Mr. Weintraub said other human remains were also discovered, but he did not say whether they belonged to the three other men.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The developments on Wednesday signified a major shift in the investigation of the disappearance of the four men over two days last week. The authorities in Bucks County, a fast-growing suburb with rolling hills and vast estates, have called the painstaking search among the largest law enforcement efforts in the county’s history.

The police arrested Mr. DiNardo on Wednesday afternoon, a day after his father paid 10 percent of a $1 million bond to bail him out of the Bucks County Jail on an unrelated felony weapons charge. Mr. Weintraub described Mr. DiNardo as a flight risk, and a judge on Wednesday afternoon set his bail for the new charges, both felonies, at $5 million.

Mr. Weintraub said early Thursday that detectives were going to “seriously look” at pursuing homicide charges. “We bought ourselves a little bit of time with charging Mr. DiNardo with the stolen car,” he said.

Since Saturday afternoon, they have centered their search on the farm belonging to Mr. DiNardo’s family in Solebury Township, about 30 miles north of Philadelphia.

Aerial photos of the farm on Wednesday showed that the authorities were focusing on a patch of land off a dirt road behind a home, where they erected several large tents and used tarps to collect dirt. Concrete blocks were stacked in a pile nearby.

As the search entered its fifth day on Wednesday, Mr. Weintraub again expressed confidence that the authorities were searching in the right area. The police have cast a wide net, but have devoted the bulk of their resources to the family’s farm because of several clues.

“We are going to find something for sure, I have no doubt of that,” Mr. Weintraub said at a news conference on Wednesday afternoon near the DiNardo farm. “I cannot really confirm more, but we’ve been utilizing resources that I didn’t even know existed. I’m very encouraged by that, at the least, that we are going to find some finality in this prolonged ordeal.”

On Saturday, the police tracked a signal from the cellphone belonging to Mr. Finocchiaro to the farm. Early Sunday morning, a 1996 Nissan Maxima belonging to another missing man, Tom Meo, 21, was found less than a mile from the farm, at another property owned by the DiNardo family, according to court records. A Nissan sedan owned by Mark Sturgis, 22, was also found Sunday morning, at an outdoor shopping center down the road from the farm. The fourth missing man, Jimi Tar Patrick, 19, was last seen on Wednesday.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The police started to closely examine Mr. DiNardo’s possible role in their disappearance early on in the search, and Mr. Weintraub first identified him on Tuesday as a “person of interest” in the case. His home in Bensalem Township, about 30 miles from the farm, was searched on Monday, the same day he was arrested on a previously dismissed weapons charge.

The farm in Solebury Township is owned by his parents, Anthony and Sandra DiNardo. Responding to reports that the parents were summoned to a grand jury hearing, Mr. Weintraub declined to discuss whether one was hearing the case.

In addition to the cars’ locations at or near the DiNardo family’s properties, the police said, officers have also uncovered other clues, which came to light in court records on Wednesday.

Shortly before 8 p.m. last Friday, a license plate reader on a Solebury Township police car captured the license plate of a silver Ford truck, which Mr. DiNardo later told the police he was driving that night. Two seconds later, the license plate reader registered Mr. Meo’s Nissan Maxima driving by. That location is about two miles from where Mr. Meo’s car was discovered on Sunday.

Later on Sunday, a friend of Mr. DiNardo’s told the police that he tried to sell him an older model Nissan Maxima, according to court records. An unsigned title for Mr. Meo’s Maxima was found next to the car. “There was no legal exchange of that vehicle,” Mr. Weintraub said.

A diabetic kit belonging to Mr. Meo, who has diabetes, was also found in the car. His parents told the police that their son never traveled without it. Asked if Mr. Meo could survive without it, Mr. Weintraub said on Wednesday, “It is my understanding that he could not, that he would go into diabetic shock.”

The arrest of Mr. DiNardo on Monday stemmed from a February episode in which the police in Bensalem Township found him with a 20-gauge shotgun, according to court records. He was not legally allowed to possess it because he had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

A judge dismissed that charge in May. But the Bucks County district attorney’s office wanted to pursue the case again and asked the Bensalem police in a June 21 letter to rearrest Mr. DiNardo. They did not arrest him again until on Monday, after detectives were searching his family’s farm.

Continue reading the main story

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, asked what Mr. Wray would do if the president requested that he take any steps that Mr. Wray believed were illegal.

“First, I would try to talk him out of it,” Mr. Wray said. “If that failed, I would resign.”

He also said he had no doubts about the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the election, a conclusion the president has questioned. He pledged that if confirmed, he would read the classified portions of the assessment as soon as he was sworn in.

Mr. Wray also sought to separate himself from Mr. Comey’s actions, including the former director’s announcement last summer that he would not recommend charges in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information. Mr. Comey had explained the move as an effort in part to maintain the F.B.I.’s political neutrality, but he was widely criticized for plunging the bureau into the middle of the presidential campaign. Former prosecutors criticized him for making public remarks about Mrs. Clinton’s behavior.

Pressed by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, on how he would have handled the investigation, Mr. Wray said he would not have held a news conference.

“In my experience as a prosecutor and as head of the criminal division, I understand there to be department policies that govern public comments about uncharged individuals,” Mr. Wray said of the Justice Department. “I think those policies are there for a reason, and I would follow those policies.”

Mr. Wray added, “I can’t imagine a situation where, as F.B.I. director, I would be giving a press conference on an uncharged individual, much less talking in detail about it.”

An animated Mr. Graham also touched on the dominant question in Washington since the election: whether associates of Mr. Trump were involved in Russia’s meddling. He read aloud from the latest revelation to make headlines, emails that an intermediary sent in June 2016 to Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, promising damaging information about Mrs. Clinton furnished by the Russian government. He then asked Mr. Wray what politicians should do if they received such an offer, suggesting they call the F.B.I.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“Any threat or effort to interfere with our elections from any nation-state or any nonstate actor is the kind of thing the F.B.I. would want to know,” Mr. Wray said.

Mr. Graham, who has been critical of Russian interference in the election, described the response as a “great answer.”

Mr. Wray also seemed to eager to knock down any suggestion that while he was a top Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, he was involved in signing off on the C.I.A.’s torture of suspects during its hunt for the planners of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Wray said he played no role in approving the legal rationale for those interrogations, adding that he did not condone torture.

“The F.B.I. is going to play no part in the use of any techniques of that sort,” Mr. Wray said. President Barack Obama barred the use of such interrogation techniques in 2009.

Mr. Wray said he would not duck his responsibilities to uphold the law. He pointed to his record of investigating C.I.A. abuses while he was running the Justice Department’s criminal division from 2003 to 2005. He said he was proud of prosecuting a C.I.A. contractor, David A. Passaro, who had been convicted of beating an Afghan farmer during an interrogation.

Mr. Wray said he had not talked with Mr. Comey in years, but he recounted a now-famous episode when he, along with Mr. Comey and Robert S. Mueller III, now the special counsel investigating the Russian meddling, considered resigning from the Justice Department. In 2004, Mr. Mueller, then the F.B.I. director, and Mr. Comey, who was the deputy attorney general, threatened to quit the Bush administration over a controversial surveillance program. Mr. Wray also offered to join their protest even though he was not read into the highly classified program.

“Knowing those people and having worked side by side with those people and knowing these were hardly shrinking violets in the war on terror, there was no hesitation in my mind as to where I stood,” he said. “I stood with them.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Wray graduated in 1989 from Yale University and earned his law degree in 1992 from Yale Law School. He was hired as a federal prosecutor in Atlanta in 1997 and left the Justice Department in 2005 after rising to the head of the criminal division.

Friends and former colleagues describe Mr. Wray as low-key and understated but exceptionally smart and thoughtful. But Mr. Wray warned those listening to the hearing not to underestimate him because they might view him as “boring,” prompting nods among family members sitting behind him.

“Anybody who does would be making a very grave mistake,” he said. He added that he would resist any political pressure if confirmed.

“I fully understand that this is not a job for the faint of heart,” Mr. Wray said. “I can assure this committee, I am not faint of heart.”

Continue reading the main story

The Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald TrumpDonald TrumpConway brings visual aids to Hannity interview Gorka debates ‘fake news’ with CNN’s Anderson Cooper Exclusive: DOJ let Russian lawyer into US before she met with Trump team MORE’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by the Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” before she embarked on a lobbying campaign last year that ensnared the president’s eldest son, members of Congress, journalists and State Department officials, according to court and Justice Department documents and interviews.

This revelation means it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled the newest and most intriguing figure in the Russia-Trump investigation to enter the country without a visa.

Later, a series of events between an intermediary for the attorney and the Trump campaign ultimately led to the controversy surrounding the president’s eldest son.

Just five days after meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr., presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner and then Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Moscow attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya showed up in Washington in the front row of a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Russia policy, video footage of the hearing shows.

She also engaged in a pro-Russia lobbying campaign and attended an event at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. where Russian supporters showed a movie that challenged the underpinnings of the U.S. human rights law known as the Magnitysky Act, which Russian leader Vladimir Putin has reviled and tried to reverse.

The Magnitsky Act imposed financial and other sanctions on Russia for alleged human rights violations connected to the death of a Russian lawyer who claimed to uncover fraud during Putin’s reign. Russia retaliated after the law was passed in 2012 by suspending Americans’ ability to adopt Russian children.

At least five congressional staffers and State Department officials attended that movie showing, according to a Foreign Agent Registration Act complaint filed with the Justice Department about Veselnitskaya’s efforts.

And Veselnitskaya also attended a dinner with the chairman of the House subcommittee overseeing Russia policy, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and roughly 20 other guests at a dinner club frequented by Republicans.

In an interview with The Hill on Wednesday, Rohrabacher said, “There was a dinner at the Capitol Hill Club here with about 20 people. I think I was the only congressman there. They were talking about the Magnitysky case. But that wasn’t just the topic. There was a lot of other things going on. So I think she was there but I don’t remember any type of conversation with her between us. But I understand she was at the table.”

Rohrabacher said he believed Veselnitskaya and her U.S. colleagues, which included former Democratic Congressman Ronald Dellums, were lobbying other lawmakers to reverse the Magnitysky Act and restore the ability of Americans to adopt Russian children that Moscow had suspended.

“I don’t think this was very heavily lobbied at all compared with the other issues we deal with,” he said.

As for his former congressional colleague Dellums, Rohrabacher said he recalled having a conversation about the Magnitsky Act and the adoption issue, “Ron and I like each other … I have to believe he was hired a lobbyist but I don’t know. »

Veselnitskaya did not return a call seeking comment Wednesday at her Moscow office. Dellums also did not return a call to his office seeking comment.

But in an interview with NBC News earlier this week, Veselnitskaya acknowledged her contacts with Donald Trump Jr. and in Washington were part of a lobbying campaign to get members of Congress and American political figures to see « the real circumstances behind the Magnitsky Act.”

That work was a far cry from the narrow reason the U.S. government initially gave for allowing Veselnitskaya into the U.S. in late 2015, according to federal court records.

The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York City.

During a court hearing in early January 2016 as Veselnitskaya’s permission to stay in the country was about to expire, federal prosecutors described how rare the grant of parole immigration was as Veselnitskaya pleaded for more time to remain in the United States.

“In October the government bypassed 
the normal visa process and gave a type of extraordinary 
permission to enter the country called immigration parole,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Monteleoni explained to the judge during a hearing Jan. 6, 2016.

“That’s a discretionary act that the statute allows the Attorney 
General to do in extraordinary circumstances. In this case, we 
did that so that Mr. Katsyv could testify. And we made the 
further accommodation of allowing his Russian lawyer into the 
country to assist,” he added.

The prosecutor said Justice was willing to allow the Russian lawyer to enter the United States again as the trial in the case approached so she could help prepare and attend the proceedings.

The court record indicates the presiding judge asked the Justice Department to extend Veselnitskaya’s immigration parole another week until he decided motions in the case. There are no other records in the court file indicating what happened with that request or how Veselnitskaya appeared in the country later that spring.

The U.S. Attorney’s office in New York confirmed Wednesday to The Hill that it let Veselnitskaya into the country on a grant of immigration parole from October 2015 to early January 2016.

Justice Department and State Department officials could not immediately explain how the Russian lawyer was still in the country in June for the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and the events in Washington D.C.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck GrassleyChuck GrassleyCo-founder of firm behind dossier tying Trump to Russia testifying next week Exclusive: DOJ let Russian lawyer into US before she met with Trump team Judiciary chairman will call Manafort to testify, threatens subpoena MORE (R-Iowa) has demanded the U.S. government provide him all records on how Veselnitskaya entered and traveled in the U.S., a request that could shed additional light on her activities.

Interviews with a half dozen Americans who came in contact with Veselnitskaya or monitored her U.S. activities in 2016 make clear that one of her primary goals was to see if the Congress and/or other political leaders would be interested in repealing the 2012 Magnitsky Act punishing Russia or at least ensure the Magnitsky name would not be used on a new law working its way through Congress in 2016 to punish human rights violators across the globe.

“There’s zero doubt that she and her U.S. colleagues were lobbying to repeal Magnitsky or at least ensure his name was removed from the global law Congress was considering,” said U.S. businessman William Browder, who was the main proponent for the Magnitsky Act and who filed a FARA complaint against Veselnitskaya, Dellums and other U.S. officials claiming they should have registered as foreign agent lobbyists because of the work.

The 2012 law punished Russia for the prison death of Moscow lawyer/accountant Sergei Magnitsky, who U.S. authorities allege uncovered a massive $230 million money laundering scheme involving Russian government official that hurt U.S. companies.

Magnitsky became a cause celeb in the United States after his mysterious death in a Russian prison, but Russian officials have disputed his version of events and in 2011 posthumously convicted him of fraud in Russia.

It is that alternate theory of the Magnitsky fraud cause that Veselnitskaya and her U.S. allies tried to get into the hands of American officials, including Rohrabacher, the Trump team and other leaders.

Browder’s complaint, which alleges that Washington lobbyists working with Veselnitskaya failed to register as foreign agents, is still pending at the Justice Department. It identified several events in Washington that Veselnitskaya and her allies attended or staged in June 2016.

All of them occurred in the days immediately after the Russian lawyer used a music promoter friend to get an audience June 9 with Trump’s eldest son promising dirt on Democratic opponent Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonConway brings visual aids to Hannity interview Gorka debates ‘fake news’ with CNN’s Anderson Cooper Co-founder of firm behind dossier tying Trump to Russia testifying next week MORE and instead using the meeting to talk about Magnitsky and the adoption issue, according to Trump Jr. and Veselnitskaya.

On June 13, Veselnitskaya attended the screening of an anti-Magnitsky movie at the Newseum, which drew a handful of congressional staffers and State Department officials, according to Browder’s complaint.

The next day, she appeared in the front row of a hearing chaired by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.), sitting right behind a former U.S. ambassador who testified on the future of U.S-Russia policy.

Rohrabacher said he recalled around the same time a conversation with Dellums about Magnitsky and the adoption issue and then attending a dinner that included Veselnitskaya at the Capitol Hill Club with about 20 people.

Sources close to the lobbying effort to rename the Magnisky Act, conducted over the summer of 2016, said it fizzled after only a month or two. They described Veselnitskaya, who does not speak English, as a mysterious and shadowy figure. They said they were confused as to whether she had an official role in the lobbying campaign, although she was present for several meetings.

The sources also described their interactions with Veselnitskaya in the same way that Trump Jr. did. They claimed not to know who she worked for or what her motives were.

“Natalia didn’t speak a word of English,” said one source. “Don’t let anyone tell you this was a sophisticated lobbying effort. It was the least professional campaign I’ve ever seen. If she’s the cream of the Moscow intelligence community then we have nothing to worry about.”

The sources added they met with Veselnitksaya only once or twice over the course of the lobbying campaign, which culminated with airing of a Russian documentary that challenged the notion that Magnitsky was beaten to death in a Russian prison

About 80 people, including congressional staffers and State Department employees attended the viewing at the Newseum.

• Scientists looked at almost 13,000 videos watched by millions of youngsters
• Many contained ‘inappropriate’ marketing content disguised as entertainment
• Although YouTube Kids has strict rules on blocking inappropriate content, it cannot block adverts that are hidden as entertainment

By

Phoebe Weston For Mailonline

Published:
04:38 EDT, 12 July 2017

|
Updated:
04:39 EDT, 12 July 2017

• 
  
  
• 
  e-mail

‘Most of the digital services offered on the internet are advertising funded, which makes advertising ubiquitous in children’s everyday life’, researchers said in their paper ‘Characterising videos, audience and advertising in Youtube channels for kids’.

• 
  China teleports photon to SPACE in breakthrough that paves…

  
  Marijuana breathalyzer breakthrough as scientists reveal…

  
  Facebook under fire for taking down pages of legal Alaska…

  
  Ancient Greek theaters used movable stages on stone tracks…

• 
  
  
• 
  e-mail

Joe Scarborough, the longtime Republican political figure and MSNBC host whose public feud with President Donald Trump grew to a fevered pitch two weeks ago amid a series of heated attacks, said he is leaving the Republican Party.

“I’ve got to become an independent, » Scarborough, a one-time Republican congressman and prominent figure in the conservative media sphere, told CBS’ Stephen Colbert during an interview airing Tuesday night.

Story Continued Below

Speaking alongside his co-host and fiance, Mika Brzezinski, who drew the ire of the president in a series of personal social media attacks, Scarborough questioned why more Republicans didn’t stand up to Trump’s comments and policies, casting them as standing in opposition to his party’s values — or rather, his former party.

« I think it’s inexplicable. This is well before Donald Trump was elected president that my party has betrayed their core values, » Scarborough said, citing Trump’s proposed travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries as a policy position that he felt did not align with the Republican Party’s values.

Scarborough, who called Trump’s rhetoric « disturbing, » accused Republicans of turning a blind eye to Trump’s actions.

« You have to ask yourself, what exactly is the Republican Party willing to do? How far are they willing to go? How much of this country and our values are they willing to sell out? » a visibly frustrated Scarborough asked.

Pressed on his own party status, he replied: “I am a Republican but I’m not going to be a Republican anymore. »

A conservative during his days as a Florida congressman, Scarborough was part of the Republican wave in 1994 that gave the GOP its first majority in the House in four decades and elevated Newt Gingrich to the speakership. He was reelected three times before resigning in September 2001.

President Donald Trump was rebuked by lawmakers from across the aisle after tweeting June 29 that « low I.Q. Crazy Mika » Brzezinski was “bleeding badly from a face-lift » during a past visit to his Mar-a-Lago estate. The comments, which were defended by the White House, resulted in several days of public feuding.