
> agencies provided, such as acquisition support. As such, we continue
> to believe that DOD's coordination on obtaining and incorporating
> lessons learned will be an integral aspect of HHS's efforts. We will
> continue to monitor this recommendation until HHS conducts any
> further lessons learned outreach to external stakeholders, including
> the extent to which it coordinates with DOD in doing so. As of April
> 2024, we have not yet received HHS's clarifying information on its
> efforts to conduct lessons learned.
Our FOIA lawsuits and investigations have uncovered much of what the
public knows about many Covid-19 controversies:

* In April 2024, we uncovered FBI
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
that
showed an April 2020 email exchange with several officials in the
bureau’s Newark Field Office referring to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s
National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) grant
to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China as including
“gain-of-function research” which “would leave no signature of
purposeful human manipulation.”

* Emails between U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and
top Facebook executives in 2021 regarding the censorship of user posts
about
[[link removed]
controversies
[[link removed]]
showed
Facebook leadership seeking to “better understand the scope of what
the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.”
* Records from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) showed that a Pfizer study surveyed 23 people in 2021 to gauge
reactions to its Covid vaccine booster
[[link removed]
asking
the FDA
[[link removed]]
to
approve it.
* Records
[[link removed]]
from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) included the initial
grant application and annual reports to the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) from
[[link removed]
Alliance
[[link removed]],
describing the aim of
its work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to create mutant viruses
“to better predict the capacity of our CoVs [coronaviruses] to
infect people.”
* HHS records included
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
of
then-Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Francis
Collins showing a British physicians’ group recommended the use of
Ivermectin to prevent and treat Covid-19.
* Heavily redacted HHS
[[link removed]
showed
[[link removed]]
that just two
days prior to FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine a
discussion was held between U.S. and UK health regulators regarding
the Covid shot and “anaphylaxis,” with the regulators emphasizing
their “mutual confidentiality agreement.”
* We obtained
[[link removed]
records
[[link removed]]
regarding data Moderna submitted to the FDA on its mRNA Covid-19
vaccine, which indicated a “statistically significant” number of
rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were
injected with the vaccine. The documents also revealed Moderna elected
not to conduct a number of standard pharmacological studies on the
laboratory test animals.
* Heavily redacted
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
from
the FDA regarding the Covid-19 booster vaccine detailed pressure on
Covid booster use and approval.
* HHS
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
detailed
internal discussions about myocarditis and the Covid vaccine. Other
documents detailed adverse “events for which a contributory effect
of the vaccine could not be excluded.”
* We
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
HHS records
detailing the extensive media plans for a Biden administration
propaganda campaign to push the Covid-19 vaccine.
* HHS records
[[link removed]
previously redacted
[[link removed]]
locations of Covid-19 vaccine testing facilities in Shanghai, China.
The FDA had claimed the name and location of the testing facilities
were protected by the confidential commercial information exemption of
the FOIA.
* NIH records showed an FBI “inquiry” into the
NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the Wuhan
Institute of Virology. The records also showed National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials were concerned about
“gain-of-function” research in China’s Wuhan Institute of
Virology in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about
[[link removed]
Alliance’s
[[link removed]]
lack of compliance with reporting
rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research
involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.
* Texas Public Information Act (PIA) records showed the
former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University
of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB),
[[link removed].
James W. Le
Duc
[[link removed]],
warned
Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of potential
investigations into the Covid issue by Congress.
* HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and
related data for the Covid-19 vaccines showed how a key component of
the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs),
were
[[link removed]
outside the injection site
[[link removed]],
mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals,
eight to 48 hours after injection.
* Records
[[link removed]]
obtained from HHS through a FOIA lawsuit related to hydroxychloroquine
and Covid-19 revealed that a grant to EcoHealth Alliance was canceled
because of press reports that a portion of the grant was given to the
Wuhan Institute of Virology.
* HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019,
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
was given to the
Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.
* NIAID records showed that it
[[link removed]
nine
China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance
[[link removed]]
to research
coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants
to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the
vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding
disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor
surfaces.
* HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci
[[link removed]
email chain,
citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded
[[link removed]
Alliance
[[link removed]].
The government emails also
reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked
closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for
Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help
“raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from
China on important international counsels as high level commitment
from China.”
* Our
[[link removed]
documentary
[[link removed]]
regarding the coordinated effort by the government and Big Tech to
censor and suppress information on topics such as Hunter Biden’s
laptop, Covid-19, and election debates is available
[[link removed]
[[link removed]].

TALIBAN GETS MILLIONS IN U.S. AID BY CHARGING TAXES, PERMIT FEES,
IMPORT DUTIES

When your tax dollars are shipped overseas they are up for grabs, as
our _Corruption Chronicles _blog reports
[[link removed]].


> Of the nearly $3 billion in humanitarian aid that the United States
> has given Afghanistan since the 2021 military withdrawal, at least
> $11 million—and likely a lot more—has gone to the Taliban,
> according to a new federal audit
>
[[link removed]]
that reveals
> the U.S. “has continued to be the largest international donor
> supporting the Afghan people since the former Afghan government
> collapsed and the Taliban returned to power in August 2021.” The
> terrorist group has taken the millions in humanitarian and
> development assistance intended to help the people of Afghanistan in
> the form of taxes, fees, import duties, permit charges, licenses, or
> public utility services. The Taliban has probably received a much
> bigger chunk of the humanitarian assistance because the parties
> involved in the cash giveaway, including federal agencies, the
> famously corrupt United Nations and handpicked nonprofits, do not
> bother keeping track.
>
> “SIGAR also found that the $10.9 million paid by 38 U.S.
> Department of State (State), U.S. Agency for International
> Development (USAID), and U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM)
> implementing partners is likely only a fraction of the total amount
> of U.S. assistance funds provided to the Taliban in taxes, fees,
> duties, and utilities because UN agencies receiving U.S. funds did
> not collect data or provide relevant information about their
> subawardees’ payments,” the watchdog writes in its latest
> report. “From October 2021 through September 2023, the UN received
> $1.6 billion in U.S. funding for programming in Afghanistan,
> approximately 63 percent of all U.S. assistance funding for
> Afghanistan during that period.” The U.S. government does not
> require the leftist world body to report on taxes, fees, duties or
> utilities incurred on American funds for activities in Afghanistan,
> the probe found.
>
> Aid to Afghanistan predates President Biden’s abrupt troop
> withdrawal but since the fall of the U.S.-backed Afghan government
> in August 2021, Uncle Sam has dedicated significant resources to
> fulfill the basic needs of the Afghan people with little oversight.
> “These efforts include addressing food security, agriculture,
> health, and education, as well as undertaking programs designed to
> improve economic conditions and human rights in Afghanistan,
> particularly the rights of women, girls, and minority
> communities,” the SIGAR report states. The Taliban has disrupted
> activities required to disburse the aid in a variety of ways,
> including attempts to divert funds or infiltrate nonprofits on the
> ground. Investigators found that more than a dozen partner
> organizations reported direct pressure from the Taliban when
> distributing American aid, including diverting food and other aid to
> populations chosen by the terrorist group and its forced approval of
> program design and implementation.
>
> Just a few months ago Judicial Watch reported
>
[[link removed]]
> that the Taliban has created fake nonprofits to get millions in U.S.
> humanitarian aid since the 2021 military withdraw. The terrorist
> group has established fraudulent non-governmental organizations
> (NGO), typically nonprofits with humanitarian missions such as
> improving public or social welfare, that annually receive billions
> of dollars from American taxpayers. The money flows through various
> federal agencies, including the departments of Health and Human
> Services, Homeland Security and State. Specifically, the Taliban is
> benefiting from American education funding through the establishment
> of fraudulent NGOs to receive donor assistance and it has
> infiltrated and extorted existing Afghan NGOs delivering educational
> assistance. The alarming information was disclosed in a SIGAR report
>
[[link removed]]
published
> in October 2023. The watchdog’s latest probe also disclosed that
> partners delivering U.S. aid in Afghanistan stated the Taliban
> regularly inquiries about ways to obtain donor funding, including
> through the establishment of Afghan NGOs.
>
> It is not like American government officials do not know the Taliban
> is taking the money. A report issued last year by the United States
> Institute of Peace, the federal institution founded by Congress to
> promote worldwide conflict resolution, concluded that foreign-funded
> assistance is unlikely to prove effective as leverage to shape the
> Taliban government’s behavior. “On the contrary, the Taliban are
> likely to increasingly regard foreign funded activities as just
> another potential revenue stream,” the U.S. Institute of Peace
> found. “Any form of humanitarian or development assistance is
> prone to manipulation by the Taliban. Aid/development delivery …
> exposes [foreign donors] to Taliban coercion with little leverage or
> recourse to resist.”

Until next week,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%;height:auto;" alt="advertisement"></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2024, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]