https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/california-ceo-and-seven-others-charged-multi-million-dollar-conduit-campaign-contribution

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

California CEO and Seven Others Charged in Multi-Million Dollar Conduit Campaign Contribution Case

Earlier today, an indictment was unsealed against the CEO of an online payment processing company, and seven others, charging them with conspiring to make and conceal conduit and excessive campaign contributions, and related offenses, during the U.S. presidential election in 2016 and thereafter.

Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Assistant Director in Charge Timothy R. Slater of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.

A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia indicted Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, 48, of Los Angeles, California, on Nov. 7, 2019, along with George Nader, Roy Boulos, Rudy Dekermenjian, Mohammad “Moe” Diab, Rani El-Saadi, Stevan Hill and Thayne Whipple. The 53 count indictment charges Khawaja with two counts of conspiracy, three counts of making conduit contributions, three counts of causing excessive contributions, 13 counts of making false statements, 13 counts of causing false records to be filed, and one count of obstruction of a federal grand jury investigation. Nader is charged with conspiring with Khawaja to make conduit campaign contributions, and related offenses. Boulos, Dekermenjian, Diab, El-Saadi, Hill, and Whipple are charged with conspiring with Khawaja and each other to make conduit campaign contributions and conceal excessive contributions, and related offenses.

According to the indictment, from March 2016 through January 2017, Khawaja conspired with Nader to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions, directed to political committees associated with a candidate for President of the United States in the 2016 election. By design, these contributions appeared to be in the names of Khawaja, his wife, and his company. In reality, they allegedly were funded by Nader. Khawaja and Nader allegedly made these contributions in an effort to gain influence with high-level political figures, including the candidate. As Khawaja and Nader arranged these payments, Nader allegedly reported to an official from a foreign government about his efforts to gain influence.

The indictment also alleges that, from March 2016 through 2018, Khawaja conspired with Boulos, Dekermenjian, Diab, El-Saadi, Hill, and Whipple to conceal Khawaja’s excessive contributions, which totaled more than $1.8 million, to various political committees. Among other things, these contributions allegedly allowed Khawaja to host a private fundraiser for a presidential candidate in 2016 and a private fundraising dinner for an elected official in 2018.

The indictment further alleges that, from June 2019 through July 2019, Khawaja obstructed a grand jury investigation of this matter in the District of Columbia. Knowing that a witness had been called to testify before the grand jury, Khawaja allegedly provided that witness with false information about Nader and his connection to Khawaja’s company. Boulos, Diab, Hill, and Whipple also are charged with obstructing the grand jury’s investigation by lying to the FBI.

Currently, Nader is in federal custody on other charges.

An indictment is not a finding of guilt. It merely alleges that crimes have been committed. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The FBI’s Washington Field Office is investigating the case and Deputy Chief John D. Keller and Trial Attorneys James C. Mann and Michael J. Romano of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section are prosecuting the case.

Component(s):
Criminal Division
Criminal - Public Integrity Section

Press Release Number: 19-1,336

Updated December 3, 2019

"Woops!"

Derivative a$$paper denominated in Quadrillion for the final Jeopardy round, Jack!

AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU [REDACTED]

Hmm.

https://www.google.com/search?&q=Ahmad+“Andy”+Khawaja

Businessman who set up Putin back-channel for Trump campaign indicted on campaign finance charges: report

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/businessman-who-set-up-putin-back-channel-for-trump-campaign-indicted-on-campaign-finance-charges-report/

LOL/SMH

Birds of a feather.

https://www.google.com/search?&q=Ahmad+Khawaja

Khawaja, whose company Allied Wallet has allegedly helped its clients in what their own employees call “very, very illegal” business transactions, has played both sides of the political fence. He donated $4 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and then gave $1 million to the Trump inaugural committee

----------------

Nader, who was convicted on a child pornography charge in 1991 and is already under federal indictment on charges of child sex transportation, was a key witness in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. He helped arrange a meeting in the Seychelles between Erik Prince, a Trump-linked businessman who founded the private mercenary group Blackwater, and a Russian official working for Vladimir Putin.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/businessman-who-set-up-putin-back-channel-for-trump-campaign-indicted-on-campaign-finance-charges-report/

Got House of Pizza/Cards?

Cynically SMH @ the selective/political application of "justice".

What do you propose was unlawful about the 2003/2004 donations you exhibit?

What do you propose was unlawful about the 2003/2004 donations you exhibit?

You mean other than the massive fraud ACC Capital Holdings (owned by Bush Ambassador to the Netherlands Roland Arnall) inflicted on the global economy by falsifying FICO scores on thousands of the "liar loans" it originated, securitized, and flushed into the global economic sewage pond?

Got SQL? The SEC did. My reward was getting audited by the IRS -- and I passed.

What do you propose was unlawful about the 2003/2004 donations you exhibit?

You mean other than the massive fraud ACC Capital Holdings (owned by Bush Ambassador to the Netherlands Roland Arnall) inflicted on the global economy by falsifying FICO scores on thousands of the "liar loans" it originated, securitized, and flushed into the global economic sewage pond?

Your document indicates that the donations were made by Dawn Arnell, Ameriquest Chairman. At the time of the donations, Dawn Arnall was the Chairman of Ameriquest, not Roland Arnall. Dawn was the wife, now widow, of Roland Arnall.

I did not ask you about irrelevant alleged falsification of FICO scores. I asked about the image you posted of an apparently irrelevant document.

You posted an image reflecting political donations, inferring that said donations were somehow illegal or somehow relevant to unlawful foreign sourced donations pouring into Democratic political coffers.

What is the unlawfulness of the donations by Dawn Arnall?

If they were not unlawful, what is their relevance to this thread?

Or did you rehandle yet again to resume posting irrelevant bullshit?

What is the unlawfulness of the donations by Dawn Arnall?

Are you really too stupid to understand how the massive fraud that was perpetrated by Arnall's enterprise is relevant to political corruption or are you just pretending?

https://www.ocregister.com/2008/03/17/ameriquest-founder-was-subprime-godfather/

How many of the account execs who falsified those FICO scores were prosecuted for fraud?  ZERO.

And the TRUTH stands regardless of how vociferous, pretentious, goons like you feel about it - so GFY :p

Wanna tell the MAGA Cult/herd about the Russian Oligarchs who own the "American" steel companies where the steel is presumably coming from?

Wanna tell them WHY the Organized Criminals who ran the Soviet Gulag system built WALLS and the USA DIDN'T?

George Nader with President Trump at a Republican fund-raiser in Dallas in 2017.Credit...Associated Press

"Prosecutors say George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who was a cooperating witness in Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, conspired with Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, the owner of an online payments company, to conceal more than $3.5 million in donations to the groups. The donations let Mr. Khawaja gain access to Mrs. Clinton during the campaign, and he also visited with President Trump in the Oval Office, according to an investigation by The Associated Press last year."
...
"Mr. Nader, who has been a frequent visitor to Mr. Trump’s White House, has spent decades working in international diplomacy. He was an informal adviser to the United Arab Emirates’ crown prince, and he was depicted in the Mueller report as a power broker who would connect people associated with the Trump administration to interests in the Middle East and Russia. Mr. Nader frequently met with administration officials, including Stephen K. Bannon and Jared Kushner, and helped steer some White House policies. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/george-nader-ahmad-khawaja.html

ESAD / FOAD are double ententes for which the less obvious meaning is: If you do, you will. 

Bon Appetite,  MAGAtards!

Are you really too stupid to understand how the massive fraud that was perpetrated by Arnall's enterprise is relevant to political corruption or are you just pretending?

What crime was charged relevant to the documents you posted, and what conviction was obtained against Dawn Arnell?

I accept your admission that your blather had nothing whatever to do with the topic of this thread. Thank you for your participation and take your trophy.

My, you are Mr. Irrelevant.

But thanks for bringing Felix Sater (sometimes Satter) up.

Tell the class why the FBI had Sater, their informant, in the Trump organization?

Tell the class why the FBI had Sater, their informant, in the Trump organization?

To spy on Trump the Great. Are you really a retard or are you just pretending?

Tell the class why the FBI had Sater, their informant, in the Trump organization?

Do it yourself, and tell us all what your irrelevant crap has to do with this thread.

To spy on Trump the GreaT

"The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today imposed a $10 million civil money penalty against Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort (Trump Taj Mahal), for willful and repeated violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). In addition to the civil money penalty, the casino is required to conduct periodic external audits to examine its anti-money laundering (AML) BSA compliance program and provide those audit reports to FinCEN and the casino’s Board of Directors"
https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-fines-trump-taj-mahal-casino-resort-10-million-significant-and-long

“IS IT YOUR CASINO?” —“IT WAS YOUR CASINO. NOW IT’S OURS.”

A scene in which a Russian KGB agent takes over a Trump casino is a pivotal point of a 1992 joint Russian-American production comedy about the Russian mafia in the US. It was filmed in the Trump Taj Mahal. Donald Trump was acknowledged in subtitles.

https://medium.com/@ZarinaZabrisky/taj-mahal-stars-e6da0908aab5

{ clapping }

2218. After discussion of English precedents, the Senate ruled decisively in the Peck trial that the strict rules of evidence in force in the courts should be applied.

Witnesses in an impeachment trial are required to state facts and not opinions.

[...]

When they get out of that "fact-finding stage," and get into the trial stage, none of the hearsay or less than "best evidence" comes in. The Republican led Senate is highly unlikely to waive centuries of precedent to help Sloppy Jerry avoid disaster.

2226. In impeachment trials the rule that the best evidence procurable should be presented has been followed.

It was decided in the Belknap trial that a witness might not be examined as to the contents of an existing letter without the letter itself being submitted.

Instance wherein the President pro tempore ruled on evidence during an impeachment trial.

On April 4, 1868,² in the Senate sitting for the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Mr. Robert S. Chew, chief clerk of the State Department, was sworn as a witness on behalf of the House of Representatives, and examined by Mr. Manager Benjamin F. Butler as to the practice of making temporary appointments of assistant secretaries of Departments to perform the duties of their chiefs in the absence of the latter. The witness testified that the appointments in such cases were made by the President, or by his order. Mr. Butler then asked:

Did the letter of authority in most of these cases * * * proceed from the head of the Department or from the President?

Mr. William M. Evarts, of counsel for the President, objected that the letter of authority showed from whom it came, and was the best evidence on that point. In the discussion which followed, the counsel for the President intimated that they did not object if the question was intended to elicit a reply as to whose manual possession the paper came from. But if it was intended to ascertain who signed the paper, then the paper itself would be the best evidence.

Mr. Butler reduced the question to writing as follows:

Question. State whether any of the letters of authority which you have mentioned came from the Secretary of State or from what other officer?

The Chief Justice³ thereupon made an inquiry which led to this colloquy:

The CHIEF JUSTICE. ‘‘Came from the Secretary of State.’’ Do I understand you to mean signed by him?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I am not anxious upon that part of it, sir. I am content with the question as it stands.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice conceives that the question in the form in which it is put is not objectionable, but—

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will put it, then, with the leave of the Chief Justice.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice was about to proceed to say that if it is intended to ask the question whether these documents of which a list is furnished were signed by the Secretary, then he thinks it is clearly incompetent without producing them.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Under favor, Mr. President, I have no list of these documents; none has been furnished.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does not the question relate to the list which has been furnished?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. It relates to the people whose names have been put upon the list; but I have no list of the documents at all. I have only a list of the facts that such appointments were made, but I have no list of the letters, whether they came from the President or from the Secretary or from anybody else.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. In the form in which the question is put the Chief Justice thinks it is not objectionable. If any Senator desires to have the question taken by the Senate, he will put it to the Senate. [To the managers, no Senator speaking.] You can put the question in the form proposed.

Mr. Manager BUTLER (to the witness). State whether any of the letters of authority which you have mentioned came from the Secretary of State, or from what other officer.

Mr. CURTIS. I understand the witness is not to answer by whom they were sent.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I believe I have this witness.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will instruct the witness. [To the witness.] You are not to answer at present by whom these documents were signed. You may say from whom they came.

__________

² Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe supplement, p. 118.

³ Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, Chief Justice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2230. In the Swayne trial hearsay testimony introduced to show inconvenience to litigants from respondent’s conduct was ruled out.

[...]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2235. In general during impeachment trials questions as to conversations with third parties, not in presence of respondent, have been excluded from evidence.—On March 8, 1803,² in the high court of impeachment during the trial of John Pickering, judge of the United States district court of New Hampshire, Mr. Jonathan Steele was testifying, when, Mr. Joseph H. Nicholson, of Maryland, chairman of the managers for the House of Representatives, addressed the court. He said he wished in case it should be deemed proper by the court, to ask one of the witnesses whether he had conversed with the family physician of Judge Pickering, and what his opinion was as to the origination of his insanity. Mr. Nicholson observed that he had doubts of the propriety of this question, and therefore, in the first instance, stated it to the court.

The court decided the question inadmissible.

Later, on the same day, this witness, in the course of his testimony, was going on to state some conversation he had with Judge Pickering’s physician at this time

which he was induced to ask in consequence of solicitude to gain true information as to the reported intemperance of the Judge, when he was interrupted by the Court,1 and informed that this species of testimony had been already decided to be inadmissible.

__________

² First session Eighth Congress, Annals, pp. 358, 359.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2238. In the Johnson trial declarations of respondent, made anterior to the act, and even concomitant with it, were held inadmissible as evidence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2245. In the Johnson trial the Chief Justice ruled that an official message transmitted after the act was not admissible as evidence to show intent.

2226. In impeachment trials the rule that the best evidence procurable should be presented has been followed.

Do Fearless Leader and his cult of Log Cabin Pipe Fitters/Pizza Pedophiles not LOVE wikileaks anymore?

search.wikileaks.org/?q=Firtash

Lots of evidence there. Odd how his/their/your "concern" over Ukrainian corruption seems to, conveniently, miss that.

see you have moved on from posting irrelevant pictures of Felix Sater to posting irrelevant pictures of Semion Mogilevich and George Nader

Asserts the Vociferous Suuuper Genius who doesn't even know who Dmitry Firtash is:

Who is Firtash? Your mother? --Nolu Chan
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...?ArtNum=60697&Disp=11#C11

"Firtash claimed that Lazarenko, Tymoshenko, and Lazarenko's Assistant Igor Fisherman divided and conquered the Ukrainian gas market. He stated that Lazarenko ordered the killings of Donetsk Governor Yevgen Scherban in 1996 and the head of Itera in Kyiv for not sharing Lazarenko's gas business philosophy. (Note: Igor Fisherman was known in the Ukrainian press as Mogilevich's right hand man who was also High Rock Holding's financial director during the late 1990s. End note."

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08KYIV2414_a.html

Firtash told the U.S. ambassador to Kyiv in 2008 that he had
sought permission from Semyon Mogilevich, who is on the FBI's 10 most
wanted list, when setting up some businesses."

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/16/1661719_re-eurasia-windows-1252-q-important_-_ukraine_.html

 

Does that help you understand who Firtash is, now, Nolu Clump?

Does that help you understand who Firtash is, now, Nolu Clump?

Yes. It is clear now. Flirtash is your mother and Elton Jane is your father.

From Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial:

2256. In the Belknap trial objection was successfully made to an opinion of a subordinate officer as to evidence of the character of respondent’s administration.—On July 12, 1876,1 in the Senate sitting for the impeachment trial of William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, Nelson H. Davis, Inspector General of the Army, was examined as a witness on behalf of the respondent, and Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent, having ascertained that witness had been in the Army during respondent’s entire administration and had been holding constant official relations with him, asked:

From all you know of the subject, and from all you know of General Belknap, I ask you what has been the general character of his administration of the War Department?

Mr. Manager George A. Jenks at once objected:

The objection I make to that is that a witness must testify to character instead of to the specific acts of this man, or general acts. He must know what has been said by those who are familiar with his administration in that office, instead of how has he done the business.

Mr. Manager George F. Hoar said:

We understand also that it should be the opposite of the particular offense charged. If a man is charged with adultery, his reputation for chastity; if he is charged with perjury, his reputation for veracity. We suppose the question should be, ‘‘What is the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity?’’ * * * We do not understand that it is competent to prove by a subordinate officer in the Army, as an expert, the general character of the administration of a great officer of state. There is no such thing as an expert in such an administration. We object to the question unless it is limited to the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity.