Deaths Rise in Libya Due to Russians

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Whatever vision that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration had for Libya is now best described as a Russian operation where death and destruction manifests.

As Fox News Anchor, Bret Baier, says each night, ‘beyond our borders’ there is a very ugly nasty world that is hardly, if at all, reported.

From the United Nations Mission in Libya:

25 Oct 2019

17 Oct 2019

How bad it is really? What about Russia?

Russia dominated Syria’s war. Now it’s sending mercenaries to Libya

TRIPOLI, Libya — The casualties at the Aziziya field hospital south of Tripoli used to arrive with gaping wounds and shattered limbs, victims of the haphazard artillery fire that has defined battles among Libyan militias. But now medics say they are seeing something new: narrow holes in a head or a torso left by bullets that kill instantly and never exit the body.

It is the work, Libyan fighters say, of Russian mercenaries, including skilled snipers. The lack of an exit wound is a signature of the ammunition used by the same Russian mercenaries elsewhere.

The snipers are among about 200 Russian fighters who have arrived in Libya in the last six weeks, part of a broad campaign by the Kremlin to reassert its influence across the Middle East and Africa.

After four years of behind-the-scenes financial and tactical support for a would-be Libyan strongman, Russia is now pushing far more directly to shape the outcome of Libya’s messy civil war. It has introduced advanced Sukhoi jets, coordinated missile strikes, and precision-guided artillery, as well as the snipers — the same playbook that made Moscow a kingmaker in the Syrian civil war.

Related image

The Russians have intervened on behalf of the militia leader Khalifa Hifter, who is based in eastern Libya and is also backed by the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and, at times, France. His backers have embraced him as their best hope to check the influence of political Islam, crack down on militants and restore an authoritarian order.

Mr. Hifter has been at war for more than five years with a coalition of militias from western Libya who back the authorities in Tripoli. The Tripoli government was set up by the United Nations in 2015 and is officially supported by the United States and other Western powers. But in practical terms, Turkey is its only patron.

The new intervention of private Russian mercenaries, who are closely tied to the Kremlin, is just one of the parallels with the Syrian civil war.

The Russian snipers belong to the Wagner Group, the Kremlin-linked private company that also led Russia’s intervention in Syria, according to three senior Libyan officials and five Western diplomats closely tracking the war.

In both conflicts, rival regional powers are arming local clients. And, as in Syria, the local partners who had teamed up with the United States to fight the Islamic State are now complaining of abandonment and betrayal.

The United Nations, which has tried and failed to broker peace in both countries, has watched as its eight-year arms embargo on Libya is becoming “a cynical joke,” as the United Nations special envoy recently put it.

Yet in some ways, the stakes in Libya are higher.

More than three times the size of Texas, Libya controls vast oil reserves, pumping out 1.3 million barrels a day despite the present conflict. Its long Mediterranean coastline, just 300 miles from Italy, has been a jumping-off point for tens of thousands of Europe-bound migrants.

And the open borders around Libya’s deserts have provided havens for extremists from North Africa and beyond. Read on.


China is about to Own Uganda

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

It is called debt-trapping by China. China has been trapping small desperate nations for several years and few are paying attention. Imperialism? Yes, on a global scale.

Uganda is about to default to China. 39% of the debt in Uganda is owed to China. It could be that beyond Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Kenya could be the next victims to debt-trapping. China financed a $4 billion oil pipeline as part of the Belt and Road initiative. When this default surfaces, China will own the strategic sites that connect Beijing to the Persian Gulf. Railways are an essential part of the required transportation channels.

Related image

African Stand reported in December last year that the Kenyan government risks losing the lucrative Mombasa port to China if the country fails to repay huge loans advanced by Chinese lenders, but both Chinese and Kenyan officials have dismissed that the port’s ownership is at risk.

Others think the Chinese government is in some ways gangsters, taking over mines all over Africa, sending thousands of Chinese workers, destroying the environment, bringing minerals such as copper, sink, gold, silver, diamonds etc. home, and making deals with corrupt politicians to plunder the countries.

“The case is one of the examples of China’s ambitious use of loans and aid to gain influence around the world and of its willingness to play hardball to collect,” says the New York Times on December 12, 2017.

At a time in Somalia when local fishermen are struggling to compete with foreign vessels that are depleting fishing stocks, the government has granted 31 fishing licenses to China.

But Uganda’s auditor-general warned in a report released this month that public debt from June 2017 to 2018 had increased from $9.1 billion to $11.1 billion.

Image result for uganda

The report — without naming China — warned that conditions placed on major loans were a threat to Uganda’s sovereign assets.

It said that in some loans, Uganda had agreed to waive sovereignty over properties if it defaults on the debt — a possibility that Kasaija rejected.

“China taking over assets? … in Uganda, I have told you, as long as some of us are still in charge, unless there is really a catastrophe, and which I don’t see at all, that will make this economy going behind. So, … I’m not worried about China taking assets. They can do it elsewhere, I don’t know. But here, I don’t think it will come,” he said.

In December 2017, the Sri Lankan government handed its Hambantota port to China for a lease period of 99 years after failing to show commitment in the payment of billions of dollars in loans.

Also in September 2018, African Stand reported that China was taking over Zambia’s state power company and Kenneth Kaunda International Airport over unpaid debt that rippled across Africa, despite government denials.

China’s Exim Bank has funded about 85 percent of two major Ugandan power projects — Karuma and Isimba dams. It also financed and built Kampala’s $476 million Entebbe Express Highway to the airport, which cut driving time by more than half. China’s National Offshore Oil Corporation, France’s Total, and Britain’s Tullow Oil co-own Uganda’s western oil fields, set to be tapped by 2021.


TRIGGER WARNING: Presidential Net Worth Comparison — Before and After Leaving Office

Doug Ross @ Journal

By Biff Spackle

Joe Miller offers a critique:

Respectfully, it’s likely to be the opposite. The way it’s headed, expect Trump to be bankrupt and/or in jail just a short time after leaving office. That is, unless there’s a clandestine effort to take the Oligarchs down. Let’s hope it’s the latter, or this country is toast.

To which I responded:

I agree completely. This is just meant to trigger the kooks.

Respectfully submitted by Biff Spackle, Sergeant-at-Arms.


Article 5 of the US Constitution: What “Convention of States Project” (COS) isn’t telling you

By: Publius Huldah

  1. Article 5 provides two ways to amend our Constitution: Congress (1) proposes amendments and sends them to the States for ratification (this was done with our existing 27 Amendments); or (2) calls a convention for proposing amendments if two-thirds of the State Legislatures apply for it. We’ve never had a convention under Article V – they are dangerous! 1
  2. But today, various well-funded factions are lobbying State Legislators to ask Congress to call an Article V convention. One faction, the “Convention of States Project” (COS), claims to be for limited government and is marketing the convention to appeal to conservatives. COS claims (falsely) that our Framers told us to amend the Constitution when the federal government violates the Constitution.2
  3. COS’s claim is absurd – it’s like saying that since people violate the Ten Commandments, God should amend the Ten Commandments.
  4. COS’s claim is false. Not only did our Framers never say what COS claims,
  • Our Constitution already limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to a small handful of enumerated powers (they are listed on this one-page chart).3  Furthermore, it’s impossible to rein in the federal government with amendments because when the feds usurp powers not delegated, they are ignoring the existing constitutional limitations on their powers.
  • All of the proposed amendments produced by COS and their sympathizers markedly INCREASE the powers of the federal government by delegating powers the federal government has already usurped; by granting new powers to the federal government; by transferring power from Representatives elected by the People to the Deep State; or by stripping States of their existing sovereign powers.4 See:

Mark Levin’s “liberty” amendments: legalizing tyranny,

COS Project’s “simulated convention” dog and pony show and what they did there,

The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster,

Parental Rights Amendment: Selling You and Your Kids Out to Big Government

Wolf PAC’s Amendment for “fair and free elections”, and

Term Limits: A Palliative not a Cure 5

  1. So what’s the real agenda of those (primarily George Soros and the Kochs) who are financing the push for a convention? A convention provides the opportunity to replace our existing Constitution with a new constitution which moves us into a completely new system of government, such as the North American Union (NAU).  Under the NAU, Canada, the United States, and Mexico are economically and politically integrated and a Parliament and combined militarized police force are set up over them.6

The phrase within Article V, “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, doesn’t restrict the Delegates to the Convention to merely proposing Amendments.  Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that a People have the “self-evident Right” to throw off their government and set up a new government.7  We’ve already invoked that Right twice:  In 1776 we invoked it to throw off the British Monarchy; and in 1787, James Madison invoked it to throw off our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation (AOC), and set up a new Constitution [the one we now have] which created a new government.

This is what happened:

There were defects in the AOC, so on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia

“for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”

But the Delegates ignored their instructions from Congress, and similar instructions from their States 8 and wrote a new Constitution which created a new government.  Furthermore, the new Constitution had its own new mode of ratification:  Whereas amendments to the AOC had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States; 9 the new Constitution provided at Article VII thereof, that it would be ratified when only 9 States approved it.

And in Federalist No. 40 (15th para), James Madison, who was a Delegate to the Federal “amendments” Convention of 1787, invoked that same Right as justification for the Delegates’ ignoring their instructions and writing a new Constitution which created a new government.10

  1. If we have a convention today, the Delegates will have that same power to get rid of our second Constitution and impose a third Constitution. New Constitutions are already prepared or in the works!  One of them, the Constitution for the Newstates of America, is ratified by a national referendum (See Art. XII, §1). The States don’t vote on it – they are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.
  2. So why was the convention method added to Article V? The Anti-federalists wanted it added because they wanted another convention so they could get rid of the Constitution just drafted.  James Madison and Alexander Hamilton understood that a people have the right to meet in convention and draft a new constitution whether the convention method was in Article V or not.  So this is why Madison and Hamilton went along with adding the convention method to Article V; and this is why, as early as April 1788, they and our future first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay started warning against another convention.
  3. Using the pretext of merely getting amendments, the Globalists want a convention so they can complete their coup against us and get a new Constitution which moves us into the New World Order.
  4. States should rescind the applications they have already submitted to Congress.


1 That is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, four US Supreme Court Justices, and other jurists & scholars warn against it!  See their words HERE.

2 See Michael Farris’s quote HERE. None of our Framers said such a silly thing as Farris claims!  Our Framers actually said the purpose of Amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution, and they all knew that the real purpose of a convention is to get another constitution.

3 IGNORANCE is our problem.  Americans don’t know what our Constitution says.  Can you recite by heart the enumerated powers granted to Congress over the Country at Large?

4 Mark Levin’s amendment to “grant the States authority to check Congress” [p. 169 of “The Liberty Amendments”] provides that three-fifths of the state legislatures may vote to override a federal statute and certain Executive Branch regulations provided that the States do so within a certain time period.  When that time period has expired, the States are forever prohibited from exercising the override.

Levin’s amendment would strip the States of their long-recognized individual natural right – much written about by our Framers – to NULLIFY all acts of any Branch of the federal government which violate our Constitution. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense and What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power?

5 The federal term limits amendment would transfer power from US Senators and Representatives (elected by the People) to the Deep State (a massive body of nameless, faceless, and unelected bureaucrats who would become the PERMANENT AND TOTALLY UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNING BODY).

6 For the Love of God, your Country and your posterity, READ the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report on the NAU. This is what the Establishment Elite wants and can get with a convention!

7 The Declaration of Independence is part of the “Organic Law” (the Fundamental Law) of our Land.

8 This Delegate Flyer summarizes the instructions the States gave the Delegates.

9 See ART. 13 of the Articles of Confederation.

10 In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), James Madison says the Delegates knew that reform such as was set forth in the new Constitution was necessary for our peace and prosperity.  They knew that sometimes great and momentous changes in established governments are necessary – and a rigid adherence to the old government takes away the “transcendent and precious right” of a people to “abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,” … “and it is therefore essential that such changes be instituted by some INFORMAL AND UNAUTHORIZED PROPOSITIONS, made by some patriotic and respectable citizen or number of citizens…”


Rot at the Top: The Epstein Affair

By: Cliff Kincaid

The Washington Post reported in September that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an exclusive club of mostly Washington, D.C. and New York City insiders, “took no action” against one of its members, pedophile Jeffrey Epstein after his crimes were known. Epstein, a secretive billionaire with high-level connections in academia and government, had attended CFR events and donated $350,000 to the organization, becoming one of its top donors and a member of the “Chairman’s Circle.” The CFR kept the money.

Epstein, whose “suicide” in jail has been labeled by some informed observers as murder, may be the most controversial CFR member since communist spy Alger Hiss.

If Epstein was murdered, the question becomes what did he know and when did he know it. At the CFR he would have had the opportunity to learn some deep dark secrets about foreign policy matters and the military-intelligence establishment. ABC newswoman Amy Robach said in the video uncovered by Project Veritas,  “He [Epstein] made his whole living blackmailing people.” She stated her belief that he was murdered in jail while awaiting trial on child sex trafficking charges.

Her own well-documented story about the sex fiend was killed by ABC News.

Secret Meetings

There were several big holes in the Post story about this “prestigious” organization and its Epstein connection. The paper failed to note the long list of people from the Post, ABC News, and other Big Media organizations that belong to the CFR. Epstein was found guilty of sex crimes in 2008 but remained a member from 1995 through 2009. He was dropped from the rolls for nonpayment of dues and not because of sex crimes.

The CFR’s “Rules, Guidelines, and Practices,” stipulate that, “Members should bring any concerns related to conduct at CFR to the attention of the vice president for membership or another officer of the Council.”

It looks like nobody said a word about Epstein, even after he was convicted.

While much of what the CFR does is out in the open, in the form of public meetings and a journal called Foreign Affairs, the organization has a “rule on non-attribution” for certain meetings in which identities of speakers are concealed.

CFR leaders “now acknowledge that they never discussed what to do about Epstein’s donations after he pleaded guilty to sex crimes in 2008,” said Post reporter Marc Fisher. He quoted CFR president Richard Haass as saying, “I deeply regret that his conviction did not automatically trigger a review of his membership status.” These comments were in an email to council members “obtained” by The Washington Post.

While he didn’t find time to reject Epstein or his money, Haass appears regularly on MSNBC, an outlet known for Trump hatred. He was on the “Morning Joe” program, featuring Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, both CFR members, where he denounced Trump for “abandoning” the Marxist Kurds in northern Syria. He has also used MSNBC to denounce Trump for “extreme nationalism,” in comments to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, another CFR member.

The corporate membership is a who’s who of top American companies, including social media firms like Facebook and Google, banks, and hedge funds like Soros Fund Management.


While it was framed as a disclosure about CFR malfeasance, the Fisher story is a classic example of how the media cover for the rich and powerful, including themselves. Members of the media who belong to this exclusive club are nominated, under the rules of the organization, by another CFR member. The membership is over 5,000.

The Fisher story pretends to “cover” Epstein’s involvement with the CFR without going into any significant detail at all and not holding anybody accountable.

The “nonpartisan” CFR attracts some naïve Republicans such as John Bolton by claiming not to take “any position on questions of foreign policy.” But president Richard Haass, a former Bush Administration official, states in an official CFR publication that “internationalism is built into our institutional DNA.” Hence, when the CFR journal Foreign Affairs published the article, “The Hard Road to World Order,” we can safely assume it spoke for most members of the organization, including its leadership. This article, written by Richard N. Gardner in 1974, outlined the various global structures and international organizations needed to bring about a form of world government.

This kind of article, along with a 2017 piece predicting CIA subversion of the Trump presidency, are why authentic conservatives have always regarded the organization with suspicion and distrust. They understand it was founded for the distinct purpose of opposing “isolationism,” or what might today be described as an “America-First” approach in global affairs.

But the organization has had an impact on both political parties. Haass, whose speaking fee is in the $40,000-$70,000 range, met for free with Trump when he was running for president. Trump said at the time, “…I like him a lot. I have a few people that I really like and respect.”

One can safely assume Trump’s opinion has changed. Indeed, CFR domination of the military-intelligence establishment explains why President Trump has to be considered an enemy of the Deep State.

But what interest did Epstein, an alleged blackmailer, have in the organization? The Post article claims, “In his 15 years as a member of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, Jeffrey Epstein attended only two events — a dinner for big donors in 1998 and a 2002 conversation with Paul O’Neill when he was U.S. treasury secretary during the George W. Bush administration.”

The Cover-Up

This is stated as a matter of fact when no sources are provided for this information. One has to assume it came from a CFR member. And if the information came from a member, can’t we assume, because of the controversial nature of Epstein’s activities, that perhaps this is not the complete truth? After all, wouldn’t the CFR want to play down his involvement with the organization?

Did any CFR members visit Epstein at his various properties? Did they go there to play chess? Was he solicited for donations? By whom?

Billionaire Bill Gates is being hounded (and rightly so) by some media for meeting with Epstein on several occasions. Although he is not listed as a CFR member in the current membership roster, his wife gave a speech to the organization in 2008 and his foundation has contributed to the CFR.

However, except for the Marc Fisher story in the Post, which is of limited value, this “prestigious” organization has gotten off the hook for its acceptance of largesse from Epstein. In response to the Post’s inquiry, a CFR spokesperson said the organization is now “examining ways to allocate resources equivalent to Epstein’s donations” to combat sexual violence and human trafficking.

But where is the investigation of what CFR members may have known about Epstein’s penchant for young girls?

Post reporter Fisher provides limited information about the CFR as a faithful employee of another rich and powerful man, Jeff Bezos, the owner of the paper who was caught in a sex scandal of his own. Bezos owns Amazon, making him one of the richest people in the world. Bezos had to give his ex-wife a big chunk of his fortune when sexually explicit photos were leaked and he was caught in an adulterous affair.

We have to assume we are not getting the entire picture about Epstein and certainly not about Bezos from the Post. While Bezos is not listed as a CFR member, billionaire George Soros is. His money is said to have played a decisive role in the Democratic Party takeover of Virginia on Tuesday.  The Post hails Soros as a philanthropist, but Republicans in the state say the left-wing agenda in Virginia includes gun confiscation, releasing criminals from jail, a “Green New Deal,” and abortion-on-demand until birth.

We can’t assume we will ever get the full picture from the Post or other media about Epstein’s role in the CFR. Post employees who belong to the CFR include David Ignatius, a mouthpiece for the intelligence community, and Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor. Marc Thiessen, a “conservative” columnist associated with the American Enterprise Institute and featured on Fox News, is also a member.

The media have an obvious conflict of interest in covering one of the most powerful organizations in the world.

Nothing to See Here

The headline over the Fisher article was predictably deferential to this powerful group: “Council on Foreign Relations, another beneficiary of Epstein largesse, grapples with how to handle his donations.” It sounds like a mere bookkeeping error, not a sex scandal involving powerful men passing around money and devoted to running the world.

Meanwhile, with the Epstein matter behind them, the “Amazon Post” will get back to the business of trying to destroy the elected president of the United States because he asked a foreign government to keep its promise to fight corruption. It was at a CFR meeting in 2018 that Former Vice President Joe Biden boasted about withholding aid to Ukraine to force the firing of a prosecutor. Richard Haass presided over the meeting.

Perhaps the CFR connection helps explain why the Biden scandal is not a scandal at all.

In the words of former Post journalist Richard Harwood, the CFR and its members “are the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States.” They decide what is news. They decide what is a scandal. And they want Trump out of office.

Who will investigate them?


Saudi Spies Inside Twitter?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

The case actually began in 2013/2014. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a fund for educational scholarships in foreign countries. Social media being so full of international intersections along with having the whole politically correct agenda of employing foreign citizens to enhance global integration, Twitter in this case brought on their own problem.

Twitter fired an engineer after the company was tipped off by intelligence officials that he may have been groomed by the Saudi government.

Saudi Arabia formally starts IPO of oil firm Saudi Aramco | The Seattle Times

The criminal complaint found here has the details. Were these foreign operatives, moles, a troll army or really spies? Perhaps all of that it would seem. Many things can be determined by regular citizens performing full reviews of Twitter accounts including accounts that are bots, fake or where many accounts are owned by the same individual. This is in the public feed. There is also the matter of Direct Messages where more personal detail is found. All collected and analyzed a larger story is revealed. Such is the case here.

In reality, Saudi Arabia is not the only nation performing such activities, you can bet other rogue or friendly nations do the same within social media platforms. In fact, our own government agencies do the very same thing to other nations and worst of all, our own government does the same to Americans and foreign nationals within the borders of the United States. Apply some critical thinking here and read on.

Flipboard: U.S. Charges Former Twitter Employees With ...

In part from Associated Press:

The accounts included those of a popular critic of the government with more than 1 million followers and a news personality. Neither was named.

The complaint also alleged that the employees — whose jobs did not require access to Twitter users’ private information — were rewarded with a designer watch and tens of thousands of dollars funneled into secret bank accounts. Ahmad Abouammo, a U.S. citizen, and Ali Alzabarah, a Saudi citizen, were charged with acting as agents of Saudi Arabia without registering with the U.S. government.

The Saudi government had no immediate comment through its embassy in Washington. Its state-run media did not immediately acknowledge the charges.

The complaint marks the first time that the kingdom, long linked to the U.S. through its massive oil reserves and regional security arrangements, has been accused of spying in America.

The allegations against two former Twitter employees and a third man who ran a social media marketing company that did work for the Saudi royal family comes a little more than a year after the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. The Washington Post columnist and prominent critic of the Saudi government was slain and dismembered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Saudi Arabia under King Salman and Prince Mohammed has aggressively silenced and detained government critics even as it allows women to drive and opens movie theaters in the conservative kingdom.

Prince Mohammed also has been implicated by U.S. officials and a United Nations investigative report in the assassination of Khashoggi. The prince has said he bears ultimate responsibility for what happens in the kingdom’s name, though he denies orchestrating the slaying.

The criminal allegations reveal the extent the Saudi government went to control the flow of information on Twitter, said Adam Coogle, a Middle East researcher with Human Rights Watch.

The platform is the main place for Saudis to express their views, and about a third of the nation’s 30 million people are active users. But the free-wheeling nature of Twitter is a major source of concern for its authoritarian government, Coogle said.

The kingdom has used different tactics to control speech and keep reformers and others from organizing, including employing troll armies to harass and intimidate users online. It has even arrested and imprisoned Twitter users.

The crown prince’s former top adviser, Saud al-Qahtani, who also served as director of the cyber security federation, started the “Black List” hashtag to target critics of the government. He ominously tweeted in 2017 that the government had ways of unmasking anonymous Twitter users.

“If you combine that with what we know about at least these two individuals and what went on in 2014 and into 2015, it’s pretty chilling,” Coogle said.

Al-Qahtani has been sanctioned for his suspected role in orchestrating the brutal killing of Khashoggi. His Twitter account was suspended in September for violating the platform’s manipulation policy.

Twitter acknowledged that it cooperated in the criminal investigation and said in a statement that it restricts access to sensitive account information “to a limited group of trained and vetted employees.”

“We understand the incredible risks faced by many who use Twitter to share their perspectives with the world and to hold those in power accountable,” the statement said. “We have tools in place to protect their privacy and their ability to do their vital work.”

A critic said Twitter didn’t live up to its principle of restricting access to information about private individuals to the smallest possible number of employees.

“If Twitter had implemented this principle, this misappropriation of information would not have been possible,” said Mike Chapple, who teaches cybersecurity at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business. “Social media companies must understand the sensitivity of this information and restrict access to the smallest possible number of employees. Failing to do so puts the privacy, and even the physical safety, of social media users at risk.”

Abouammo was also charged with falsifying documents and making false statements to obstruct FBI investigators — offenses that carry a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison if convicted.

At his appearance in Seattle federal court Wednesday, Abouammo was ordered to remain in custody pending a detention hearing set for Friday.

His lawyer, Christopher Black, declined to comment, as did Abouammo’s wife, who did not give her name.

The complaint said Abouammo, a media partnership manager for Twitter’s Middle East region, and Alzabarah, a site reliability engineer at Twitter, worked with an unnamed Saudi official who leads a charitable organization belonging to a person named Royal Family Member 1.

Prosecutors said a third defendant, a Saudi named Ahmed Almutairi who worked as a social media adviser for the Saudi royal family, acted as an intermediary with the Twitter employees.

The complaint said Almutairi recruited Alzabarah and flew him to Washington, D.C., in the spring of 2015, when a Saudi delegation visited the White House. Based on the context and times mentioned in the complaint, including Alzabarah taking a selfie with the royal while in Washington, it appears Prince Mohammed is that royal. The crown prince had traveled there as part of the delegation when he served as deputy crown prince.

“Within one week of returning to San Francisco, Alzabarah began to access without authorization private data of Twitter users en masse,” the complaint said.

The effort included the user data of over 6,000 Twitter users, including at least 33 usernames for which Saudi Arabian law enforcement had submitted emergency disclosure requests to Twitter, investigators said.

After being confronted by his supervisors at Twitter, Alzabarah acknowledged accessing user data and said he did it out of curiosity, authorities said.

Alzabarah was placed on administrative leave, his work-owned laptop was seized, and he was escorted out of the office. The next day, he flew to Saudi Arabia with his wife and daughter and has not returned to the United States, investigators said.

A warrant for his and Almutairi’s arrests were issued as part of the complaint.