From Coinfire article:
"The DHS investigation also names a second individual based in Saudi Arabia as a potential second suspect in money laundering operations. This individual gave Mr. Garza large sums of cash off the books via wire transfers and was complacent and intimately involved with Mr. Garza."
That does not mean it was ISIS, although it is a strong indicator since so many princes there (and their subordinates) are known to support it. Additionally the individual may not be Saudi. I have not yet had time to go through the article posted yesterday (its been opened in a new tab since it was published). I have not seen what direct quotes they have from that investigation which is why I asked. There have just been too many people misreading things lately so I wanted to be careful slinging group names around (eg the "coinfire editor" that turns out it was never said to be an editor in the original source material).
Coin Fire is not Coin Brief, which is the news site that employed the writer allegedly linked to ISIS.
There is nothing linking GAW to ISIS except some deranged ramblings by Vlad the village crazy.
READ people, fucking READ, it's free, educational, and as a bonus helps you look less of an idiot.
Yes, all correct.
Also, CoinFire gave the name of one of the individuals on a DHS watchlist (Martin), and another such individual is from Saudi Arabia (no references to ISIS RE: either of these folks).
"While the DHS reports are extremely detailed and further detail alleged fraud and alleged money-laundering for terrorist organizations and supporters, Coin Fire is opting not to publish these documents until a later date as to not jeopardize the current on-going investigation and to as protect our sources."
I used the word "terrorist" earlier (which is what sparked the academic turn in this thread today) because CoinFire did - not because of politics or ideology, which I could do if you'd like - but it'd be boring.
Indeed, and we used the worst terrorist because that is the direct word from the report itself.
I want to clarify a bit here without giving many details. Josh knew taking this money was bad news based on the emails obtained via order.
He argued with others inside his company regarding this money. The government plans to use that particular fact against him that he was compliant and willful against legal advice, others inside the company, and even some family members.
?
