Epstein Secrets

om an alleged IRS whistleblower who is voicing concerns about possible political interference that some lawmakers say relates to the probe targeting Hunter Biden. The article noted that the unnamed IRS whistleblower is "a career IRS criminal supervisory special agent who has been overseeing the ongoing

n effort, called it "evidence of a real tightening up on the part of the FBI on the most controversial aspect of 702." Coverage by Politico (04/28, Banco, Sakellariadis) emphasized that the Biden administration is leaning into a politically potent issue — fentanyl trafficking from Mexico — to convince

FIDENTIAL EFTA_0013 1346 EFTA01273553 UBS Strategic Advisor UBS April 2015 Your assets Equities . Common stock (continued) Hddng Trade date Hunter of sham PJ10.1.4 111(ci Average price nice per share Value on time/tired Hddng per share (9 Cost basis (t) on Apr 30(1) Apr30(9 gain or l

ntioned Amoy% hanagernent Account hicugh the% Sweep Programs. can batirxes re swept so WS Bad USA ug ki n egabkhed ren and Mai to WS AG Stair-lord Banco, a a Many Fura Deposes at WS Balt WA are 'OK enured n acootathe with FOK Ns For non dannacin one nut way( klic 9,v OPpOnt5 41,5 AG Halted Brant ad

denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see al

247, *3 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2011) (Marra, J.) ("restoring the parties to the status quo ante is an element of a rescission claim"); see also, e.g., Banco, 400 F.3d at 1312; AVVA-BC, 25 So. 3d at 11; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 380. 13 EFTA00799507 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Ente

denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see al

247, *3 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2011) (Marra, J.) ("restoring the parties to the status quo ante is an element of a rescission claim"); see also, e.g., Banco, 400 F.3d at 1312; AVVA-BC, 25 So. 3d at 11; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 380. 13 EFTA00795183 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Ente

denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see al

247, *3 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2011) (Marra, J.) ("restoring the parties to the status quo ante is an element of a rescission claim"); see also, e.g., Banco, 400 F.3d at 1312; AVVA-BC, 25 So. 3d at 11; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 380. 13 EFTA00208835 In sum, under the circumstances present in