Jump to February 2012 archive page: 1 2
  • Want this gun? It's yours, no questions asked

    TODAY's national investigative correspondent Jeff Rossen launches his new Rossen Reports unit with an expose on how simple it is for criminals and even terrorists to purchase deadly weapons in public places – with no questions asked.

    Click here for more from the Rossen Reports.

  • Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News

    Mehdi Marizad / Fars via AP file

    A car that was bombed by two assailants on a motorcycle in Tehran on Jan. 11, killing Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahamdi Roshan, is removed by a mobile crane. The photo was distributed by the semi-official Iranian photo agency Fars.

    By Richard Engel and Robert Windrem
    NBC News

    Updated: 11:14 a.m. ET -- Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.

    ROCK CENTER EXCLUSIVE

    The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980.

    The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars.

    U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign but has no direct involvement.

    The Iranians have no doubt who is responsible – Israel and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, known by various acronyms, including MEK, MKO and PMI.

    “The relation is very intricate and close,” said Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, speaking of the MEK and Israel.  “They (Israelis) are paying … the Mujahedin. Some of their (MEK) agents … (are) providing Israel with information.  And they recruit and also manage logistical support.”


    Moreover, he said, the Mossad, the Israeli secret service, is training MEK members in Israel on the use of motorcycles and small bombs.  In one case, he said, Mossad agents built a replica of the home of an Iranian nuclear scientist so that the assassins could familiarize themselves with the layout prior to the attack.

    Much of what the Iranian government knows of the attacks and the links between Israel and MEK  comes from interrogation of an assassin who failed to carry out an attack in late 2010 and the materials found on him, Larijani said. (Click here to see a video report of the interrogation shown on Iranian televsion.)

    The U.S.-educated Larijani, whose two younger brothers run the legislative and judicial branches of the Iranian government, said the Israelis’ rationale is simple. “Israel does not have direct access to our society. Mujahedin, being Iranian and being part of Iranian society, they have … a good number of … places to get into the touch with people. So I think they are working hand-to-hand very close.  And we do have very concrete documents.”

    Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News  the MEK’s role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, “All your inclinations are correct.” A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet.”  All the officials denied any U.S. involvement in the assassinations. 

    As it has in the past, Israel’s Foreign Ministry declined comment. Said a spokesman, "As long as we can't see all the evidence being claimed by NBC, the Foreign Ministry won't react to every gossip and report being published worldwide."

    For its part, the MEK pointed to a statement calling the allegations “absolutely false.” 

    Response to article from the National Council of Resistance of Iran

    Ali Safavi, a long-time representative of the MEK, underscored the denial after publication of this article,

    "There has never been and there is no MEK member in Israel, period," he said. "The MEK has categorically denied any involvement. The idea that Israel is training MEK members on its soil borders on perversity. It is absolutely and completely false."

    The sophistication of the attacks supports the Iranian claims that an experienced intelligence service is involved, experts say. 

    In the most recent attack, on Jan. 11, 2012, Mostafa Ahamdi Roshan died in a blast in Tehran moments after two assailants on a motorcycle placed a small magnetic bomb on his vehicle. Roshan was a deputy director at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and was reportedly involved in procurement for the nuclear program, which Iran insists is not a weapons program.

    Previous attacks include the assassination of Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, killed by a bomb outside his Tehran home in January 2010, and an explosion in November of that year that took the life of Majid Shahriari and wounded Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, who is now the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

    In the case of Roshan, the bomb appears to have been a shaped charge that directed all the explosive power inside the vehicle, killing him and his bodyguard driver but leaving nearby traffic unaffected.

    Although Roshan was directly involved in the nuclear program, working at the huge centrifuge facility between Tehran and Qom, Iran’s religious center, at least one other scientist who was killed wasn’t linked to the Iranian nuclear program, according to Larijani.

    Speaking of bombing victim Ali-Mohammadi, whom he described as a friend, Larijani told NBC News, “In fact this guy who was assassinated was not involved in the nitty-gritty of the situation.  He was a scientist, a physicist, working on the theoretically parts of nuclear energy, which you can teach it in every university. You can find it in every text.”

    “This is an Israeli plot.  A dirty plot,” Larijani added angrily. He also claimed the assassinations are not having an effect on the program and have only made scientists more resolute in carrying out their mission.

    Not so, said Ronen Bergman, an Israeli commentator and author of “Israel’s Secret War with Iran” and an upcoming book tentatively titled, “Mossad and the Art of Assassination.”

    Bergman said the attacks have three purposes, the most obvious being the removal of high-ranking scientists and their  knowledge. The others:  forcing Iran to increase security for its scientists and facilities and to spur “white defections.” 

    He explained the latter this way: “Scientists leaving the project, afraid that they are going to be next on the assassination list, and say, ‘We don't want this.  Indeed, we get good money, we are promoted, we are honored by everybody, but we might get killed.  It isn't worth it.  Maybe we should go back to teach … in a university.’”

    There are unconfirmed reports in the Israeli press and elsewhere that Israel and the MEK were involved in a Nov. 12 explosion that destroyed the Iranian missile research and development site at Bin Kaneh, 30 miles outside Tehran.  Among those killed was Maj. Gen. Hassan Moghaddam, director of missile development for the Revolutionary Guard, and a dozen other researchers. So important was Moghaddam that Ayatollah Khamenei attended his funeral. 

    Unlike the assassinations, Iran claims the missile site explosion was an accident; the MEK, meanwhile, trumpeted it but denied any involvement. 

    Indeed, there may be other covert operations carried out either by Israel acting alone or in concert with others, according to Bergman.

    “Two labs caught fire,” said Bergman, enumerating the attacks. “Scientists got blown up or disappeared.  A missile base and the R&D base of the Revolutionary Guard exploded some time ago, with the director of the R&D division of the Revolutionary Guard being killed along with … his soldiers.” 

    Bergman added, “So, a long series of … something that was termed by an Israeli (Cabinet) minister … as ‘mysterious mishaps’ happening and rehappening to the project. Then the Iranians claim, ‘This is Israeli Mossad trying to sabotage our attempts to be a nuclear superpower.’”

    Dr. Uzi Rabi, director of the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, said the supposed accidents could all be part of “psychological warfare” conducted against Iran. “It seems logical. It makes sense,” he said of possible MEK involvement, “and it’s been done before.”

    Rabi, who regularly briefs Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, on Iran also said the ultimate goal of the range of covert operations being carried out by Israel is “to damage the politics of survivability … to send a message that could strike fear into the rulers of Iran.”

    For the United States, the alleged role of the MEK is particularly troublesome.  In 1997, the State Department designated it a terrorist group, justifying it with an unclassified 40-page summary of the organization’s  activities going back more than 25 years.  The paper, sent to Congress in 1994, was written by Wendy Sherman, now undersecretary of state for political affairs and then an aide to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

    The report, which was obtained by NBC News, was unsparing in its assessment. “The Mujahedin  (MEK) collaborated with Ayatollah Khomeini to overthrow the former shah of Iran,” it said. “As part of that struggle, they assassinated at least six American citizens, supported the takeover of the U.S. embassy, and opposed the release of the American hostages.”  In each case, the paper noted, “Bombs were the Mujahedin's weapon of choice, which they frequently employed against American targets.”

    “In the post-revolutionary political chaos, however, the Mujahedin lost political power to Iran's Islamic clergy. They then applied their dedication to armed struggle and the use of propaganda against the new Iranian government, launching a violent and polemical cycle of attack and reprisal."

    Sean Gallup / Getty Images file

    Maryam Rajavi, president of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, greets several hundred Iranian expatriates who had gathered to welcome her at Tegel Airport in Berlin, Germany, on March 22, 2010.

    U.S. officials have said publicly that the information contained in the report was limited to unclassified material, but that it also drew on classified material in making its determination to add the MEK to the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. 

    The MEK and its sister organizations have since the beginning been run by Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, a husband-wife team who have maintained tight control despite assassination threats and internal dissent. Massoud Rajavi, 63, founded the MEK, but since the U.S. invasion of Iraq has taken a backseat to his wife.

    The State Department report describes the Rajavis as  “fundamentally undemocratic” and “not a viable alternative to the current government of Iran.”

    One reason for that is the MEK’s close relationship with Saddam Hussein, as demonstrated by this 1986 video showing the late Iraqi dictator meeting with Massoud Rajavi. Saddam recruited the MEK in much the same way the Israelis allegedly have, using them to fight Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq War, a role they took on proudly.  So proudly, they invited NBC News to one of their military camps outside Baghdad in 1991.

    “The National Liberation Army (MLA), the military wing of the Mujahedin, conducted raids into Iran during the latter years of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War,” according to the State Department report. The NLA's last major offensive reportedly was conducted against Iraqi Kurds in 1991, when it joined Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of the Kurdish rebellion. In addition to occasional acts of sabotage, the Mujahedin are responsible for violent attacks in Iran that victimize civilians.”

    “Internally, the Mujahedin run their organization autocratically, suppressing dissent and eschewing tolerance of differing viewpoints,” it said. “Rajavi, who heads the Mojahedin’s political and military wings, has fostered a cult of personality around himself.”

    The U.S. suspicion of the MEK doesn’t end there. Law enforcement officials have told NBC News that in 1994, the MEK made a pact with terrorist Ramzi Yousef a year after he masterminded the first attack on the World Trade Center in New York City.  According to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Yousef built an 11-pound bomb that MEK agents placed inside one of Shia Islam’s greatest shrines in Mashad, Iran, on June 20, 1994At least 26 people, mostly women and children, were killed and 200 wounded in the attack.

    That connection between Yousef, nephew of 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and the MEK was first reported in a book, “The New Jackals,” by Simon Reeve. NBC News confirmed that Yousef told U.S. law enforcement that he had worked with the MEK on the bombing.

    In recent years, the MEK has said it has renounced violence, but Iranian officials say that is not true, that killings of Iranians continue.  Still, through some deft lobbying, the group has been able to get the United Kingdom and the European Union to remove it from their lists of terrorist groups. 

    The alleged involvement of the MEK in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists provides the U.S. with a cloak of deniability regarding the clandestine killings. Because the U.S. has designated the MEK as a terrorist organization, neither military nor intelligence units of the U.S. government, can work with them.  “We cannot deal with them, “ said one senior U.S. official. “We would not deal with them because of the designation.”

    Iranian officials initially accused the Israelis and MEK of being behind the attacks, but they have since added the CIA to the list. Three days after the Jan. 11, 2012, bombing in Tehran that killed Roshan, the state news agency IRNA reported that Iran’s Foreign Ministry had sent a diplomatic letter to the U.S. claiming to have “evidence and reliable information” that the CIA provided “guidance, support and planning” to assassins directly involved in the attack.  

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  immediately denied any connection to the killings. “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” Clinton told reporters on the day of the attack.

    But at least two GOP presidential candidates have no problem with the targeting of nuclear scientists.  In a November debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich endorsed “taking out their scientists,” and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum called it, ”a wonderful thing.”

    The MEK’s opposition to the Iranian government also has recently earned it both plaudits and support from an odd mix of political bedfellows.

    A group of former Cabinet-level officials have joined together to support the MEK’s removal from the official U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organization list, even taking out a full-page ad last year in the New York Times calling for the removal of the MEK from the U.S. terrorist list.  Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton; former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former FBI Director Louis Freeh and former Rep. Patrick Kennedy were among those whose signatures were on the ad.

    “There’s an extraordinary group of bipartisan or even apolitical leaders, military leaders, diplomats, the United States … the United Kingdom, the European Union, even a U.S. District Court in Washington, said that this group that was put on the foreign terrorist organization watch list in 1997 doesn’t deserve to be there,” Ridge said in November on “The Andrea Mitchell Show” on MSNBC TV.

    U.S. politicians also have been pushing the U.S. government to protect the 3,400 MEK members and their families at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, about 35 miles north of Baghdad.  With the departure of U.S. troops, the MEK feared that Iraqi forces, with encouragement from Iran, would attack the camp, leading to a bloodbath. At the last minute, however, agreement was brokered with the United Nations that would permit the MEK members’ departure for resettlement in unspecified democratic countries.  As of this week, there’s been little movement on the planned resettlement.

    Jassim Mohammed / AP file

    Iranian fighters with the National Liberation Army, the military wing of the MEK, clean armored personnel carriers in 1997 after a field exercise near Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

    The Iranians see what’s happening as terrorism and hypocrisy by the United States.  They have forwarded documents and other evidence to the United Nations – and directly to the United States, they say. 

    “I think this is very cynical plan.  This is unacceptable,” said Larijani. “This is a bad trend in the world.  Unprecedented.  We should kill scientists … to block a scientific program?  I mean this is disaster!”

    Daniel Byman, a professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and also a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said that if the accounts of the Israeli-MEK assassinations are accurate, the operation borders on terrorism.

    “In theory, states cannot be terrorist, but if they hire locals to do assassinations, that would be state sponsorship,” said Byman, author of the recent book, “A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism.” “You could argue that they took action not to terrorize the public, the purpose of terrorism, but only the nuclear community.  An argument could also be made that degrading the program means that you don’t have to take military action and thus, this is a lower level of violence and that really these are military targets, where normally terrorist targets are civilians.”

    But ultimately, Byman said, there is a “spectrum of responsibility” and that Israel is ultimately responsible.

    Ronen Bergman, while not speaking on behalf of the Israeli government, suggests that there is a justification, citing an oft-repeated but disputed quote in which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth.

    “Meir Degan, the chief of Mossad, when he was in office, hung a photograph behind him, behind the chair of the chief of Mossad,” notes the Israeli commentator.  “And in that photograph you see -- an ultra-orthodox Jew -- long beard, standing on his knees with his-- hands up in the air, and two Gestapo soldiers standing -- beside him with guns pointed at him.  One of -- one of them is smiling.

    “And Degan used to say to his people and the people coming to visit him from CIA, NSA, et cetera, ‘Look at this guy in the picture. This is my grandfather just seconds before he was killed by the SS,’” Bergman said. “’… We are here to prevent this from happening again.’"

    Richard Engel is NBC News' chief foreign correspondent; Robert Windrem is a senior investigative producer.

  • Super PAC supporting Ron Paul is operated by a 9/11 'truther'

    Gary Franchi, right, has warned of a 9/11 cover-up, FEMA concentration camps and the New World Order. He leads a Super PAC using unlimited campaign contributions to support Ron Paul, left, in the Republican presidential race.

    As libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul looks for a state he can win, some of his supporters have turned to a new theme: voting fraud.

    A Super PAC supporting Paul has pledged to monitor the vote in all the remaining states, using an army of exit pollsters to fight what it calls results that are "outrageous, unacceptable and patently un-American." The group, called Revolution PAC, has spent half a million dollars supporting Paul with videos, webcasts, online ads, direct mail, billboards and radio ads in primary and caucus states.

    We first noticed Revolution PAC last week, when it told the Federal Election Commission that it couldn't meet the deadline to identify its donors, because of an error by its bank. Now Revolution PAC has filed its report.

    As with many other so-called "independent" Super PACs, which can receive unlimited donations outside the normal rules of campaign finance, the pro-Paul group is operated by people with close ties to the candidate. The group's advisory board members include Penny Langford Freeman, Paul's political director from 1998 to 2007, and Joe Becker, chief legal counsel for Ron Paul 2008.

    The leader of the group, its founder, chairman and treasurer, is Gary Franchi, a promoter of conspiracy theories and sophisticated social-media entrepreneur in the resurgent movement known as the Patriots.

    The 34-year-old political activist from the Chicago suburbs told msnbc.com that his goal is a "non-violent intellectual revolution, which results in a full restoration of the federal Constitution."

    Online videos produced by Franchi, and online interviews with him, add specifics:

    • Franchi has supported the 9/11 Truth Movement, which supports the idea that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, werean inside job to create a pretext for a reduction in American liberty, or at least involved a cover-up, with the World Trade Center brought down by a planned U.S. demolition, instead of terrorist-controlled airplanes. Franchi founded the Lone Lantern Society (a reference to Paul Revere indicating that foreign enemies are on American soil). The group supports "the birth of freedom and the death of the New World Order," a secretive elite that is supposedly trying to set up a world government. Lone Lantern has held street demonstrations on the 11th of every month in Chicago and elsewhere, demanding an investigation of 9/11. In New Hampshire in 2008, a video shows Franchi asking Tom Ridge, the former secretary of Homeland Security, who was campaigning for Sen. John McCain, whether Ridge would support an investigation of the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center. Ridge was having none of it, saying, "I just don't buy into that. That's a conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. It's almost out of the Twilight Zone."
    • According to a 2010 reportby the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks domestic fringe groups, "Gary Franchi is one of the leading promoters of a resurgent Patriot conspiracy theory that alleges the government is creating concentration camps for U.S. citizens." In 2009 he co-wrote and co-produced the video "Camp FEMA: American Lockdown," which claims that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is creating concentration camps on air bases and in vacant buildings to house political dissenters when the federal government proclaims martial law. "Your church may have already signed a deal with the devil," reads promotional material for the film. The film questions whether Census data will be used to round up Americans. Clips from Franchi's film on YouTube show Hitler youth marching while the narrator ominously describes President Obama's plans to expand AmeriCorps and the USA Freedom Corps, the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after 9/11.
    • Franchi operates Restore the Republic, which opposes the Federal Reserve, the IRS and the income tax, decries the control of the economy by the Rockefellers and the "banking cartel," and warns of government plans to plant RFID microchips into all Americans. The group was founded by Franchi and filmmaker and Libertarian presidential candidate Aaron Russo, and has been operated by Franchi since Russo's death from cancer in 2007. RTR shares an address with Revolution PAC in Northbrook, Ill. The group, which describes itself as a social media platform for like-minded individuals, promotes Russo's film, "America: Freedom to Fascism," in which Ron Paul declares, "If that's the definition of a police state — that you can't do anything unless the government gives you permission —we're well on our way." In a YouTube video interview with Franchi in 2008, Paul credited the Russo video with bringing a lot of people to his presidential campaign. The group has also placed billboards fueling the bogus claim that Obama is not an American citizen, asking, "Where's the REAL birth certificate?"
    YouTube

    Gary Franchi's film "Camp FEMA: American Lockdown" shows Hitler youth marching while the narrator ominously describes President Obama's plans to expand AmeriCorps and the USA Freedom Corps, the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after 9/11.

    Franchi has been a frequent guest of Texas talk show host Alex Jones, who warns about the New World Order on his infowars.com and other websites. In a videotaped interview with Jones, Franchi explained that at 17 he began to read about "the committee of 300, the Club of Rome, the Council of Foreign Relations," and other groups of the New World Order.

    He said his parents, thinking he was mentally ill, had him heavily medicated for 10 years. But he continued his reading, particularly about the implantation of RFID microchips by government, and formed the Lone Lantern Society to tell people that "the enemies are here."

    "It's the truth, it's the message, that's piercing the darkness," Franchi told Jones. "Anything that's done in darkness, anything that is hidden in secret will be revealed. It's having an impact. People are waking up by the millions, Alex, by the millions! The New World Order does not stand a chance."

    'Derogatory'
    Franchi agreed to answer questions from msnbc.com, but only by email.

    He said labels are distracting, and the description of him by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "conspiracy theorist" is "derogatory and inflammatory language."

    In regard to Sept. 11, he said his view is that "I personally, alongside Russo, 9/11 Family members, and thousands of architects and engineers do advocate for a more thorough investigation, preferably free from the Executive Privilege invoked during the Bush Administration."

    Of Paul, Franchi said, "Ron Paul is my candidate because he understands what is affecting this nation, i.e. the Federal Reserve, an unsustainable foreign policy, and the loss of civil liberties under the guise of security."

    Orlin Wagner / AP

    Ron Paul has credited Franchi for bringing in more supporters for his presidential campaign.

    Paul has had a vague and uncertain connection with fringe views and conspiracy peddlers for decades. In several cases he has welcomed their support, neither repudiating their views nor explicitly endorsing them.

    For example, in 2007 Paul was asked by a student and 9/11 skeptic, "We've heard that you have questioned the government's official account." Paul replied, "Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever."

    When asked if that meant that he wanted an additional investigation, he added, "I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on."

    The year-end accounting to the FEC by Revolution PAC shows that it brought in $518,201 during the second half of 2011, since its founding last summer, and spent $434,432 supporting Paul, with $83,770 in cash on hand at the end of the year.

    These amounts are small compared with the official Paul campaign, which raised $26 million (second to Romney among Republican candidates) by year end, and another pro-Paul Super PAC, Endorse Liberty, which spent $3.3 million. A third pro-Paul Super Pac, Santa Rita, spent $320,000.

    Larger donors to the Revolution PAC include Texas rancher Margaret Bowman, who gave $50,000; and Scott Banister, an early investor in PayPal, who gave $10,000. Another $10,000 came from Judy Kay Gray, of Buffalo Grove, Ill., who paid $2.5 million to settle a false advertising claim by the Federal Trade Commission in 2008 regarding her company, North American Herb and Spice, and its claims that its oregano oil treated cold and flu.

    Large donors received a free book signed by Thomas Woods, an author and member of the Revolution PAC advisory board. Woods is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Mises is one of the members of the Austrian School of Economics, whose ideas have influenced Paul, such as his call for a return to a gold standard. The PAC paid Woods $1,200 to sign his books for donors.

    Gary Franchi on his webcast Reality Report.

    The Revolution PAC paid $41,487 to Franchi or his group Restore the Republic, including $3,000 a month in management fees, $1,766 a month in rent at their shared office in Northbrook, Ill., and a 10 percent commission on large financial donations solicited. Franchi, the group's chairman and treasurer, said in response to questions that these are reasonable charges, much lower than is common, and that he has provided more support to the PAC than it has paid to him, considering the value of his in-kind donations of his time and services.

    "I am personally not a representative for Dr. Paul nor should my beliefs be construed to be his," Franchi told msnbc.com. "Nor am I sure if Ron Paul believes in all the issues that concern me, however I do know I stand with him on the constitutional issues he continues to highlight throughout this election cycle and as he has done for over 20 years. That is why I formed Revolution PAC and produce content that I feel highlight his principled consistency and advocacy of fidelity to the Constitution."

    ---

    Should Ron Paul accept support from Revolution PAC? Post your comment below.

    Earlier coverage of the Super PAC financial reports:

    Obama bundler to 'de-register' as lobbyist

    Influence game: big donors and what they want

    NBC video: Million-dollar donors fuel Super PACs

    After TV cameras leave, Romney PAC discloses $18 million

    Casino magnate Adelson's family gave early money to Gingrich PAC

    Spielberg, labor union are big backers of Obama Super PAC

    Perry PAC's $1 million donor got help with nuclear waste dump

    Major GOP Super PAC raised $51 million in 2011

    Not 'Desperate' for cash: Obama lists his big fundraisers

    Sugar Daddy: Huntsman's father gave $1.9 million to Super PAC

    Colbert Super PAC raises $1 million; non-satirical PACs to follow

  • Obama bundler to 'de-register' as lobbyist

     

    A former Florida congressman who has been a top campaign bundler for President Obama said Wednesday he is taking immediate steps to de-register as a lobbyist for a Florida-based airline so he can continue to raise funds for the president.

    Ron Klein, who has raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for the president, was registered as a lobbyist last month for Spirit Airlines, a low-cost airline that has been fighting new Obama administration airline regulations. But the Obama campaign has a rule against accepting campaign contributions from federally registered lobbyists.

    After the Washington Free Beacon website reported on his lobbyist role today -- noting that he is listed on the Obama campaign's website as one of its bundlers -- Klein told NBC News that his registration with the Secretary of the Senate last month was a "clerical error" by an employee of Holland & Knight, the Washington law and lobbying firm where he currently works. He will "de-register" with the Secretary of the Senate today, he said.

    Klein said he had brought in Spirit Airlines as a client for Holland & Knight in keeping with his role of "business development" for the firm. But, he added, "I'm not a lobbyist" even thought he was listed as one of the three Holland & Knight lobbyists who were registered last month to work on issues relating to "Department of Transportation aviation regulations" and "customs and border protection" at Ft. Lauderdale airport.

    The case illustrates the fuzzy rules of what constitutes lobbying in Washington. Spirit Airlines recently launched a campaign to overturn a new Transportation Department regulation allowing passengers to change flights within 24 hours of booking without paying a penalty.

    The airline has launched a website to fight the new rule -- KeepMyFaresLow.org -- urging customers to contact their congressmen and senators and imposed a $2 fee on its customers it calls the "Department of Transportation Unintended Consequences Fee."

    Klein said he knew Spirit Airlines, because it's located in his former district, resulting in his recruitment of the company for Holland & Knight.

    "They want to express their story on Capitol Hill," he said.

    When first contacted about Klein, an Obama campaign official said by email, "All of the funds he raised for the campaign were raised last year. At the moment, he became a federal lobbyist he stopped raising for the campaign."

    But Klein said he had not heard from anybody in the Obama campaign. And, he added, he fully expects to continue raising money for the president's re-election. 

    "I understand the rules," he said.

  • Sandusky prosecutors cite neighbors in seeking tougher bail

    Pennsylvania state prosecutors are asking that Jerry Sandusky's bail conditions to be tightened after receiving reports from local neighbors that the accused child molester has been spotted  sitting on the deck of his house watching school children in a nearby playground. 

    In court papers filed Tuesday, prosecutors say there are "grave concerns" among Sandusky's neighbors about the safety of their children. They urge a judge to further restrict  conditions for the former Penn State University defensive coach, barring him from "leaving the walls of his house for any reason" unless accompanied by a court officer.

    The prosecutors acted after local school officials and neighbors complained that Sandusky was recently seen on the deck -- which overlooks an elementary school less than 50 yards away -- watching children play during recess.

    "To think that he's up there, watching our kids and that's his new outlet, that's just creepy," Amy Hasan, a neighbor of Sandusky's, told NBC News in an interview. 

    Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola, texted a reporter that the claim he's been watching school children from his deck "is a totally false statement" made by individuals who "will not be happy unless Jerry is incarcerated." 

    He added that "the law presumes Jerry innocent and Jerrry has always maintained his innocence."

    Sandusky -- facing 52 counts of child sex abuse involving 10 children over a 15 year period -- has been under house arrest since his re-arrest last December, confined to his home with an electronic monitor around his ankle.

    Sandusky attorney: Accusers may have 'collaborated' in sex abuse case

    Amendola recently asked the judge overseeing the case, John Cleland, to ease his bail conditions  to allow him to meet, e-mail and text with his grandchildren. Sandusky also wants the freedom to leave his house to accompany a private investigator to identify the homes of potential witnesses in the case. Amendola wrote that the grandchildren have expressed "sadness" about their inability to communicate with their grandfather.

    But prosecutors strongly urged the judge to deny the request. 

    "House arrest is not meant to be a house party," they write in their court filing. They also noted that the ex-wife of one of Sandusky's sons "strenously objects to her three minor children having any contact whatsoever with the defendant."

    A hearing on the bail issue is slated for Friday.

  • You can move into heiress Huguette Clark's building, for $25 million

    Brown Harris Stevens

    A living room in the combined apartments. The buyer will be one floor below the mysterious apartment of heiress Huguette Clark.

    NEW YORK — Curiosity seekers hoping for a glimpse of the New York apartment of the reclusive heiress Huguette Clark will have to make do for now with an extraordinary apartment for sale just one floor below hers in the same elegant co-op. The 18-room, 6,500-square-feet apartment, on the market for $25 million, will be created by combining the seventh-floor apartments of three owners at 907 Fifth Avenue, the historic building at 72nd Street overlooking Central Park's model boat pond.

    Even at that size, the apartment would be dwarfed by the property of Clark, the late copper heiress, who has been the subject of a series of reports on msnbc.com about her vacant properties and the management of her fortune. When she died last May, she owned three apartments at 907 Fifth Avenue, with a total of 42 rooms. Two of her apartments make up the entire eighth floor, or about 10,000 square feet, with another 5,000 in an apartment that occupies half of the top floor, the 12th. It's estimated that in today's market her three apartments would sell for roughly $70 million. Though a court fight has begun over her $400 million estate, the executor could choose to sell the Clark apartments soon, perhaps this year.


    Clark and her mother moved into the building in 1927 or 1928 after the death of Huguette's father, the former Sen. William Andrews Clark, in 1925. The mother and daughter moved down Fifth Avenue from the family's enormous home, at 962 Fifth Avenue, which was being demolished. Just a five-minute walk away, the Italian palazzo-style apartment building at 907 Fifth Avenue was designed by renowned architect J.E.R. Carpenter. It had the most expensive apartments in the city when it opened in 1915.

    As The New York Times tells it, "Mr. Carpenter, who was described as 'the father of the modern large apartment' in New York City, was one of the building’s first residents. In the 1920s, he lived alongside oil barons, a tinplate king, a president of the New York Stock Exchange, and a Russian prince."

    Martha Stewart, the design entrepreneur, also has an apartment in the building.

    Brown Harris Stevens

    The library in the combined apartments.

    Brown Harris Stevens

    A living room in the combined apartments offers a view of Central Park. One can see all the way from Central Park South to, at the north, glimpses of the George Washington Bridge.

     

    Many of the apartments at 907 were eventually subdivided into smaller units. The combination will put three of those back together roughly as originally designed, replacing the servants area with more modern bedrooms. Two kitchens would need to be removed, and air conditioning installed. The new owner would face a co-op fee, including upkeep and taxes, of $12,618 a month, or $151,416 a year. (The Clark apartments cost her $28,500 a month, or $342,000 a year, while she lived for two decades in New York hospital rooms.)

    A proposed floor plan for the three apartments.

    Those prices bring apartments with light and high ceilings virtually unknown in the city. Guests enter the limestone building through a canopy-protected doorway on 72nd Street into a lobby with a coffered ceiling and a striking stone staircase. Amenities include full-time doormen, a full gymnasium and a landscaped rooftop garden.

    You can see the real estate listing and more photos of the apartments here on the site of the real estate agent, John Burger of Brown Harris Stevens.

     

    Previous stories in the Huguette Clark mystery series on msnbc.com:

    Archive of all stories, photos and videos.

    Photo narrative, "The Clarks: An American story of wealth, scandal and mystery," Feb. 26, 2010.

    Printable version of the photo narrative, Feb. 26, 2010.

    Clark family notes and sources, Feb. 26, 2010.

    Investigative report, part one, "At 104, the mysterious heiress Huguette Clark is alone now: Relatives are kept away. Only her accountant and attorney visit. Who protects HuguetteClark, with 3 empty homes and no heirs?" Aug. 19, 2010.

    Investigative report, part two, "Who is watching Huguette Clark's millions? Reclusive heiress's assets are sold by two advisers, one an accountant with a felony conviction. Another elderly client signed over his property to the same accountant and attorney," Aug. 20, 2010.

    "Criminal probe begins into the finances of reclusive heiress Huguette Clark: Manhattan DA's Elder Abuse Unit is on the case. The same unit prosecuted the Brooke Astor case; Clark has about four times the wealth," Aug. 24, 2010.

    "Report sparks welfare check on heiress Huguette Clark," Aug. 25, 2010.

    "Generosity of an heiress: four homes for a nurse, gifts for attorney's family," Sept. 1, 2010.

    "Huguette Clark, the reclusive heiress, has signed a will, attorney says," Sept. 2, 2010.

    "Family of copper heiress asks court to protect her from attorney, accountant," Sept. 3, 2010.

    "Attorney for 104-year-old heiress defends his handling of her finances," Sept. 7, 2010.

    "Judge leaves pair under investigation in control of heiress Huguette Clark's fortune," Sept. 9, 2010.

    "Huguette Clark, the reclusive copper heiress, dies at 104," May 24, 2011.

    "Family excluded from Huguette Clark burial," May 26, 2011.

    "Heiress Huguette Clark's will leaves $1 million to advisers," June 22, 2011.

    "The 1 percent of the 1 percent: How Huguette Clark's millions were spent," Nov. 19, 2011.

    "A $400 miillion twist: Huguette Clark signed two wills, one to her family," Nov. 28, 2011.

    "Tax fraud alleged in estate of heiress Huguette Clark; accountant resigns," Dec. 21, 2011.

    "Nurse, in line to inherit millions, battles family of heiress Huguette Clark," Dec. 22, 2011.

    "Judge bounces attorney and accountant from estate of heiress Huguette Clark," Dec. 23, 2011.

    Book coming on reclusive heiress Huguette Clark and her family," Feb. 3, 2012.

  • Influence game: big donors and what they want

    The millionaires, billionaires and companies giving big sums to political committees supporting Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama have important business with the next president. Some are already in trouble with the government. Some are pressing for new laws or regulations that would benefit their interests in energy, mining and high finance.

    The Associated Press reviewed financial reports, regulatory filings, court records, public statements and more to identify favors that the biggest donors so far in the presidential campaign might want in return for their contributions worth $100,000 or more. In some cases, these donors have given $1 million or more to help Obama's challengers or the president.

    An exhaustive review of their motives is nearly impossible, since new federal rules governing such contributions allow donors to effectively remain anonymous if they funnel cash into the campaign through corporate partnerships or other mechanisms that can frustrate investigation.

    The presidential campaigns all have said they do not trade political favors for election money.

    Among AP's findings:

    —An energy firm run by William Koch, a $1 million donor to the pro-Romney political committee, paid to lobby Congress on mining and safety issues and also over a proposed federal land swap that would enlarge the donor's Colorado ranch.

    —The casino company run by Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire whose family has given $11 million to a political committee that supports Gingrich, has acknowledged it's under federal investigation by the Justice Department and a civil probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The company denies wrongdoing and says the investigation stems from an allegation by a disgruntled employee. Adelson's family has provided nearly all the money that the pro-Gingrich group has received so far.

    —A hedge fund run by a New York investor, Paul Singer, who gave the pro-Romney group $1 million, has pushed for federal laws that would give official U.S. backing to the firm's legal efforts to profit from the debt of distressed and Third World nations.

    —A board member and former chairman of a prestigious Los Angeles hospital, John C. Law with the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, has given the pro-Obama committee $100,000 as the hospital has lobbied Obama's administration over Medicare and Medicaid funding for teaching hospitals and electronic medical records, the National Institutes of Health and Army research programs.

    — A Pennsylvania coal producer, Consol Energy Inc., which donated $150,000 to the pro-Romney group, paid a $5.5 million fine last year for violations of the Clean Water Act at six of its mines. It is lobbying to prohibit the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Weeks after the company gave money to support Romney, who previously had agreed that humans are contributing to climate change, the candidate appeared to back off that position and said he would oppose spending high amounts of federal money to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, like those from coal plants.

    The high-dollar contributions have flowed into the presidential campaign through so-called super PACs, which can support a specific candidate but can't lawfully coordinate their spending with a candidate's campaign. The groups, given a green light by the Supreme Court in 2010 when it stripped limits on corporate and labor union spending in elections, have already proved to be strategically successful for candidates. The pro-Romney group, Restore Our Future, spent $8.8 million on ads in Florida alone — more than Romney's own campaign — and has already booked TV spots in Arizona, Michigan and Minnesota.

    A Romney campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, dismissed any suggestion that wealthy donors are motivated by their private interests to fund the committee's operations.

    "To the degree Americans support Mitt Romney," she said, "it's because he can reverse the decline of the Obama economy and get Americans back to work."

    Obama so far has fewer big-money donors. He is able to marshal the resources of the Democratic National Committee, and it is typically easier for incumbents to raise money closer to the November election.

    Public-interest groups have warned since the Supreme Court ruling that wealthy individuals, corporations, unions and other interests would seek favors in return for unlimited campaign contributions.

    "The size of these donations counts for a lot, and the candidates will naturally be grateful to these organizations and their donors," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. "And with greater support, comes increased gratefulness."

    Consol, which gave $150,000 to support the pro-Romney group, is the largest producer of coal from underground mines, with operations in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. It also has interests in natural gas, using hydraulic fracturing — known as fracking — to extract gas with high-pressure streams of water, sand and chemicals.

    Most of Consol's coal is sold to electric utilities. Such utilities are the dominant source of sulfur and carbon dioxide emissions, and Consol has backed Republican efforts to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency under Obama from issuing greenhouse gas regulations that the company says could increase its costs and affect the market for coal and natural gas.

    Consol spent more than $3 million on energy and environmental lobbying last year, including the hiring of a Washington firm, Forscey & Stinson, to support legislation that would prohibit the EPA from issuing the greenhouse gas rules.

    Romney once expressed clear concerns about global warming. Last June, he told a New Hampshire town hall that humans have contributed to climate change, although it is not clear by how much. "And so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you're seeing," he said.

    On Oct. 27, after Consol gave $150,000 to help Romney's presidential campaign, he visited the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh, the arena where the National Hockey League's Penguins play. "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet," Romney said. "And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce (carbon dioxide) emissions is not the right course for us."

    Six days after Romney's remarks, his campaign deposited $1,000 checks from four of Consol's senior executives." Another executive, J. Brett Harvey, the company's chief executive officer, also serves on Romney's 2012 Pennsylvania Finance Committee.

    Consul spokeswoman Lynn Seay said it is common practice for the company "to support political candidates that share a similar philosophy as it relates to a domestic energy policy that recognizes the value and importance of coal and natural gas."

    Last month, the EPA objected to Consol's proposal for a mountaintop removal mine in southern West Virginia that would be one of Appalachia's biggest. The EPA had first objected to a permit for the mine on the day that Obama was inaugurated.

    Among the pro-Obama group's biggest donors, the Service Employees International Union, has given $1 million so far toward his re-election as it fights Republican plans to restrict the National Labor Relations Board's authority to force employers to move or close plants in efforts to avoid unionization.

    The Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action, also received $100,000 from Law, the managing director of Warland Investments, a commercial real estate and investment firm in Santa Monica, Calif. Law is on the board at Cedars-Sinai and was previously the hospital's chairman. The hospital spent $369,000 in 2011 lobbying on federal health policies during Obama's presidency, according to Senate records.

    The pro-Gingrich group, Winning Our Future, has been kept running largely with money from casino mogul Adelson. He and his wife, Miriam, gave $5 million each this month. Miriam's eldest daughter gave $500,000, and her other daughter and son-in-law donated $250,000 each.

    Adelson's casino, Las Vegas Sands Corp., has been the target of federal investigations, in part over allegations that the company bribed officials in expanding its Chinese business. A spokesman declined to publicly discuss his boss' support for Gingrich. Adelson wrote last month in an email to The Washington Post: "My motivation for helping Newt is simple and should not be mistaken for anything other than the fact that my wife, Miriam, and I hold our friendship with him very dear and are doing what we can as private citizens to support his candidacy."

    The head of a New York-based hedge fund, Singer of Renaissance Technologies, gave the Romney super PAC $1 million. Renaissance lobbied Congress last year on proposals that would aid hedge funds in efforts to collect on debts purchased from Argentina and other foreign governments. Renaissance is one of several international hedge funds that have bought debt in distressed and Third World nations at low prices and sometimes have used lawsuits to force the countries to pay restitution.

    A spokesman, Peter Truell, declined to discuss Singer's support for Romney but Renaissance officials have said that buying sovereign debt is only one aspect of the company's business.

    Singer has also been outspoken in his criticism of some aspects of the massive overhaul of banking and trading regulations brought by the Dodd-Frank Act and other legislation since the recession. Last August, Romney told a New Hampshire audience that he favored repealing the Dodd-Frank law.

    Another executive, William Koch, also gave $1 million to the Romney super PAC from his personal funds and corporate accounts. Koch runs Oxbow Carbon LLC, a fossil fuels processor and mining company that wants changes to laws and regulations on mining, safety issues and climate change. Unlike his brothers, Charles and David Koch, who are long-time supporters of conservative causes, Bill Koch has funded both GOP and Democratic candidates in the past.

    "Despite the political statements, this administration has done nothing to help the coal industry, and we feel their energy policy is debatable," said Brad Goldstein, an Oxbow spokesman.

    Oxbow also pushed for approval of the Central Rockies Land Exchange, a proposed swap of land tracts in Colorado and Utah to enlarge Koch's 4,500-acre Bear Ranch. The proposed deal with the federal government would allow Koch to acquire several adjacent parcels of federal land in exchange for turning other tracts over to the U.S. The proposal, which requires congressional approval, has brought some local opposition but is under consideration.

    ___

    AP Business Writer Daniel Wagner contributed to this report.

    Contact the Washington investigative team at DCinvestigations (at) ap.org

    Follow Jack Gillum at http://twitter.com/jackgillum

  • Internet piracy suit asks: Can you even copyright porn?

    The porn industry says it loses billions of dollars a year to Internet piracy, and one of its prime tactics to recover some of that money is to send letters to alleged downloaders threatening to sue them, thereby exposing their identities — and browsing tastes — in public records. 

    Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union say it's nothing more than extortion. When such cases make it to court, they're usually thrown out, but the industry still sends the letters to tens of thousands of people every year on the assumption that some will settle — usually for $3,000 to $5,000 — because they're too scared to risk outing themselves as porn aficionados.

    But a California woman is taking a different approach, according to Courthouse News Service. The woman, Liuxia Wong of Solano, sued first, hitting a studio called Hard Drive Productions on Monday with the argument that its demand for a $3,400 settlement was unconstitutional because porn is obscenity, and obscenity isn't protected by the Copyright Clause of the Constitution.

    You can read Wong's suit in .pdf form here. It argues that:

    Hard Drive's work does not promote the progress of science.

    Hard Drive's work does not promote the useful arts. ...

    Hard Drive's work depicts obscene material.

    Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that to create the work, Hard Drive and its agents and/or its employees violated laws which prohibited pimping, pandering, solicitation and prostitution, including any claims of conspiracy.

    Hard Drive's work depicts criminal acts and/or conduct.

    As a result, she argues, "Hard Drive's work is not copyrightable" in the first place.

    Msnbc.com traced how such piracy cases usually work last year:

    The shorthand description of what plaintiffs' firms ... do is scour P2P networks to identify IP addresses that are downloading copyrighted material. 

    In non-tech, that translates to looking for videos that are being distributed across decentralized peer-to-peer (hence, P2P) file-sharing networks called "torrent sites." Then, using geotracking technology (like the GPS in your car or on your smartphone), investigators harvest the numeric Internet protocol addresses of the computers that are retrieving and sharing them. ...

    That requires sophisticated programming, because the computers linked into the torrent "swarm" go on and offline from second to second — and when they're plugged in, their IP addresses can also change second by second. 

    A letter is typically then sent to dozens or hundreds of people at a time. The letter usually explicitly urges potential defendants to seize the opportunity to avoid litigation by settling before their names are published in a lawsuit. 

    In some cases, the potential defendant turns out to be an otherwise innocent bystander. Many people still don't know to secure their wireless routers with password-protected encryption, leaving them open — and easy for anyone in the neighborhood to piggyback on. 

    The industry shorthand for those people is "false positives," some of whom turn out to be 70-year-old grandmothers or ministers who had no idea the kids next door were feeding off their wireless systems.

    One of the leading practitioners in this area of law, John Steele of Chicago — whose firm sent the original demand letter to Wong (you can read it here in .pdf form) — talked with msnbc.com at length about his strategy:

    And yes, one of the goals is to "scare people," he said — not primarily into writing checks, but to stop them from "stealing our clients' content."

    That's not a bad thing, Steele said, because piracy today is so easy that "the industry's really on its knees right now."

    Lots of people may think his firm's methods are unfair, but adult entertainment companies are legal businesses with valid claims, and "we believe it's completely ethical and important to recover more money than the cost of the litigation," Steele said.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News

  • Panetta report fuels concerns that Israel will attack Iran

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now believes there's a strong possibility that Israel will attack Iran in an attempt to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions, according to U.S. officials. NBC's Richard Engel reports.

    Concerns that Israel will attack Iran in an attempt to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons escalated Thursday when the Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a “strong likelihood” that Tel Aviv will launch such an offensive in April, May or June. 
    Panetta, who is attending a NATO meeting in Brussels, did not dispute the report by Post Op/Ed columnist David Ignatius
    "No, I'm just not commenting," he said when asked about the report, adding, "What I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else."
     
    Panetta’s reported view has been echoed in recent interviews by NBC News with current and former U.S. and Israeli officials who have access to their countries’ intelligence. Those officials, all of whom spoke to NBC News on background, estimated the odds of an Israeli attack on Iran as better than 50-50.

    Most of the officials said it is highly unlikely that the war-weary U.S. would mount a military attack on Iran, instead relying on financial sanctions and diplomatic pressure to squeeze Tehran. 

    Jacquelyn Martin / Pool via Getty Images

    U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta speaks with reporters Thursday in Brussels, Belgium, after the conclusion of a day of meetings with fellow NATO defense officials.

    But Israel, which has an openly hostile relationship with Iran and much more at stake if its neighbor becomes a nuclear power, is more of a wild card, say the officials, who come from a variety of intelligence and national security backgrounds. But the officials warn that, if intelligence indicated that Iran was on the verge of building a nuclear weapon, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would almost certainly consider a military strike. And if it decided to launch one, the U.S. would likely receive very little advance notice, they say. 
    Here, in question-and-answer format, is a summary of how the officials see such an attack unfolding: 

    Q: What are the chances Israel attacks Iran?
     A: Officials agree the chances for an Israeli attack on Iran are at least 50-50, maybe higher. More than one former official has suggested the possibility is as high as 70 percent, but events can move that higher or lower. One said he is “worried sick” about it.
      
    Q: When might Israel attack? 
    A: Most of those questioned said the prospects of an Israeli attack will increase as the calendar moves into spring and summer. 

    Q: What assets would Israel use?
     
    A: Many of those interviewed claim Israel would launch a multi-pronged attack, using its fighter bombers as well as its Jericho missile force.
     
    Israel has both medium and intermediate range Jerichos. The medium-range Jericho I would not have the range to reach many Iranian targets  but the intermediate-range Jericho II’s, capable of hitting targets 1,500 miles away, would have no problem.  The Jerichos would be equipped with high explosives, not nuclear warheads. Asked if the Jericho would have the accuracy and the explosive power to take out a hardened bunker of the sort believed to be protecting Iran’s most-sensitive underground nuclear facilities, one official replied, “You would be surprised at their accuracy” and that the high explosives involved is a special mix of chemical explosives that could conceivably penetrate the Iranian fortifications.
    Missile attacks would be coordinated with fighter-bomber attacks (presumably  the Israelis’ extended-range F-15I Strike Eaglet) as well as drone strikes. The fighter bombers would use what one official described as  “high-low, low-high” flight paths -- high first to increase fuel efficiency, then low for most of the trip to evade radar, then climbing high again as the weapons are released in what is known as a “flip toss” on the target.  The Israelis would be prepared to lose aircraft if necessary, the officials said. 
    The Israelis are not planning to use submarine-launched cruise missile force -- “not enough of them,” one official said of the subs. (The Israelis have long had nuclear tipped sub-launched cruise missiles as part of their deterrent force.)
      
    Q: How would other Middle Eastern states react? 
    A: U.S. officials believe that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would support the attacks because of the threat Iran poses to them.
     
    The Saudis and Emiratis, both of which have Sunni controlled governments, have repeatedly lobbied the U.S. to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities, preferring a U.S. attack to an Israeli one. But because both are desperate to have someone take out the Iranian program, they also have shared information with the Israelis. If Israel did decide to attack, it’s likely Israeli jets would overfly Saudi territory and would even be allowed to perform aerial refueling. An attack would take at least two midair refuelings.
     
    As for Turkey, it may not participate at the same level as the Sunni Arab Gulf states, but it is watching Iran closely. The U.S. fears Turkey would consider a nuclear weapons program if Iran obtained them and could develop nuclear weapons much more quickly than either Saudi Arabia or the UAE.

    Q: Would there be a ground component?
     
    A: Not in a traditional way. Some officials have suggested that Israeli commandos, either from the Israel Defense Forces or Mossad (or both), would be inserted on the ground near targets to illuminate them, gather post-strike forensics and perhaps grab some materials for later analysis. 

    Q: What would Israel’s goal be?
     
    A: Israel would not try to take out every Iranian nuclear facility but instead would target certain facilities it considers critical, hoping to set the program back. U.S. officials believe an attack could put the program back two to four years, Israelis estimate more like three to five. One official said the Israelis are prepared to “do the same in two to four years” if the Iranian program recovers.  
     
    Q: How successful might the attack be? 
    A: Iran has fortified its critical underground nuclear facilities with as much as 30 meters (nearly 100 feet) of reinforced concrete, including the centrifuge cascades at Natanz and Fordow outside Qom.  Israel however has dramatically improved its bunker-busting capability over the past three years. 
    Israel is unlikely to bomb “soft targets” within the Iranian nuclear program, including labs inside universities or near civilian centers, say U.S. officials. That’s because they are hoping that a clean strike would show that Israel only wants to take out nuclear facilities dear to the mullahs and Revolutionary Guards, both of whom who they believe to be wildly unpopular with the Iranian people.
     
    Q: How might Iran respond? 
    A: As the New York Times reported Friday, the Israeli military intelligence assessment is that Iran’s military response to such an attack would be muted, in part because of its limited capability and in part because of it understands a massive attack would be met with massive response. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, noting that Iran has had years to plan out their response. The biggest fear is that Iran would unleash Hezbollah, which has between 42,000 and 48,000 missiles and rockets in southern Lebanon aimed at Israel. Even before any attack, officials in both Thailand and Azerbaijan say they have recently thwarted Hezbollah plots against Israeli facilities. 
    Israel understands that Hezbollah may respond on behalf of Iran following an attack and is prepared to go after Hezbollah “and not stop at the Litani River (the northern limit of most previous Israeli attacks) this time nor limit its force to a brigade or two” as one U.S. official put it.  Another added that Israeli officials understand that “Israeli blood, Jewish blood will certainly be spilled” in attacks around the world in the event of an attack.  And the response might not be immediate. One official noted that the Saudi Hezbollah attacks on Khobar Towers in 1996 took place months after the U.S. passed tighter sanctions against Iran. 
    But another notes that the level of Hezbollah support for Iran in such a scenario is an enormously important – and difficult -- question for both Israel and the U.S.  Hezbollah’s  position is precarious, as Syria -- its main conduit for Iranian supplies – is wracked by violence and its main focus has shifted to governance in Lebanon. Most officials think Hezbollah won’t be able to sit this one out, but few expect a massive response against Israel, which would engender a counterattack by Israeli forces. 
    There are other possibilities.  One Iranian says to watch Dubai where 400,000 Iranian expatriates work.  Iranians could “shut it down,” the official said.  All the officials note that Iran has had a long time to plan its response. 
    One huge question is what the Iranians would do if they believed that the Saudis or Emiratis were helping Israel.  In that case, say U.S. officials, expect Iran to respond against the southern Gulf States and, if the attack is serious enough, expect the United States to move to protect the Saudi Kingdom in particular, expanding the theater of combat.  
     
    Q: What is the worst-case scenario for the U.S.? 
    A: The worst case in case the Israelis attacked Iran would be if the Iranians judged the U.S. had been implicated or involved in the attack. Senior Iranian officials have in the past told NBC News that they would make no distinction between an Israeli attack and a U.S. attack. They see the two working hand-in-hand. 
    If that happened, presumably the scope of Iran's retaliation would encompass the U.S. At the far end of the spectrum, they might go an “embassy-a-day program, start blowing up U.S. missions in various cities,” said one former U.S. official. But another intelligence official said such a response would be highly unlikely, noting that even a single embassy attack would mean massive U.S. retaliation. The Iranians also could  attack ships of the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Gulf or U.S. allies on the Arab side of the Gulf, but either of these responses would likely prompt a U.S. military response aimed at toppling the regime in Tehran, the official said. 
     
    Q: What about oil? 
    A: The price would spike immediately, going from around $100 a barrel now to “between $200 and pick-a-number,” said one oil trader.  How quickly it would revert to lower levels would depend on how quickly the situation stabilized and how and where Iran would respond.  An attack on Saudi Arabia, for instance, would place the price target at close to that “pick-a-number” scenario, the trader said. 
    Even a $25 a barrel increase would have serious consequences for the recoveries in U.S., European and East Asian economies, particularly Japan.  “It would be a game changer,” for the U.S. economy and the political season, said a U.S. official.  
     
    Q: Why would Israel launch such an attack?  
    A: Putting aside Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory comments that Israel should be “wiped off the face of the Earth” (which some Iranians claim privately was a mistranslation), some Israeli officials believe the continuous threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon would lead as many as 200,000 of their best and brightest citizens to leave for the United States and other Western nations. That is the “existential threat” Israeli officials worry about, not that Iran could destroy Israel.
    An Iranian nuclear weapon would give Israel a lot less latitude to respond to Iranian threats, the Israelis believe.   
     
    Q: Beyond military considerations, what else might the Israelis take into account when timing of an attack? 
    A: It may seem cynical, but some in the Middle East think an attack could be timed to the U.S. presidential election. Some in Middle East believe that Israel might carry out an attack at the peak of the U.S. campaign in the belief that candidates and other elected officials in both parties would compete to show their support for Israel.

    Robert Windrem is a senior investigative correspondent for NBC News; NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski and Pentagon producer Courtney Kube also contributed to this report.
  • Huguette Clark book coming from Random House

    Associated Press

    Huguette in her last published photograph, in 1930, on the day of her divorce in Reno, Nevada. The heir to a copper fortune died in 2011 at 104.

    A nonfiction book on the mysterious heiress Huguette Clark and her family is being written by an NBC News reporter and one of Clark's cousins.

    Ballantine Bantam Dell, a division of Random House Publishing Group, has acquired "Empty Mansions," by Bill Dedman and Paul Clark Newell Jr.


    Bill Dedman is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for NBC News who introduced the public to heiress Huguette Clark and her empty mansions through his series of narratives on NBCNews.com and NBC's TODAY Show. He lives in suburban Connecticut, where he discovered the first of Clark's three vacant palaces. His narratives on the Clark family have been the most popular story in the history of NBCNews.com, topping 100 million page views. He received more than 1,000 letters and emails from readers of the Clark series, many of them confessing to an obsession with the mystery heiress. As a young woman in New York, actress Kimberly Belflower, explained to her Twitter followers: "Don't mind me, I'll just be reading about Huguette Clark for the rest of my life."

    Paul Clark Newell Jr., a grandnephew of W.A. Clark, has researched the family history for 20 years, gathering a unique collection of Clark family photographs, letters and memoirs. He shared many conversations with Huguette Clark about her life and family, and accepted her invitation for a rare private tour of Bellosguardo, her $100 million oceanfront estate in Santa Barbara, Calif. A grandson of W.A. Clark's sister, Newell is Huguette Clark's cousin, not a descendant of her father, and he therefore is not a party to the legal action by relatives to inherit her fortune. He lives in the mountains of San Diego County, Calif.

    Executive Editor Pamela Cannon made the deal for North American rights with agent Michael Carlisle of Inkwell Management.

    Though she inherited one of the great mining fortunes of the 19th century, Huguette Marcelle Clark lived quietly into the 21st century, secluded under fake names in hospital rooms for more than two decades. Intensely shy, she was almost entirely alone. One of her attorneys represented her for 20 years without meeting her face to face, instead talking to her through a closed door.

    Her father, William Andrews Clark, was one of the Copper Kings of Montana and a controversial U.S. senator, believed to be as wealthy as John D. Rockefeller in his day but largely forgotten since his death in 1925.

    His youngest daughter, the reclusive heiress Huguette, became a well-known name again in the last year of her life, after her three empty mansions and sales of her personal property drew the attention of investigative reporter Dedman. Clark soon became a subject of public fascination, a trending topic of searches on Google and Yahoo, with fan pages on Facebook, though the last published photograph of her was made in 1930.

    When she died in May 2011 at age 104, her obituary appeared on the front page of The New York Times. A legal battle has begun for her $400 million fortune, even as criminal investigations continue of the men who managed her money.

    Previous stories in the Huguette Clark mystery series on NBCNews.com:

    Archive of all stories, photos and videos

    Photo narrative, "The Clarks: An American story of wealth, scandal and mystery," Feb. 26, 2010.

    Printable version of the photo narrative, Feb. 26, 2010.

    Clark family notes and sources, Feb. 26, 2010.

    Investigative report, part one, "At 104, the mysterious heiress Huguette Clark is alone now: Relatives are kept away. Only her accountant and attorney visit. Who protects HuguetteClark, with 3 empty homes and no heirs?" Aug. 19, 2010.

    Investigative report, part two, "Who is watching Huguette Clark's millions? Reclusive heiress's assets are sold by two advisers, one an accountant with a felony conviction. Another elderly client signed over his property to the same accountant and attorney," Aug. 20, 2010.

    "Criminal probe begins into the finances of reclusive heiress Huguette Clark: Manhattan DA's Elder Abuse Unit is on the case. The same unit prosecuted the Brooke Astor case; Clark has about four times the wealth," Aug. 24, 2010.

    "Report sparks welfare check on heiress Huguette Clark," Aug. 25, 2010.

    "Generosity of an heiress: four homes for a nurse, gifts for attorney's family," Sept. 1, 2010.

    "Huguette Clark, the reclusive heiress, has signed a will, attorney says," Sept. 2, 2010.

    "Family of copper heiress asks court to protect her from attorney, accountant," Sept. 3, 2010.

    "Attorney for 104-year-old heiress defends his handling of her finances," Sept. 7, 2010.

    "Judge leaves pair under investigation in control of heiress Huguette Clark's fortune," Sept. 9, 2010.

    "Huguette Clark, the reclusive copper heiress, dies at 104," May 24, 2011.

    "Family excluded from Huguette Clark burial," May 26, 2011.

    "Heiress Huguette Clark's will leaves $1 million to advisers," June 22, 2011.

    "The 1 percent of the 1 percent: How Huguette Clark's millions were spent," Nov. 19, 2011.

    "A $400 miillion twist: Huguette Clark signed two wills, one to her family," Nov. 28, 2011.

    "Tax fraud alleged in estate of heiress Huguette Clark; accountant resigns," Dec. 21, 2011.

    "Nurse, in line to inherit millions, battles family of heiress Huguette Clark," Dec. 22, 2011.

    "Judge bounces attorney and accountant from estate of heiress Huguette Clark," Dec. 23, 2011.

  • VeriSign, at Web's core, is hacked: What does it mean to you?

    It should be clear by now that nothing online is sacred, and no security company is safe from hackers. VeriSign Inc., the firm at the center of so many critical systems on the Web, was infiltrated by hackers in 2010.  Because details of the attack, first disclosed Thursday by Reuters, are so vague we are left to assume the worst -- and the worst is pretty bad.

    It's possible that the VeriSign hackers could turn the Web upside down and create an Internet where nothing would be what it seems.  A hacker website could look and act just like your bank's website. Your PC could easily be tricked into downloading automatic software updates that would appear authentic but actually contain viruses. And no matter what web address you typed into your browser, you could be redirected to a criminal's website half-way around the world.

    But there's important context to this story which might ratchet down the "Oh My God!" factor considerably.  For starters, there is reason to believe that VeriSign's revelation is nothing more than evidence companies are starting to comply with rules forcing them to disclose such incidents: In other words, similar successful hacks like this may have occurred in the past but simply went unreported.  We'll discuss the evidence for that in a moment. First, let's look at the possibilities raised by the VeriSign attack.


     

    VeriSign is involved in two distinct, fundamental Internet security structures that could be impacted by this attack.  A successful attack on one would be serious, but a raid on the other could threaten the Internet itself. So let's start there.

    VeriSign's most critical function is its role in the Domain Name System address book, which governs what happens when Web users type common name Web addresses into their browsers.  There are 13 "root"  DNS servers placed strategically around the planet for redundancy. VeriSign operates two of them. Should a hacker gain access to this part of VeriSign's business, he or she could theoretically poison the other 11 root DNS servers, and the bad data would eventually spread to the other DNS servers. The consequences could be dire: It could mean that everyone who typed "msnbc.com" into a Web browser would be sent to a computer controlled by criminals, instead of the real msnbc.com website.  A computer criminal with destructive intensions could theoretically ruin the database that maps names with IP addresses and effectively shut down parts of the Internet. It has long been discussed that these root name servers are perhaps the most vulnerable point of the attack on the Internet

    But it's more likely that the agencies controlling the other 11 root Domain Name Servers would be able to regain control of the DNS table and restore the system within a day or two, if not within hours. As you might imagine, root DNS servers do disagree from time to time and there is a process for handling that.

    It's also important to note that VeriSign, in the SEC disclosure which started this incident, claims that its DNS servers were not attacked by hackers.

    "Access was gained to information on a small portion of our computers and servers. We have investigated and do not believe these attacks breached the servers that support our Domain Name System ("DNS") network," the firm wrote in the filing.

    VeriSign's other crucial function is issuing digital certificates through its VeriSign Authentication Services group. Certificates impact your computer use every day because they tell your PC that a company's website or software is really what is says it is. Certificates are a crucial part of the SSL system that ultimately displays a friendly looking lock when you visit your online bank.  They also identify the legitimacy of software updates sent to your computer by software makers.  Many modern PCs won't install software unless it is digitally signed. 

    A hacker who could influence the way VeriSign issues certificates would be a massive problem for both consumers and corporations.

    "VeriSign is one of the most important enterprise trust authorities in the world, which delivers people safely to more than half the world's websites,” wrote Catalin Cosoi, Chief Security Researcher at Bitdefender Labs. “A certificate issued by VeriSign will automatically be accepted by both browsers and operating systems. This kind of incident practically voids all the security provided by 64-bit operating systems,"

    In other words, hackers would have an easy time loading viruses onto PCs around the world.

    That's terrible, but it's not new. Virus writers have been compromising certificate issuers with abandon for the past 18 months. It's one of the reasons that Stuxnet computer virus managed to infect millions of PCs worldwide.  That also means structures are in place to deal with fraudulent certificates.

    "The worst case scenario would be several phishing attacks with valid certificates that browsers will render as legit," Cosoi said. "This would potentially yield a huge level of data that could be exploited for financial gain. However, it’s important to remember that a strong anti-phishing solution will keep you protected."

    Of course, it's not even clear from VeriSign's filing that its certificate business was compromised.  Complicating matters further: Symantec Corp. purchased most of that business from VeriSign last year. For its part, Symantec said on Thursday that the assets it acquired in the sale were not compromised.

    "We want to make it very clear that Symantec takes the security and proper functionality of its solutions very seriously. The Trust Services (SSL), User Authentication (VIP) and other production systems acquired by Symantec were not compromised by the corporate network security breach mentioned in the VeriSign, Inc. quarterly filing," said Symantec spokeswoman Nicole Kenyon in a statement to msnbnc.com.

    Of course, it’s possible that one of Verisign’s other business unit – it provides extensive security consulting, for example – was the hackers’ only target.  That seems unlikely, however, given the target-rich environment the offers to computer criminals.

    To be sure, many experts think the Verisign attack is serious business.

    "The SEC filing says 'Information stored on the compromised corporate systems was exfiltrated.' That sounds like a targeted attack to me," said Mikko Hypponen, chief technology officer at F-Secure.com. "Like the one against Google. And RSA. And Lockheed-Martin."

    But it's possible the VeriSign admission, buried in the SEC filing, is little more than paperwork which puts in print something that security professionals have long understood: No firm is safe from hackers.  This might be at once comforting and disturbing: In October of last year, the SEC issued guidelines that called out public firms for under-disclosing security leaks and hinted strongly that fines would come when firms failed to report successful hacker attacks. The VeriSign quarterly report was issued soon after, and it's easy to imagine the disclosure is more routine than anyone would like to admit.  In fact, Stewart Baker, a lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson, predicted as much in a blog earlier this month.

    "With enforcement so easy, and the harm from breaches so tangible, so serious and so likely to bring headlines, no one should expect the enforcers to go easy on companies that have been slow to disclose. Instead I expect a growing wave of cases based on companies' failure to make timely disclosure of ongoing breaches," he wrote.

    Clearly, admission by VeriSign that executives at the firm were unaware of the breach shows a terrible lack of coordination inside the firm. And it's scary to read this admission, too: "Given the nature of such attacks, we cannot assure that our remedial actions will be sufficient to thwart future attacks or prevent the future loss of information."

    Still, it’s important to note that we are talking about attacks that could be a year old, and whatever they were, criminals are already deep in the process of exploiting them. Sad to say there’s nothing most consumers can do in response to this report.

    In health news, there’s always the complicated issue of increased diagnosis vs. increased incidence. Is a new disease on the rise, or are we simply better at finding cases of it? The VeriSign incident raises the same question.

    But the deeper truth here is probably something that professionals have known for some time: In the cat and mouse game between hackers and security firms, hackers are winning and, in some places, it's starting to look like a blowout.  

     

     Don't miss the next Red Tape:
    *Get Red Tape headlines on your Facebook Wall
    *Follow Bob on Twitter. 
    *Get an e-mail newsletter with Red Tape stories (requires Newsvine registration).

  • Million dollar donors fuel Super PACs

    Idaho businessman Frank Vandersloot, a "super donor" who contributed $1 million to Mitt Romney's Super PAC. speaks out about his contribution: "We want somebody that understands business" in the White House. National Investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff reports.

    More on recent FEC reports on campaign contributions:

  • Wednesday reading: the best investigative reporting on the Web

    By Margaux Stack-Babich and Bill Dedman

    Today's reading from the world of investigative reporting.

    Story of the day: 'Half-Lives: The Chernobyl Workers Now' is a piece by Maisie Crow for the Virginia Quarterly Review, which examines the lives of the people closest to the world's worst nuclear reactor accident. The story explores the new industry that evacuated peoples developed in new cities, created around breaking down the plant, and what the future will hold when the plant has finally been disassembled. "We have no future for our children after they graduate from school," says Chernobyl liquidator Lubov Nikolaevna. "Radiation isn't scary to those who work at the plant. … And the people who live in Slavutych aren't afraid of it either. They are tired of being afraid, that is why they are not afraid. They are afraid of that the city of Sluvatych will be shut down."

    Notes: Links open in a new window. More reading: previous daily collections.

    Today's links:

    Keep up on the latest investigative reporting with the Twitter feed of the same name.

    Let us know if your group or organization should be listed there.

    Margaux Stack-Babich writes about investigative reporting for msnbc.com. Bill Dedman is an investigative reporter for msnbc.com.

Jump to February 2012 archive page: 1 2