DaddyFresh
Superstar
Maybe that suicide pact is real
RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
RIS had the goods on the dummy since 77
Maybe that suicide pact is real
White House Considering Plan for Relocating Embassy in Israel
Administration plan may provide for a move in the future
Andrew Ackerman
Nov. 30, 2017 2:27 p.m. ET
The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. Photo: jack guez/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
WASHINGTON—The Trump administration is considering a plan to formally recognize Jerusalem as the “undivided” capital of Israel and to move the U.S. Embassy there in the future, U.S. officials said, steps that could trigger Palestinian protests and imperil the restart of a long-stalled peace process.
The Trump administration has begun notifying U.S. embassies overseas about the plan so envoys can inform their host governments and prepare for possible protests. Officials said the plans weren’t final, however, and the U.S. was working through additional legal and policy considerations. A formal announcement could come as early as next week, the officials said.
“The president has always said it is a matter of when, not if,” a White House spokesman said when asked about moving the embassy. “The president is still considering options and we have nothing to announce.”
The disclosures about the potential move come as President Donald Trump faces an early December deadline under U.S. law to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem or sign a presidential waiver to keep it in Tel Aviv.
It was unclear what Mr. Trump will decide on the waiver question, but officials said one option would be to recognize Jerusalem as the capital and announce plans for the embassy move, but postpone the actual relocation for several years. In the interim, the U.S. ambassador to Israel could work from Jerusalem instead of Tel Aviv, the current site of the U.S. Embassy.
An announcement is likely to be taken as an affront by Palestinians, who consider East Jerusalem the capital of a future state.
—Paul Sonne contributed to this article.
The Trump administration has begun notifying U.S. embassies overseas about the plan so envoys can inform their host governments and prepare for possible protests. Officials said the plans weren’t final, however, and the U.S. was working through additional legal and policy considerations. A formal announcement could come as early as next week, the officials said.
“The president has always said it is a matter of when, not if,” a White House spokesman said when asked about moving the embassy. “The president is still considering options and we have nothing to announce.”
The disclosures about the potential move come as President Donald Trump faces an early December deadline under U.S. law to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem or sign a presidential waiver to keep it in Tel Aviv.
It was unclear what Mr. Trump will decide on the waiver question, but officials said one option would be to recognize Jerusalem as the capital and announce plans for the embassy move, but postpone the actual relocation for several years. In the interim, the U.S. ambassador to Israel could work from Jerusalem instead of Tel Aviv, the current site of the U.S. Embassy.
An announcement is likely to be taken as an affront by Palestinians, who consider East Jerusalem the capital of a future state.
—Paul Sonne contributed to this article.
Mueller like: Putin come get ya boy boy he’s all yours :Ayooooo:
:FuturamaFry:
:akademikshuh:
:akademikshuh:
Intelligence veterans blast Tom Cotton as pro-torture, 'partisan,' and 'wholly unfit' to lead the CIA
Natasha Bertrand
- President Donald Trump is weighing a national security shakeup that could involve replacing CIA Director Mike Pompeo with Arkansas Sen.Tom Cotton.
- Several CIA veterans reacted with alarm to the news on Thursday, characterizing Cotton as too partisan and inexperienced to lead the agency and expressing concern over his views on torture.
- "It is bothersome that, so far as one can tell, he knows absolutely nothing about the intelligence community," one former CIA official said.
Several CIA veterans reacted with alarm on Thursday to news that Republican Sen. Tom Cotton could replace Mike Pompeo as head of the intelligence agency within the next two months.
It is unclear whether Cotton, a combat veteran and Senate freshman, would accept the position if nominated by President Donald Trump. Cotton's spokesman said on Thursday that his "focus is on serving Arkansans in the Senate.”
But Trump's chief of staff John Kelly is reportedly spearheading a national security shake-up that would involve installing Pompeo as secretary of state and Cotton as CIA director. Rex Tillerson, whose leadership of the State Department has been criticized by both career department employees and the president, would be ousted.
"This is an awful appointment," said Paul Pillar, a 28-year veteran of the CIA, of Cotton's potential nomination. "Sen.Cotton is a highly ideological individual who is not well-suited to lead an agency part of whose core mission is objective analysis."
Pillar pointed to a letter Cotton wrote to top Iranian leaders in March 2015 warning them against striking a nuclear deal with then-President Barack Obama. The letter was signed by 47 Senate Republicans and infuriated the White House, which viewed it as an inappropriate congressional intervention in sensitive diplomatic negotiations.
"We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei," the letter read.
"It's hard to imagine someone who would do something like that, something so contrary to accepted foreign policy procedure, providing objective leadership on issues related to Iran," Pillar said.
Former CIA analyst Ned Price, who served as a National Security Council spokesman under Obama, shared concerns over the future of the US's relationship with Iran if placed in the hands of Pompeo at the State Department and Cotton at the CIA.
"I certainly think Cotton will continue much of what Pompeo started," Price said, referring to a common perception of Pompeo's CIA leadership as partisan and motivated, at least in part, by loyalty to Trump.
"And with these two at the helm of these institutions, it's much more likely that we'll find ourselves moving towards regime change with Iran," Price added. "The Iran deal is toast — that's a given — but the march to war will become much more viable. It's something they've coordinated on even in their current posts, and it surely will pick up if this comes to pass."
As the New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin noted in a lengthy profile of Cotton published earlier this month, undermining the Iran nuclear deal in an attempt to wholly dismantle it has been a touchstone of Cotton's young Senate career. (He was elected in 2015.)
"I told the President in July that he shouldn't certify that Iran was complying with the agreement,” Cotton told Toobin. "Putting aside the issue of technical compliance or noncompliance, it's clear that the agreement is not in our national interest."
Lack of experience working in intelligence
Beyond Cotton's position on the Iran deal, however, some CIA veterans are nervous about his lack of experience working with the intelligence community.
"He seems bright enough," said former CIA counsel Bob Deitz. "He went to my favorite law school. But it is bothersome that, so far as one can tell, he knows absolutely nothing about the intelligence community. The CIA is not an easy agency to lead because of its varied missions. Of course he may be a quick learner. I hope that is true."
While serving in the Army in 2006, Cotton wrote a letter to three New York Times reporters who broke a story about a classified program run by the CIA and the Treasury Department that tracked the financing of terror networks. He told the reporters that they should be in jail for publishing the details of the program.
"Having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others — laws you have plainly violated," Cotton wrote. "By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars."
As The Daily Beast's Spencer Ackerman noted, Cotton was "plainly wrong about the law."
"Leaking classified material is criminal; publishing it is not," Ackerman wrote.
Former congressional intelligence staffer Mieke Eoyang, now the vice president for the national security program at the think tank Third Way, said on Twitter that one upside to Cotton running the CIA is that he would be forced to suppress his partisan outbursts.
"He'd stop organizing counterproductive Senate letters. He'd have to shut up about his successes. He'd have to take the hit for any intelligence failures," Eoyang said. She added that "classified information restrictions limit what he can say/do."
Controversial views on torture
Others, like longtime CIA intelligence officer Glenn Carle, are concerned about Cotton's views on torture. Cotton told CNN last November that "waterboarding isn't torture," arguing that "Donald Trump is a pretty tough guy and he's ready to make those tough calls" when it comes to the use of controversial and extreme interrogation methods.
In 2015, Cotton said that "the only problem with Guantánamo Bay is there are too many empty beds and cells there right now."
"We should be sending more terrorists there," Cotton said in reference to the infamous detention facility. "As far as I'm concerned, every last one of them can rot in hell. But as long as they can't do that, they can rot in Guantánamo Bay."
Carle, who wrote a book about his involvement in the interrogation of a man believed in the early 2000's to be a top Al-Qaeda member, said that Cotton is "wholly unfit" to be CIA director.
"It will be difficult" for the CIA's career employees "to work under someone who is a zealot and thinks that torture is not torture," Carle said. "Cotton is an ideologue and a partisan, and his views are not only out of the mainstream — they challenge tenets of our core American values."
It is unclear whether Cotton, a combat veteran and Senate freshman, would accept the position if nominated by President Donald Trump. Cotton's spokesman said on Thursday that his "focus is on serving Arkansans in the Senate.”
But Trump's chief of staff John Kelly is reportedly spearheading a national security shake-up that would involve installing Pompeo as secretary of state and Cotton as CIA director. Rex Tillerson, whose leadership of the State Department has been criticized by both career department employees and the president, would be ousted.
"This is an awful appointment," said Paul Pillar, a 28-year veteran of the CIA, of Cotton's potential nomination. "Sen.Cotton is a highly ideological individual who is not well-suited to lead an agency part of whose core mission is objective analysis."
Pillar pointed to a letter Cotton wrote to top Iranian leaders in March 2015 warning them against striking a nuclear deal with then-President Barack Obama. The letter was signed by 47 Senate Republicans and infuriated the White House, which viewed it as an inappropriate congressional intervention in sensitive diplomatic negotiations.
"We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei," the letter read.
"It's hard to imagine someone who would do something like that, something so contrary to accepted foreign policy procedure, providing objective leadership on issues related to Iran," Pillar said.
Former CIA analyst Ned Price, who served as a National Security Council spokesman under Obama, shared concerns over the future of the US's relationship with Iran if placed in the hands of Pompeo at the State Department and Cotton at the CIA.
"I certainly think Cotton will continue much of what Pompeo started," Price said, referring to a common perception of Pompeo's CIA leadership as partisan and motivated, at least in part, by loyalty to Trump.
"And with these two at the helm of these institutions, it's much more likely that we'll find ourselves moving towards regime change with Iran," Price added. "The Iran deal is toast — that's a given — but the march to war will become much more viable. It's something they've coordinated on even in their current posts, and it surely will pick up if this comes to pass."
As the New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin noted in a lengthy profile of Cotton published earlier this month, undermining the Iran nuclear deal in an attempt to wholly dismantle it has been a touchstone of Cotton's young Senate career. (He was elected in 2015.)
"I told the President in July that he shouldn't certify that Iran was complying with the agreement,” Cotton told Toobin. "Putting aside the issue of technical compliance or noncompliance, it's clear that the agreement is not in our national interest."
Lack of experience working in intelligence
Beyond Cotton's position on the Iran deal, however, some CIA veterans are nervous about his lack of experience working with the intelligence community.
"He seems bright enough," said former CIA counsel Bob Deitz. "He went to my favorite law school. But it is bothersome that, so far as one can tell, he knows absolutely nothing about the intelligence community. The CIA is not an easy agency to lead because of its varied missions. Of course he may be a quick learner. I hope that is true."
While serving in the Army in 2006, Cotton wrote a letter to three New York Times reporters who broke a story about a classified program run by the CIA and the Treasury Department that tracked the financing of terror networks. He told the reporters that they should be in jail for publishing the details of the program.
"Having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others — laws you have plainly violated," Cotton wrote. "By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars."
As The Daily Beast's Spencer Ackerman noted, Cotton was "plainly wrong about the law."
"Leaking classified material is criminal; publishing it is not," Ackerman wrote.
Former congressional intelligence staffer Mieke Eoyang, now the vice president for the national security program at the think tank Third Way, said on Twitter that one upside to Cotton running the CIA is that he would be forced to suppress his partisan outbursts.
"He'd stop organizing counterproductive Senate letters. He'd have to shut up about his successes. He'd have to take the hit for any intelligence failures," Eoyang said. She added that "classified information restrictions limit what he can say/do."
Controversial views on torture
Others, like longtime CIA intelligence officer Glenn Carle, are concerned about Cotton's views on torture. Cotton told CNN last November that "waterboarding isn't torture," arguing that "Donald Trump is a pretty tough guy and he's ready to make those tough calls" when it comes to the use of controversial and extreme interrogation methods.
In 2015, Cotton said that "the only problem with Guantánamo Bay is there are too many empty beds and cells there right now."
"We should be sending more terrorists there," Cotton said in reference to the infamous detention facility. "As far as I'm concerned, every last one of them can rot in hell. But as long as they can't do that, they can rot in Guantánamo Bay."
Carle, who wrote a book about his involvement in the interrogation of a man believed in the early 2000's to be a top Al-Qaeda member, said that Cotton is "wholly unfit" to be CIA director.
"It will be difficult" for the CIA's career employees "to work under someone who is a zealot and thinks that torture is not torture," Carle said. "Cotton is an ideologue and a partisan, and his views are not only out of the mainstream — they challenge tenets of our core American values."
Last edited:
Putin’s proposal for Ukraine is another trap for Trump
After playing into Russia’s hands on Syria, the Trump administration now risks repeating the error in Ukraine, where diplomatic discussions over a Russian initiative are heating up. Moscow’s plan is to legitimize its invasion and control over parts of two eastern provinces by drawing President Trump into another bad deal.
Vladimir Putin’s pattern is familiar. He uses his military to escalate fighting on the ground and then approaches the West with a proposal sold as de-escalation. Appealing to European and U.S. desires for peace without Western intervention, the Russian president puts forward an alleged compromise. But in the details, Putin’s proposals are really designed to divide his adversaries and cement his gains.
Such was the case in September, when Putin introduced a proposal for “peacekeepers” inside eastern Ukraine, where Russia continues to fuel a violent separatist uprising that has resulted in more than 10,000 deaths and displaced more than 1.5 million people since 2014. Ukraine, European powers and the United States all decided to engage Moscow on the idea.
But as Ukraine’s foreign minister, Pavlo Klimkin, told me at the recent Halifax International Security Forum, Putin’s plan really isn’t for “peacekeepers” at all. He is proposing that international troops deploy only to protect the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s special monitoring mission members in eastern Ukraine.
“The idea of a peacekeeping mission is a serious one,” Klimkin said. “But the Russian proposal of a protection mission doesn’t make any sense at all.”
Putin, Assad meet in Russia
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin for Russia's efforts "in saving" Syria during a meeting in Sochi, Russia on Nov. 20.(Kremlin)
For one thing, the original Russian proposal was to deploy these forces along the line of contact between the Ukraine military and separatist forces. As the Ukrainian government sees it, that is simply Putin’s way of fortifying the reality that Russia created on the ground.
Nevertheless, Ukraine’s international supporters are taking the proposal seriously. German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Putin in September and persuaded him to yield on one point; Putin agreed the international force could be deployed not just along the contact line. That gave Western governments confidence a genuine negotiation with Moscow was possible.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke about the idea with Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko on Nov. 4. Kurt Volker, the Trump administration’s part-time special envoy for Ukraine, met with his Russian counterpart Vladislav Surkov on Nov. 13 and proposed a counterplan.
The U.S. idea, Volker told me, is to create a true U.N. peacekeeping force that would have not only free rein but also security authority throughout contested areas. The force must have access to the Ukraine-Russia border and not have any Russian personnel in it, he said.
Moscow rejected 26 out of 29 of the paragraphs in Volker’s proposal. But Volker said he intends to keep negotiating. He said the peacekeeping plan represents the best hope to return to Minsk II, a peace agreement that both Ukraine and Russia pledged to follow.
That process is stalled primarily because Russia won’t honor provisions mandating a cease-fire, the removal of its heavy weapons from eastern Ukraine and access to the border. Russia still won’t even acknowledge that it has forces on the ground in eastern Ukraine, much less remove them.
But the U.S. strategy is based on the assumption that Putin is looking for — or at least considering — a way out of his financial and military commitments in eastern Ukraine. If Putin’s long-term goal is to create a pro-Moscow Ukraine, his continued interference is having the opposite effect, Volker said.
“What we are trying to do is clarify the options,” Volker said. “If they want to dig in, they can, but it’s going to cost a lot. If they want to move on, it can be something we all agree on and we can find a way to make that work out.”
Ukraine has responsibilities under Minsk as well, including holding local elections in eastern Ukraine, giving the region special status and granting amnesty for the separatists. That can happen only if Putin holds up his end.
But if Putin’s goal is to stay in Ukraine and keep the country destabilized, prevent it from joining European institutions and maintain control over a buffer zone, he will never agree to a peacekeeping mission that meets Ukraine or Western conditions.
Most likely Putin is repeating his strategy in Syria, which was to engage in Kabuki diplomacy with the United States to buy time to consolidate battlefield gains he has no intention of giving up. Trump — and before him, President Barack Obama — went along with it, ensuring that the next phase of the conflict plays out on Russia’s terms.
Trump and Putin spoke Nov. 21 and “discussed how to implement a lasting peace in Ukraine,” according to the White House. Trump should pursue that peace, but not on Putin’s terms.
Read more from Josh Rogin’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Read more here:
Ian Bateson: Ukraine desperately needs peace. Can peacekeepers help?
Carl Bildt: Putin’s new Ukraine gambit suggests a shift in the Kremlin
Josh Rogin: Trump administration stalled on whether to arm Ukraine
Anne Applebaum: Yes, Rex Tillerson, U.S. taxpayers should care about Ukraine. Here’s why.
Vladimir Putin’s pattern is familiar. He uses his military to escalate fighting on the ground and then approaches the West with a proposal sold as de-escalation. Appealing to European and U.S. desires for peace without Western intervention, the Russian president puts forward an alleged compromise. But in the details, Putin’s proposals are really designed to divide his adversaries and cement his gains.
Such was the case in September, when Putin introduced a proposal for “peacekeepers” inside eastern Ukraine, where Russia continues to fuel a violent separatist uprising that has resulted in more than 10,000 deaths and displaced more than 1.5 million people since 2014. Ukraine, European powers and the United States all decided to engage Moscow on the idea.
But as Ukraine’s foreign minister, Pavlo Klimkin, told me at the recent Halifax International Security Forum, Putin’s plan really isn’t for “peacekeepers” at all. He is proposing that international troops deploy only to protect the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s special monitoring mission members in eastern Ukraine.
“The idea of a peacekeeping mission is a serious one,” Klimkin said. “But the Russian proposal of a protection mission doesn’t make any sense at all.”
Putin, Assad meet in Russia
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin for Russia's efforts "in saving" Syria during a meeting in Sochi, Russia on Nov. 20.(Kremlin)
For one thing, the original Russian proposal was to deploy these forces along the line of contact between the Ukraine military and separatist forces. As the Ukrainian government sees it, that is simply Putin’s way of fortifying the reality that Russia created on the ground.
Nevertheless, Ukraine’s international supporters are taking the proposal seriously. German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Putin in September and persuaded him to yield on one point; Putin agreed the international force could be deployed not just along the contact line. That gave Western governments confidence a genuine negotiation with Moscow was possible.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke about the idea with Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko on Nov. 4. Kurt Volker, the Trump administration’s part-time special envoy for Ukraine, met with his Russian counterpart Vladislav Surkov on Nov. 13 and proposed a counterplan.
The U.S. idea, Volker told me, is to create a true U.N. peacekeeping force that would have not only free rein but also security authority throughout contested areas. The force must have access to the Ukraine-Russia border and not have any Russian personnel in it, he said.
Moscow rejected 26 out of 29 of the paragraphs in Volker’s proposal. But Volker said he intends to keep negotiating. He said the peacekeeping plan represents the best hope to return to Minsk II, a peace agreement that both Ukraine and Russia pledged to follow.
That process is stalled primarily because Russia won’t honor provisions mandating a cease-fire, the removal of its heavy weapons from eastern Ukraine and access to the border. Russia still won’t even acknowledge that it has forces on the ground in eastern Ukraine, much less remove them.
But the U.S. strategy is based on the assumption that Putin is looking for — or at least considering — a way out of his financial and military commitments in eastern Ukraine. If Putin’s long-term goal is to create a pro-Moscow Ukraine, his continued interference is having the opposite effect, Volker said.
“What we are trying to do is clarify the options,” Volker said. “If they want to dig in, they can, but it’s going to cost a lot. If they want to move on, it can be something we all agree on and we can find a way to make that work out.”
Ukraine has responsibilities under Minsk as well, including holding local elections in eastern Ukraine, giving the region special status and granting amnesty for the separatists. That can happen only if Putin holds up his end.
But if Putin’s goal is to stay in Ukraine and keep the country destabilized, prevent it from joining European institutions and maintain control over a buffer zone, he will never agree to a peacekeeping mission that meets Ukraine or Western conditions.
Most likely Putin is repeating his strategy in Syria, which was to engage in Kabuki diplomacy with the United States to buy time to consolidate battlefield gains he has no intention of giving up. Trump — and before him, President Barack Obama — went along with it, ensuring that the next phase of the conflict plays out on Russia’s terms.
Trump and Putin spoke Nov. 21 and “discussed how to implement a lasting peace in Ukraine,” according to the White House. Trump should pursue that peace, but not on Putin’s terms.
Read more from Josh Rogin’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Read more here:
Ian Bateson: Ukraine desperately needs peace. Can peacekeepers help?
Carl Bildt: Putin’s new Ukraine gambit suggests a shift in the Kremlin
Josh Rogin: Trump administration stalled on whether to arm Ukraine
Anne Applebaum: Yes, Rex Tillerson, U.S. taxpayers should care about Ukraine. Here’s why.
Dorian Breh
Veteran
why it's Republican presidents (RR, GWB, DJT) in office with dementia but not the Russian?
oh cuz their leader is actually former military rather than false flagging rich guys or actors
oh cuz their leader is actually former military rather than false flagging rich guys or actors
Hate to admit it but this quote from the article is right.
“He spoke at the Republican National Convention last year, and gave a speech in Washington at the National Press Club in October 2016 laying out the case for Trump, arguing that “what Trump represents isn't crazy and it’s not going away” and that other politicians were merely “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.”
At least the first part is fact and the second part is the perception that drives the first part that is fact.
I’ve been listening to BBC’s documentary podcast on “illiberal democracies” and one thing that struck me is not the obvious using racial/culture issues to drive for a vote. But particularly in Poland, the current leader was originally pretty liberal in the European sense and is now a right wing authoritarian. But that is not what was enlightening about the story. It’s that these guys are simultaneously going right on social issues BUT going LEFT on economic issues, even more so than the official leftist opposition and it’s a fatal combination that is keeping these people afloat by their approval numbers. For example in Poland the government is getting popular support for financial rewards to families and social benefits to families with children based on how many children they have. They interviewed a family who would usually be described as liberal praising the current government for this particular policy and echoed the same sentiments a lot of leftists in the states have which is they feel that unfortunately the opposition party is too focused on government machinations and not on what the average pole cares about. The left globally got to figure out how to counter this.
It’s not exactly the same here because trump only knew how to use the rhetoric during the campaign but does everything traditionally republican in fukking the middle class. But the point is, trump was a vehicle for Bannon’s socially far right but almost leftist economic ideas to some degree. Even if trump is gone, this is a dangerous ideology because economically people can be placated with liberal economic policies while the government slowly strips the rights of not just the minorities who are blamed but EVERYONE. It’s the far right cultural shifts that makes people says “ well I have nothing to hide” while the NSA and government violates their constitutional rights via the patriot act and the NSA spy program.
Imagine this weapon in the hands of someone smarter than trump. It’s a scary sight.
Basically this is what I've been saying for a while.
People like a lot of leftist economics...UNTIL non-white people have a chance to get those same benefits.
I don't fukk with Kevin Williamson or The National Review like that...but this encapsulates this:
The Whitest Privilege
Milton Friedman also said the same thing:
danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: Would the Scandinavian model fit the United States?
The downside of diversity
Socialism for white people
States With Large Black Populations Are Stingier With Government Benefits
Welfare: A White Secret
@DonKnock @SJUGrad13 @88m3 @wire28 @smitty22 @Reality @fact @Hood Critic @ExodusNirvana @Blessed Is the Man @THE MACHINE @OneManGang @dtownreppin214 @JKFrazier @tmonster @blotter @BigMoneyGrip @Soymuscle Mike @.r. @GinaThatAintNoDamnPuppy! @Cali_livin @GnauzBookOfRhymes @Dracudiddy
Last edited:
RUDY...GO GET A SWITCH.
Crook Claims Rudy Giuliani and Michael Mukasey Tried to Broker U.S.-Turkey Prisoner Swap
Turkish businessman Reza Zarrab flipped for the feds and told a court that President Trump's pals tried to get him out of an American jail.
Sebnem Coskun/Getty
Rudy Giuliani and Michael Mukasey tried to broker a prisoner exchange between the United States and Turkey to free their Turkish client, Reza Zarrab, he testified in Manhattan federal court Wednesday.
Zarrab said on the stand he hired lawyers to attempt to negotiate a prisoner exchange between the U.S. and Turkey “within the legal limits,” but that they were unsuccessful. He did not name the attorneys, but Giuliani and Mukasey were previously identified as the lawyers working to strike a diplomatic deal for Zarrab.
Zarrab, a Turkish gold trader, was the architect and main facilitator of a cash-for-gold scheme to help Turkey buy Iranian oil and evade sanctions.
Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, is a long-time friend of Trump who was considered for several Cabinet posts. Mukasey was attorney general under President George W. Bush.
Giuliani and Mukasey avoided mentioning the “central role” of Iran in the charges against Zarrab on filings submitted to the court about their work and said the case had no serious implications for U.S. national security. Judge Richard Berman slammed the omissions as “disingenuous” earlier this year. (Giuliani previously called Iranians “suicidal homicidal maniacs.”)
It is not known who the American in Turkish custody was, but Ankara has been cracking down on Americans since an attempted coup in 2016.
In one instance, an American journalist arrested at the Turkish-Syrian border was told by a judge that it was “all your government’s fault.” Other American citizens, and Turkish nationals working for American embassies, have been arrested and accused of links to Gulen and his followers. They include an American pastor and a NASA physicist with dual citizenship.
Prosecutors on Tuesday revealed that Zarrab flipped and was cooperating with authorities in the case against co-defendant Mehmet Hakan Atilla, a former state bank deputy general manager, who is also charged with evading sanctions.
On Wednesday, Zarrab also admitted to bribing a former Turkish minister of the economy with more than €45 million so he could trade gold with Iran in spite of sanctions.
"He asked about the profit margins, and he said, I can broker this providing there's a profit share, 50-50," Zarrab testified through a translator.
Zafer Caglayan, the former economy minister, was charged in the case in September.
The gold trader also outlined for the jury two different schemes for conducting business. In one drawing, he explained how a regular gold trade works. In the other, he outlined how he used his own companies and Turkish banks to facilitate the Iranian oil sales.
Zarrab's testimony over as many as three days in the trial is expected to shed light on the far-reaching sanction dodge scheme, and may even implicate high-ranking Turkish officials.
The allegations have roots in Turkey's 2013 corruption scandal, which alleged that top Turkish ministers took bribes to sign off on the scheme. The possibility of domestic scandal has also led Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was the prime minister in 2013, to attempt to cajole the US government into releasing Zarrab without trial.
Zarrab's plea, in which he admitted to seven different charges, also raised questions about whether he may be cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump administration.
As reported earlier this month, Zarrab's release was allegedly one of the requests floated to former national security advisor Michael Flynn in a December 2016 meeting with Turkish representatives. Mueller is reportedly investigating their $15 million offer to Flynn in exchange for freeing Zarrab and kidnapping exiled Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen.
@DonKnock @SJUGrad13 @88m3 @wire28 @smitty22 @Reality @fact @Hood Critic @ExodusNirvana @Blessed Is the Man @THE MACHINE @OneManGang @dtownreppin214 @JKFrazier @tmonster @blotter @BigMoneyGrip @Soymuscle Mike @.r. @GinaThatAintNoDamnPuppy! @Cali_livin @GnauzBookOfRhymes @Dracudiddy
Last edited: