Connect with us


Exclusive: Retired General, President of Liberal Brookings Institution Under FBI Investigation For Foreign Agent Activity



Retired General, President of Liberal Brookings Institution Under FBI Investigation For Foreign Agent Activity

#Retired #General #President #Liberal #Brookings #Institution #FBI #Investigation #Foreign #Agent #Activity

The FBI has seized electronic data from retired four-star Marine Corps General John R. Allen concerning alleged illegal activities tied to foreign lobbying.

Specifically, illegal foreign lobbying on behalf of Qatar.

The investigation is reportedly an effort by the Department of Justice to crack down on FARA violations.

FARA is the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a transparency effort that requires individuals to disclose when they are working on behalf of a foreign power. 

The investigations and, in particular, these allegations against General Allen – who led the U.S. military in Afghanistan until 2017 – raise serious questions on the perceived revolving door of political and military influence of those in uniform.

Influence that not only seems to yield considerable power but also substantial financial rewards.

Setting The Scene, The Gulf 2017

To understand where the allegations against General Allen come from, it’s essential to take a quick trip back to the Gulf region circa 2017. In 2017 Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had announced a blockade against Qatar due to claims the Qatari government at the time was tied to terror groups.

President Trump initially voiced support for the two countries’ blockade. However, the FBI alleges that emails have surfaced between Mr. Allen, who had retired by this time, and then-National Security Advisor, retired Lt. General H.R. McMaster. 

A particular email stressed the Qatari government’s desire for the administration to issue a statement to the region calling for restraint.

Two days later, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson released a statement to Gulf countries to “ease the blockade against Qatar” and that “there be no further escalation by the parties in the region.”

General Allen asserts that his efforts at the time were motivated by the desire to prevent a war in the Gulf that would put American men and women in uniform in danger. He claims he wasn’t acting as a Qatari agent but merely a retired military mind working as a patriot attempting to keep the peace.

RELATED: Air Force Base Grudgingly Cancels ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’ At Base Library

What Exactly Is A Foreign Agent?

Before moving on to the juicy aspects of this story, it’s essential to understand what a foreign agent is.

According to the Department of Justice website, a foreign agent or ‘agent of foreign principle’ is “any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or otherwise acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a ‘foreign principal.’”

The agent engages in, among other things influencing U.S. government officials regarding domestic or foreign policy.

It is required for those who are agents of a foreign principal to be registered with the Justice Department. 

And this is where the story gets sticky.


Caught In An Expanding Investigation

General Allen might not have been caught up in any wrongdoing if not for his ties to two other characters in this intrigue; former ambassador to the UAE and Pakistan Richard G. Olson and political money man Imaad Zuberi.

Last week Mr. Olson pleaded guilty to federal charges, and Mr. Zuberi is currently serving a 12-year prison sentence on corruption charges. 

Mr. Allen took a trip in 2017 to Qatar with Mr. Olson on Mr. Zuberi’s dime in what appears to be a multi-tasking trip to advise the Qatari government on how to influence U.S. policy in the region, and in the process make a buck or two.

While on his trip, Mr. Allen advised the Qatari government to “use the full spectrum” of information operations and to use “black and white” operations. A “black” operation refers to covert operations that are often illegal and could include such acts as hacking systems for information.

Before taking his first-class flight to Qatar, Mr. Allen emailed Mr. Olson and Mr. Zuberi, suggesting he get paid $20,000 as a ‘speaker fee’ for his work. He ended up not getting his $20,000, but he did go on to state they should “work out a fuller arrangement of a longer-term relationship.” 

So what did he do wrong other than what appears to be a self-concerned retired General? He never registered with the Department of Justice. Thus making it seem like he was a confidential or secret agent of the Qatari government.

RELATED: Biden’s ‘Green Military’ Is Absolute Nonsense

It’s Good To Be A Retired General

FBI agent Babak Adib said there is “substantial evidence” that Allen willfully and knowingly violated FARA. Moreover, there is more besides the email evidence and other documentary proof of his trip to Qatar and his relationship with Mr. Olson and Mr. Zuberi.


The affidavit says:

“At the same time he was lobbying U.S. government officials on behalf of Qatar, Allen pursued at least one multi-million dollar business deal with the Qatari government on behalf of a company on whose board of directors he served.”

Mr. Allen had sat on the board of a Texas artificial intelligence company called SparkCognition. While in Qatar, he allegedly tried to grease the wheels on a $30 million contract with Qatar on behalf of the company.

In an email to the CEO of SparkCognition upon his return, he said, “The brief is in their hands.”

But wait, there’s more. The Israeli security company, Fifth Dimension, agreed to pay Mr. Allen $10,000 a month plus a 1.5% commission on any new business he wrangled for them.

The FBI says they have evidence that Mr. Allen tried to take credit for Qatar signing a $72 million contract while on his trip with Mr. Olson. Had he gotten the credit, he would’ve earned a $1 million commission.

A Never-Ending Cycle of Influence

The news of this investigation and the allegations against retired General Allen raises fresh questions about how our defense and political systems operate. Besides all the positions above and opportunities afforded Mr. Allen thanks to his service, until this week, he was the President of the premier Democratic think-tank Brookings Institute.

Mr. Allen earned $1 million a year for his position at Brookings. Up until 2019, Brookings was receiving donations from none other than Qatar.

While it appears that Mr. Allen didn’t follow proper ‘protocol’ with his dealing in Qatar, his activity isn’t necessarily unique to retired military Generals.

Retired General and former Secretary of Defense James Mattis received approval to work as an adviser for the UAE and was a fellow at the Hoover Institution. 

Retired General and former National Security Advisor James Jones received approval to work with Ironhand Security which does business with Saudi Arabia.


And finally, retired General and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was on the board of defense contractor Raytheon. Additionally, he was a partner at Pine Island Capital Partners, which regularly gobbles up small defense contracting companies, and on the board of directors for Nucor. Nucor is the largest steel producer in the nation and provides steel to two defense contractors.

While there is, as far as is known, nothing illegal about what General Mattis, Jones, and Austin have done, it begs the question…where are their interests aligned?

It sure seems like it pays well to be a retired General and that if you are in the business of war… business is good.

RELATED: The Truth Behind Military Brass Incompetence And The System That Perpetuates It

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”



Exclusive: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy –




WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 19: Rudy Giuliani speaks to the press about various lawsuits related to the 2020 election, inside the Republican National Committee headquarters on November 19, 2020 in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump, who has not been seen publicly in several days, continues to push baseless claims about election fraud and dispute the results of the 2020 United States presidential election. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

#Rudy #Rudy #Rudy

Rudy Giuliani was viciously attacked Sunday at a ShopRite grocery store on Staten Island he told The New York Post. It’s a wonder he made it out alive. “All of a sudden, I feel this ‘Bam!’ on my back,” Giuliani said. “I don’t know if they helped me not fall down, but I just about fell down, but I didn’t.” There was a “tremendous pain in my back,” Rudy told the Post.

So much pain, he told WABC talk radio, “somebody shot me,” and, “Luckily, I’m a 78-year-old who is in pretty good shape. If I wasn’t, I would have hit the ground and probably cracked my skull.” He was so concerned about the possibility of other 78-year-olds being menaced in grocery stores that he was compelled to call the cops on the rogue grocery store worker who so brutally attacked him. “I mean, suppose I was a weaker 78-year-old and I hit the ground, cracked my skull, and died,” Giuliani recounted. 

Thanks to the wonder of security cameras, you can see the brutal attack for yourself.


Continue Reading


Exclusive: Majority Opposed to Supreme Court Abortion Ruling –




Compelling Television

#Majority #Opposed #Supreme #Court #Abortion #Ruling

A new poll from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist finds Americans opposed to the Supreme Court decision to overturn Row v. Wade by a 56% to 40% margin, with a plurality strongly opposed and Democrats getting more energized to vote.

Continue Reading


Exclusive: Religious Accommodation Claim Over Objections to Having to Wear Multi-Colored Heart Symbol Can Go to Trial –




Religious Accommodation Claim Over Objections to Having to Wear Multi-Colored Heart Symbol Can Go to Trial

#Religious #Accommodation #Claim #Objections #Wear #MultiColored #Heart #Symbol #Trial

From Judge Lee Rudofsky’s opinion Thursday in EEOC v. Kroger Ltd. Partnership I (E.D. Ark. June 23, 2022):

This case arises from Kroger’s termination of two employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that these terminations amount to religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Kroger disagrees.

The two employees at issue—Brenda Lawson and Trudy Rickerd—worked at a Kroger store in Conway, Arkansas. They were fired after refusing to follow the new employee dress code established by Kroger. That new dress code required most store employees to wear an apron that prominently featured a multi-colored heart symbol [pictured above -EV]. Lawson and Rickerd felt that the multi-colored heart symbol supported and promoted the LGBTQ community. That was a problem for Lawson and Rickerd because they both have sincerely held religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and that they cannot support or promote it.

After being reprimanded for their refusal to follow the dress code, but before termination, Lawson and Rickerd each requested a religious accommodation from Kroger. Lawson requested that she be allowed to place her nametag over the multi-colored heart. Rickerd requested that she be allowed to purchase an apron without the multi-colored heart on it. They both told Kroger that the failure to allow such accommodations (and continued discipline regarding this dress-code issue) would be religious discrimination.

Kroger neither granted the requested accommodations nor suggested any other potential accommodations. Instead, Kroger attempted (on multiple occasions) to explain to Lawson and Rickerd that the multi-colored heart symbol had no relation to the LGBTQ community whatsoever. Lawson and Rickerd were unpersuaded and continued to refuse to display the symbol. After multiple rounds of discussions and discipline, Kroger fired both women for refusing to comply with the dress code. After Lawson and Rickerd complained to the EEOC, the EEOC brought suit against Kroger….

The lawsuit was chiefly premised on the statutory requirement that employers exempt employees even from neutral, generally applicable workplace rules if (to oversimplify slightly),

  1. “the employee’s sincerely held religious belief conflicted with the employer’s workplace rule” and
  2. the employer can’t “show that accommodating the religious observance or practice would have created an ‘undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.’”

The court began by noting that the sincere belief requirement could be satisfied, under the Court’s precedents, even if the employer says the heart symbols were unrelated to gay pride, so long as the employee sincerely believed they were; and here, “Kroger concedes that Lawson and Rickerd sincerely believe that wearing the Our Promise symbol violates their religion.” And the court added,

In any event, even if Kroger was right that the conflict question included an objective-reasonableness component, there’s evidence in the record that would allow (but not require) a rational juror to conclude that the EEOC has proven prong one. That is, a rational juror could conclude that Lawson and Rickerd reasonably believed that wearing the multi-colored heart would communicate support for and promotion of the LGBTQ community…

Regardless of what Kroger intended for its Our Promise symbol to mean, Lawson and Rickerd object to being seen as supporting or promoting homosexuality…. [A] rational juror could go either way on that question.

At least ten (and possibly as many as twenty) other employees in the same store thought the Our Promise symbol communicated support for or promotion of the LGBTQ community…. [T]here was [also] no campaign to explain the meaning of the multi-colored heart to customers or other non-employees. Essentially, the meaning of the Our Promise symbol was left up to the imagination and interpretation of each particular customer who saw it. Indeed, there is evidence of non-employees concluding that the multi-colored heart was a pro-LGBTQ symbol.

The more people who saw the multi-colored heart the same way Lawson and Rickerd saw it, the harder it becomes to say that no rational juror could find Lawson and Rickerd’s view to be reasonable. Given the number of people in this case who came to the same conclusion as Lawson and Rickerd did, the Court would be reticent to declare this view unreasonable as a matter of law.


The court also concluded that there was a jury question as to whether Kroger could have exempted Lawson and Rickard without “undue hardship.” It cited the Eighth Circuit standard:

Any hardship asserted, furthermore, must be real rather than speculative, merely conceivable, or hypothetical. An employer stands on weak ground when advancing hypothetical hardships in a factual vacuum. Undue hardship cannot be proved by assumptions nor by opinions based on hypothetical facts. Undue hardship requires more than proof of some fellow-worker’s grumbling…. An employer … would have to show … actual imposition on co-workers or disruption of the work routine.

And it went on to reason:

Kroger argues that accommodating Lawson and Rickerd (and potentially other employees) would have had a more than de minimis impact on Kroger’s branding, business image, and customer relations. Kroger says that granting the requested accommodations would have “undermined the real meaning of the Our Promise symbol” by “giving credence to [the employees’] false assertion that Kroger intended the Our Promise symbol to promote LGBTQ rights” and “endors[ing] the religious belief.” Kroger also says that accommodating Lawson and Rickerd would have “undermine[d] Kroger’s commitment to customer relations and deprive[d] Kroger of free branding.”

On the record in this case, a rational juror could find that accommodating Lawson and Rickerd (and potentially other employees) would have had no effect or next-to-no effect on Kroger’s branding or business image…. [First, p]roviding a religious accommodation to an employee does not signal an employer’s agreement with the employee’s beliefs that created the need for the accommodation. Still, it is theoretically possible that someone could mistakenly consider Kroger’s accommodation of Lawson and Rickerd to be the company’s acknowledgement that its Our Promise symbol was related to the LGBTQ community. But that theoretical possibility is speculative. And it is even more speculative that enough people would share this view—and change their behavior because of it—to result in any hardship to the conduct of Kroger’s business.

As to Kroger’s concern about its “commitment to customer relations” being “undermine[d],” a rational juror could conclude on this record that the requested accommodations would have had no impact on the company’s commitment or its employees’ commitment to customer relations. One of Kroger’s corporate representatives testified that it was “not important for [Kroger’s] customers to know what Our Promise is.” Instead, the Our Promise symbol was used to remind employees of Kroger’s customer-service philosophy. Moreover, the multi-colored heart symbol was not the only way Kroger instilled customer-service values in its employees. There was the inscription on the back of the apron that Kroger made sure employees would see “when they put [the apron] over their head every day.” And Maxwell posted signs in the employee break room that explained the Our Promise campaign, symbol, and Kroger’s commitment to customer service….

Kroger did not require its divisions to adopt the Our Promise symbol. If the Our Promise symbol was important to the conduct of Kroger’s business, one would expect the company to require its use….

Kroger’s final argument in this category—that the requested accommodations would “deprive[ ] Kroger of free branding”—fares no better. The Our Promise symbol does not bear Kroger’s name or any other similar company-identifying logo. The Our Promise symbol has not been marketed to customers….

Kroger also contends that it would have incurred additional financial costs because it “would have had to purchase new aprons for the associates who refused to wear the Our Promise symbol.” But Lawson did not ask for a new apron at all. Lawson asked only that she be allowed to cover the multi-colored heart with her nametag. And Rickerd specifically offered “to buy another apron to ensure there is no financial hardship on Kroger.” So, it certainly doesn’t appear that Kroger would have incurred any additional financial costs had it granted the religious accommodations….

Kroger argues that the requested accommodations would have “caused a substantial disruption in Kroger’s workplace and created potential liability for Kroger against harassment suits from LGBTQ employees.” … Kroger certainly has provided evidence from which a rational juror could conclude that granting the requested accommodations would have led to disruption in the workplace. Primarily, that evidence consists of the disruption that did occur at the store around the time of the distribution of the aprons.

Essentially, Kroger’s read of the record is that something akin to a civil war broke out in the Conway store. Kroger says that Lawson, Rickerd, and the other objecting employees had “discussions with their co-workers [that] led to most employees in the store knowing that [they] refused to wear the uniform because they regarded homosexuality and participation in the LGBTQ community as a sin.” According to Kroger, this offended “members of the LGBTQ community and their allies” and “led to polarization within the workplace, which witnesses described as ‘pretty divisive’ and ‘causing some controversy,’ ‘a major issue,’ ‘an uproar,’ ‘a split,’ and impacting employee comfort.” Peace only came, according to Kroger, once it was clear that Kroger would strictly enforce its dress code.

The problem for Kroger—at the summary judgment stage—is that its reading of the record is not the only plausible one. A rational juror could conclude that the extent and duration of the workplace disruption was significantly less intense. Maxwell (the Store Leader) testified that, while Lawson and Rickerd “did have some support from other associates,” he “wasn’t aware of any” “division” in the Conway store. Judy (on whom Kroger partially relies for its workplace-disruption argument) testified that he did not think it fair “to say this issue split the store.” Indeed, if all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the EEOC, the only specific instance of a disruption in the workplace that Kroger points to—the red-marker-and-rainbow-tape incident—could be viewed as being entirely resolved in as little time as an hour or two.

There is no evidence of a meaningful reduction in employee productivity. There is no evidence of a meaningful increase in employee absenteeism. There is no evidence that workplace disruption impacted Kroger’s profits in any way. A rational juror could see all of this as normal workplace friction that was easily resolved by management with no real impact to the business. Further, a rational juror could conclude that granting the requested accommodations would not have caused any additional impacts, even if the workplace friction was marginally prolonged.


Indeed, even if the workplace disruption was as bad as Kroger makes it out to be, Kroger would still not be entitled to summary judgment. As the EEOC emphasizes in its briefing, “it is the accommodation that must cause the disruption when asserting undue hardship.” A rational juror could conclude that the workplace disruption had little (or nothing) to do with Lawson and Rickerd at all, much less with their requests to cover the multi-colored heart or buy a new apron without the multi-colored heart…. It is easy to conclude that the disruption would have taken place in the absence of Kroger accommodating Lawson and Rickerd. That’s because the disruption did occur in the absence of the accommodations. As to whether granting the accommodations would have prolonged or reignited the disruption, there’s little evidence one way or the other. So, a rational juror could find the prolonged-or-reignited-disruption thesis to be speculative.

Kroger’s disruption argument extends beyond employee conflict. Kroger says customers learned about the employees’ views of the Our Promise symbol and began to complain about the symbol themselves. The only evidence of customer complaints comes from the declarations of Maxwell and Assistant Store Leader Kaela Goodnight. Maxwell tells about a single interaction he had with a customer …. Goodnight’s declaration is essentially the same, with the exception that she speaks of “multiple” interactions ….

A rational juror could conclude that the burden on Kroger from these interactions was de minimis. Neither Maxwell’s nor Goodnight’s statements (nor any other piece of evidence) proves that Kroger lost any of the complaining customers’ business. Neither statement (nor any other piece of evidence) proves that Maxwell or Goodnight spent a significant amount of time explaining the Our Promise symbol to these customers such that non-de minimis inefficiencies occurred. Instead, a rational juror could conclude that (1) more than one customer complained about the multi-colored heart, (2) Maxwell or Goodnight took a brief moment each time to explain what the Our Promise symbol means, and (3) nothing further occurred….

Kroger’s last remaining argument is that accommodating Lawson and Rickerd would have exposed Kroger to legal liability for fostering a hostile work environment or allowing Lawson and Rickerd to harass other employees. That’s a non-starter. All the accommodations would have done was allow Lawson and Rickerd to forego wearing the Our Promise symbol. That is not the stuff of harassment or hostile work environment claims.

This is so even though other people know why Lawson and Rickerd wanted an accommodation—i.e., that they don’t want to endorse homosexuality. Whether such a view is good or bad, right or wrong, it does not constitute harassment or create a hostile work environment. Other concerns Kroger might have—such as the potential for intolerant discussions of LGBTQ issues among workers—are not directly related to the accommodation itself and can be addressed if or when they occur….

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.