Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, Eduardo Asunsolo, and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Frank Report or its publisher, editors, or writers. Frank Report readers’ responses to the article are welcome.
Evidence of FBI Tampering Allegations Can’t Be Ignored
Eduardo Asunsolo, moments after he became a US citizen, Jan. 20, 2022.
By Eduardo Asunsolo
Many have referred to the Rule 33 motion Keith Raniere’s attorneys are about to file as false. Curiously, a motion about falsifying evidence has people proclaiming it false without looking at the evidence.
There might be reasons for this, such as ignorance or bias or perhaps a hidden motive to discredit something that should interest every American. But I know, people think Raniere is the Devil. So, they say his accusations of tampering cannot be accurate.
Keith Raniere with his youngest son in Mexico 2018, just days before he was apprehended.
From A Man for All Seasons
St. Thomas More
ROPER: So! Now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: Yes! I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
Justice Because of Rage
Yes, due process is as significant as substance. The process matters as much as the facts.
If this motion is valid, this is a case of corruption. Through it, we may be able to unravel a whole system of embedded corruption. And immediately, there could be justice reform because the corrupt people will take a step back.
But rather than begin with facts and move towards a just conclusion, many begin their quest for justice from moral outrage, merely seeking facts to bolster their indignation.
Our Nation’s Founders established a justice system that is based on the presumption of innocence. Rather than the accused, the accuser bears the burden of proof. And procedural rules are as critical as criminal statutes.
The Fifth Amendment states: “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Vigilance Against Cover-up
What will the prosecution do? What will the judge do in the face of overwhelming evidence?
A prosecutor must not exclaim, “We don’t believe it,” without looking at the evidence. A prosecutor with a magnificent prosecutorial spirit pays attention to how they convict. It’s not about winning or losing.
Since the Magna Carta, common law has enshrined the individual’s rights against the government.
Prosecutors Cannot Simply Deny
The government, I assure you, must know our experts are credible. They realize we have competent attorneys. These aren’t minor-league attorneys or Podunk experts spewing, ‘Oh, there’s a fraud, tampering, and this and that.’
These are significant people who agree this is tampering. So, the prosecutors must not merely dismiss it by saying, “We don’t believe it.”
A prosecutor is closest to a scientist.
Someone says to the scientist, “We have counter-evidence for your experiment. We did experiments, and it is contrary to what you say.”
The scientist doesn’t reply, “I don’t believe it.” He examines and tests in the laboratory of truth.
The prosecutor should likewise test the evidence.
Burger, a Different Kind of Prosecutor
Prosecutor Hamilton Burger [left] was portrayed by William Talman in the CBS-TV series Perry Mason (1957–66).
We may have to descend into television drama.
In 1963, California Governor Edmund Gerald Brown complained that TV prosecutor Burger was a perennial loser. In response, the actor replied, “Does he want me to convict innocent citizens?”
Talman also said of his role as a prosecutor, “How can a [prosecutor] lose when he fails to convict an innocent person? Unlike a fist or gunfight, in court, you can have a winner without having a loser.”
Then Talman made a statement that I once believed was true but now have serious doubts about, “Like any real-life district attorney, justice is [the prosecutor’s] main interest.”
The Federal Prosecutor
The prosecution’s duty is not to win but to ensure the fairest trial possible. Instead, we find that prosecutors bend the truth to achieve their goals.
They don’t believe truth can protect society against the evil they confront.
They assume the basis of right is based on power, not truth. Power offers them an opportunity, they think, to improve society.
And power corrupts by convincing prosecutors that the most significant thing is to be effective.
Prosecutors might admit they have little regard for due process if they are candid. Due process is an administrative inconvenience. They might prefer a system that does not bother with due process.
Our system of law presupposes people have the means to control and limit government. However, prosecutors know this is insufficient for dealing with their power to determine an individual’s liberty. In this effort to manifest power, a prosecutor will insist that the defense be truthful. But impose no duty on themselves. While lying, prosecutors insist that defendants’ protestations of innocence are proof of lying.
They seek to construct a world built on fear. To create a federal court where people cannot be sure there are any grounds for hope or justice.
To achieve their goal, prosecutors suspend fundamental beliefs that most people cherish. Instead, they do things officially that they would not do privately. For example, accusing people of crimes they are uncertain they committed or overcharging individuals, knowing the defendant will capitulate and accept a plea bargain. Personal integrity is not a public duty.
Truth’s demand that power faces its powerlessness is an impossible goal for the prosecutor. Therefore, a prosecutor must never admit the face of powerlessness. We are not to see as pretension their pretensions to infallibility.
The prosecutor does not insist on the truth. They do not believe that untruthfulness is dangerous and corrupt. They encourage their targets and their community of friends and relatives to distrust one another. The prosecutor creates organized despair. They seek to impoverish their targets.
They believe their power transcends truth in the courtroom. So, they fight to have juries uninformed.
For these reasons, a fair trial failed to occur in USA v Raniere.
So, if we have correctional institutes for those convicted, we must implement corrective plans to correct what happened.
We need this to be the last time.
Jonathan Turley remarked, “before we cut down the trees so carefully planted by the Framers, I hope you consider what you will do when the wind blows again.”
The EDNY Was Sloppy
You might be sloppy if you’re doing experiments in your garage. But if you’re experimenting before the world, you’re extremely careful.
This prosecution tells the world that this is as careful as they get at the EDNY. Unless they act transparently and vigorously to find the truth, this is a widescale cover-up.
Keith Raniere is in prison. As soon as the evidence of tampering is revealed, every moment he remains incarcerated is a further violation.
If those in charge of deciding his fate plan to take time to try to decide things or make delays, then he should be released on bail.
Otherwise, they’re committing further violations. A brand-new crime, if you will.
If you find someone who might be innocent, or there was criminal activity by the government, you don’t hold him in prison and remark, “Okay, we will investigate this for the next two years.”
The Judge Seems Biased
Does a judge who has presided over a trial involving the tampering of evidence have a duty to recuse himself on hearing evidence of tampering?
The judge has a bias against recusal. I don’t think he’s ever recused himself. And that’s probably inappropriate for a judge who has been on the bench for 30 years.
Looks like RICO
The allegations against Raniere were that he and his inner circle conspired to a RICO Enterprise, and committed crimes to promote him.
Evidence of tampering reveals another RICO enterprise, a conspiracy of government officials. Their enterprise was to defame Raniere and ensure his conviction.
How far does it go? If there are officials in Washington DC that approved the tampering, they are part of the RICO. This could be broad corruption.
Once it is exposed, you’ll have people wanting to run away from it. They don’t wish to look like they’re part of it.
But we have to be vigilant because we are dealing with an organization that extensively tampered with evidence. They have the devices in their possession. If they tampered, do you doubt they won’t try to tamper again or lie any way they can?
They will try to redo the evidence to negate our experts’ findings. Clean up crime scenes. Try to wipe away digital fingerprints.
They will try to make things look okay, which is impossible, but they’ll do their best to obscure the truth. But the old art of deviousness will be futile now.
But an honest government will seek to prevent this, not cover it up.
Raniere Should Be Released
Once this is proven, the government should dismiss Raniere’s conviction and prosecute the bad actors in the government. That should be the gold standard. That’s what the constitutional forefathers wanted. And we’ll see how they live up to that.
Are they willing to do things immediately?
Or are they going to state, “People are out of the country? We can’t get to this. It’s going to take another 90 days. We have to find the devices in our evidence room. It’s an enormous evidence room, and it’s such a teeny device.”
Maybe the devices will get lost.
The commission of criminal acts makes this a case of government corruption.
Standard Procedure Until One Is Caught?
Far more consequential than anything that happens to Raniere is that this may be how our government functions.
Some high-level government officials put together the Steele Dossier to convict Trump. It didn’t work. Some of the culprits have plausible deniability.
“I signed that thing, but I didn’t know it was false, I assume, because I’m head of the FBI, and this is the FBI. So, I signed it, etc., etc.”
But, in the Raniere case, you have people who tampered and committed forgery of evidence used to convict him to 120 years in prison.
I submit we will catch the small guys red-handed. We have to start with those whose digital fingerprints are on the devices.
But were they alone involved?
Did a few agents go rogue? Or did they get approval? Were they told to do what they did?
If you try to implicate the big guys, they have plausible deniability.
It’s preferable to catch it by the toe, grab the foot, then grab up the leg like a boa constrictor. We must start with the small guys. But we are trying to get at the head.
There’s too much politics, too many things, not enough evidence to get at the head.
The Godfather Buffers
Like the Senator asked the lower ranking mafia member, “Was there always a buffer involved?
Willi Cici: A what?
Senator Pat Geary: A buffer. Someone in between you and your possible superiors who passed on to you the actual order to kill someone.
Willi Cici: Oh yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers!
Beyond the Buffers
If you start at the bottom, get the next higher level, then get the next higher level, now you have three levels, all pointing to the top. It becomes undeniable.
So, we’re on an alluring quest. We are protecting each other from the excesses of government.
One of the most pertinent things is the massive picture of government corruption. The FBI might have worked outside the agency.
These might include private citizens, lawyers, foreign nationals, witnesses, the state of New York, and the head of the Eastern District.
Maybe higher up than that.
