There are many organizations doing terrific work around the world helping people in need. I’ve listed a few of the agencies involved in disaster relief and assistance to refugees. The many conflicts around the world have left many without food or shelter. My list:
International Rescue Committee
Dave
This blog follows my prior blog on terrorism. Hezbollah has been considered a terrorist group by some countries, and a political group by others. In no way should it be lumped together with Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
It was unnecessary to explain why Al-Qaeda and ISIS are classified as terrorists organizations as their actions make this abundantly clear. Same goes for Boko Haram. and Al-Shabaab, equally evil and destructive. No country supports any of these groups. Individuals within some countries find ways to support terrorist activities. ISIS found many ways to support its organization, from taking over oil fields and selling oil, to looting antiquities and selling them. Boko Haram and ISIS sold captured women as “brides.” These groups are truly defiling the religion of Islam.
Now, Hezbollah is different in its origin. It originated in defense of Lebanon, at least from the Muslim’s perspective. From the Israel’s perspective, this invasion was the only alternative to ending the attacks by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO originated as a group to liberate the country of Palestine from Israel through armed struggle. It was founded in 1964. After being attacked in Jordan, the PLO sought refuge in south Lebanon. The PLO continued to attack Israel which retaliated with air strikes into southern Lebanon. The Israel and the US in 1982 considered the PLO a terrorist organization. The PLO as Yasser Arafat as its leader relocated in 1982 to Tripoli, located in the more northern area of Lebanon.
I watched an Israeli commentator on television explain, “Hezbollah is something we created.” I would never go this far, but Hezbollah certainly arose as a resistance militant group , after Israel occupied southern Lebanon. After the Israel invasion of Lebanon, Iran saw an opportunity to strengthen its hand in Lebanon, by consolidating the Shi’a militants into united party.
40 Years of Peace gone in four months
There is no question that Israel through it’s military force, was determined to join with the Christian (Maronite) militants in south Lebanon (“Lebanon Free State”), and create an “Israeli friendly” country to its north. From the Muslim perspective, they installed a puppet government controlling Beirut. According to Wikipedia:
By expelling the PLO, removing Syrian influence over Lebanon, and installing a pro-Israeli Christian government led by President Bachir Gemayel, Israel hoped to sign a treaty which Menachem Begin promised would give Israel “forty years of peace.”
The Maronites Christian population has been estimated to be nearly 22% of the Lebanon’s population. Begin’s plan began to fail with the assassination of Gemayel in September 1982 and begun the Lebanese civil war.
Lebanon Civil War (1982 to 1990) and Hezbolla emerges to an organization to defend Shi’a Muslims against Occupation by Israel
The civil war starting in 1982 in Lebanon was a proxy fight on a large scale, very similar to the conflict today in Syria. Iran funded Hezbollah, to fight on behalf of Shi’a Muslims. Israel supported the Lebanon Free Army formed by the Maronite Christians. Outside countries were picking their proxies to fight in the Lebanon war.
According to Wikipedia:
Hezbollah was founded in the early 1980s as part of an Iranian effort to aggregate a variety of militant Lebanese Shi’a groups under one roof…
Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to harass the Israeli occupation. Its leaders were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of 1,500 Revolutionary Guards that arrived from Iran with permission from the Syrian government,[30] which was in occupation of Lebanon at the time. Hezbollah’s 1985 manifesto listed its objectives as the expulsion of “the Americans, the French and their allies definitely from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity on our land”, submission of the Phalangists to “just power” and bringing them to justice “for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians”, and permitting “all the sons of our people” to choose the form of government they want, while calling on them to “pick the option of Islamic government”.[31] Hezbollah waged a guerrilla campaign in South Lebanon and as a result, Israel withdrew from Lebanon on 24 May 2000, and SLA collapsed and surrendered.
This is the historical context of Hezbollah. Hezbollah can claim they liberated south Lebanon from Israeli control. As ironic as it might seem to non-Arab countries, it is Israel which is portrayed as the terrorist state, and not Hezbollah. Iran, according to Wikipedia, was responsible for creating unity among groups resisting the South Lebanon Army. Much of this support was for weapons and trained military forces.
The civil war in Lebanon was brutal and left the capital devastated. There were approximately 120,000 fatalities. I have seen it first hand, as one of the bullet ridden buildings was left standing in Beirut after the reconstruction. There are Shi’a and Sunni Muslims in Lebanon, in addition to the Christian population. The list of belligerent groups is listed in Wikipedia.
It was easy for Syria’s military to enter the war given the chaos and violence in Beirut. They certainly had an interest of not having a flood of refugees come into their country and have country aligned with the Christians and Israel on their border. They could claim they were simply helping Lebanon defend itself from Israeli aggression. An peace agreement was finally reached in 1990, which mandated the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. Since the Taif agreement, Lebanon has several more conflicts, but nothing in comparison to the civil war. See links on Lebanon and the civil war for more information. At present, there is a delicate balance between the various secular groups. The government is basically a power sharing arrangement with a Muslim Prime Minister (Hariri) and a Christian President (Aoun).
Hezbollah Today
You do not hear of Hezbollah being accused of or claiming responsibility for terror attacks in the US, Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Yet, right wing groups have vehemently attacked Hezbollah as a highly dangerous terrorist organization, controlled by Iran. This is politics. Conservative Republicans routinely criticized the Obama administration for the Nuclear Deal which they considered would greatly increase Iran’s support of terrorist activities, primarily Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the governments of the United States, Israel, Canada, the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, along with its military/security wing by the United Kingdom, Australia and the European Union (Wikipedia).
Israel is the most vocal on their hate of Hezbollah. They correctly state the Hezbollah is responsible for the deaths of many Israel citizens. However, Israel has been responsible for many civilian deaths. In the conflicts between Israel and southern Lebanon, it is sometimes difficult to say who is most responsible, but civilian deaths result on both sides.
Hezbollah’s allies according to Wikipedia are Iran, Syria, Iraq, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela. Not a particularly nice group of friends! The only country willing to support Hezbollah is Iran. The headquarters of Hezbollah are in Beirut, Lebanon.
Any armed group outside government control would be considered a threat to an established government. There is no question that Hezbollah has weapons, and is organized as a Shi’a militia. Thus, the “military wing” of Hezbollah is condemned by many countries. However, the origins and intent of Hezbollah is very different from the terrorist organizations which we are currently battling. Those who feel that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, would label it a “resistance force” against Israel aggression.
Hezbollah is an anti-Zionism organization, but denies they are anti-Semitic. The anti-Zionism ideology typically begins with the idea that Israel was created by the United Nations in 1948, and resulted in the displacement of many Palestinians from their homeland. Muslims and Jews have lived in peace for centuries. The anti-Zionist ideology blames the arrival of European Jews after World War II as the origins between the conflicts. They consider Zionism an expansionary philosophy, giving the country of Israel the control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip based on biblical references. As stated in the 2011 BBC article (see links below)
Hezbollah is committed to the destruction of Israel but it has also made statements indicating it would accept a two-state solution if the Palestinians agreed to it.
This is an obvious contradiction. But, having lived in the Middle East, I’m pretty used to this being acceptable.
The condemnation by the Gulf Cooperative Council of Hezbollah occurred in March 2016, even though Hezbollah had existed since 1984. This likely had more to do with Saudi Arabia’s conflicts with Iran, which also has strong secular basis (Saudi Arabia is mainly Sunni, Iran is mainly Shi’a). Interestingly, Iraq’s foreign minister came to the defense of Hezbollah in 2016, as follows:
Hezbollah “have preserved Arab dignity” and those who accuse them of being terrorists are terrorists themselves.
The Arab Spring uprisings have ended terribly in so many countries. Hezbollah’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood (remember this is a Sunni organization) is another reason the GCC member states, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt condemn Hezbollah.
Hezbollah has been accused of being involved in many violent attacks including the assassination of PM Rafic Hariri. See link on Hezbollah from Wikipedia.
Hezbollah’s Social Services
As per Wikipedia:
Hezbollah organizes an extensive social development program and runs hospitals, news services, educational facilities, and encouragement of Nikah mut‘ah.[126][141] One of its established institutions, Jihad Al Binna’s Reconstruction Campaign, is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructure development projects in Lebanon.[142] Hezbollah has set up a Martyr’s Institute (Al-Shahid Social Association), which guarantees to provide living and education expenses “for the families of fighters who die” in battle.[128] An IRIN news report of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs noted:
Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings – it also boasts an extensive social development program. Hezbollah currently operates at least four hospitals, twelve clinics, twelve schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance program. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country’s private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members.[126]
According to CNN, “Hezbollah did everything that a government should do, from collecting the garbage to running hospitals and repairing schools.”[143] In July 2006, during the war with Israel, when there was no running water in Beirut, Hezbollah was arranging supplies around the city. Lebanese Shiites “see Hezbollah as a political movement and a social service provider as much as it is a militia.”[143] Hezbollah also rewards its guerilla members who have been wounded in battle by taking them to Hezbollah-run amusement parks.[144]
Hezbollah is, therefore, deeply embedded in the Lebanese society.[30]
Recent Events – Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salam and Trump’s actions
The ascent of Mohamed bin Salam as Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, has greatly increase the rift between the Sunni gulf coast countries and Iran, which is predominately Shi’a. Hezbollah and Hamas will be lumped together with all well known terrorist groups, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda in their united fight against terrorism. President Donald Trump was played by the Saudi hosts in his trip to Saudi Arabia, bu a secular attack on Iran.
The most bizarre event recently was the resignation of Lebanon PM Hariri in Saudi Arabia, then his “unresignation” a few weeks later. Technically, he’s putting his resignation on hold. He is not denouncing Hezbollah.
It is my prediction that Iraq will in the future, distance themselves from Saudi Arabia’s efforts, and seek improving relations with Lebanon, including Hezbollah.
Whether Hezbollah militias can someday be abandoned, and a political party based on social services, is anyone’s guess. Trump’s recent action to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, was a major setback to finding a peace agreement between Palestine and Israel, It may further push Hezbollah to continue to be a militant force of resistance to what they perceive as Zionism and Israel expansionary policies.
Just as I was ready to post this, Saudi Arabia claim they shot down a missile fired by Houthi militants aimed at Riyadh, capital of Saudi Arabia. There have been other recent missile launches against Saudi Arabia. The air strikes on Houthi rebels by Saudi Arabia have resulted in many civilian fatalities, so this is why they are retaliating.
The increased violence is extremely unfortunate, as there is a severe humanitarian crisis in Yemen with famine and disease, despite efforts by international aid agencies. Numerous obstacles including the Saudi Arabia’s blockade has limited assistance. Saudi’s contend they are not just at war with the Houthi rebels, but with Hezbollah and their number one supporter, Iran, as part of an overall campaign against terrorism.
Unfortunately, these conflicts just seem to get bigger and more polarized. And the civilian fatalities continue to rise.
It is very difficult to write a short blog on Hezbollah. My next blog will be shorter, just on the aid agencies which help the victims of conflict around the world.
Stay tuned,
Dave
Links:
NYT: Lebanon’s Vanishing Prime Minister Is Back at Work. Now What?
Wikipedia: Hezbollah
Wikipedia: Lebanon Civil War
Wikipedia: Palestine Liberation Organization
Wikipedia: Lebanon
Wikipedia: Oslo 1 Accord
Wikipedia: Mohammed bin Salman
Very good commentary from the NYT, but you have to understand the players, secular nature of these conflicts, and their history.
NYT: The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy
Note: I’ve made extensive use of Wikipedia. I find their information concise and factual.
There are many other sources of information, and it would be impossible to list all of them.
I’ve been working on a blog on Hezbollah. It’s a very hot button issue. Israel consider Hezbollah as one of the worst terrorist groups. The US also condemns Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Other countries do not and in particular Lebanon has been trying to co-exist with the presence of Hezbollah. The US accuses Iran of supporting Hezbollah. Hezbollah militia fought against ISIS in Syria in the destruction of Raqqa. But, I’m really jumping ahead in this blog.
It is tempting to lump all groups with an extensive cache of arms as terrorist organizations. I would more likely term such organizations as collectives of angry people who are contemplating acts of violence. Even in the US, there are organizations which purchase and store arms as they believe they are part of a larger resistance movement their rights as citizens. It is in fact, their constitutional right to store arms in defense of their home.
On the Wikipedia site, it is stated no single accepted definition of terrorism. I’ve provided two links on this subject. However, Wikipedia provides one “broad” definition as follows:
Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror, or fear, to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence against peacetime targets or in war against non-combatants. The terms “terrorist” and “terrorism” originated during the French Revolution of the late 18th century but gained mainstream popularity during the U.S. Presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981–89) after the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and again after the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. in September 2001 and on Bali in October 2002.
The September 2001 is obviously the “9/11” attack on the US by Al-Qaeda, and it was indiscriminate as the action targeted anyone who was in the buildings at the time. I would include in the definition that terrorist organizations plan violent acts intended to cause large scale loss of human life. The broad definition would include both non-state and state organized terrorists.
Further, Wikipedia states their definition is hardly rigorous or universally accepted as follows:
There is no commonly accepted definition of “terrorism”.[7][8] Being a charged term, with the connotation of something “morally wrong”, it is often used, both by governments and non-state groups, to abuse or denounce opposing groups.[9][10][4][11][8] Broad categories of political organisations have been claimed to have been involved in terrorism to further their objectives, including right-wing and left-wing political organisations, nationalist groups, religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[12] Terrorism-related legislation has been adopted in various states, regarding “terrorism” as a crime.[13][14] There is no universal agreement as to whether or not “terrorism”, in some definition, should be regarded as a war crime.[14][15]
Regardless of how one wishes to define terrorism, the horrific actions of ISIS, Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab, clearly make them the worst terrorist groups. All countries repudiate the actions of these organizations. Similarly, the actions of Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups are repudiated by all countries. For these groups, the “I know it when I see it” (Potter, 1964, US Supreme Court) test works well for these groups, but it doesn’t help in many other cases. This is exactly the point made in the Wikipedia’s summary.
Political groups and individuals within many Arab countries and Iran, may be extremely anti-American, but this can be simply rhetoric and does not mean they support terrorism. Further complications come into play when there are groups of extremist groups within a country, and governments for political reasons, are not making a priority to arrest or otherwise destroy extremist groups. Wealthy individuals may support ISIS or al-Qaeda groups within many countries. Should the governments be held responsible? They may allow individuals accused of terrorist activities to live within their country. Is that mean the country is complicit in terrorism?
Fethullah Gulen has been accused of acts of terrorism by the Turkish government. He lives in Pennsylvania and the Turkish government wants him deported to stand trial. The US has demanded the evidence against Gulen before extraditing him. He is 76 years old and in fact has denounced terrorism as a violation of his faith as follows:
Gülen has condemned terrorism.[135] He warns against the phenomenon of arbitrary violence and aggression against civilians and said that it “has no place in Islam”. He wrote a condemnation article in the Washington Post on September 12, 2001, one day after the September 11 attacks, and stated that “A Muslim can not be a terrorist, nor can a terrorist be a true Muslim.”[136][137] Gülen lamented the “hijacking of Islam” by terrorists.[78]
The extradition of Fethullah Gulen for terrorism is weak, and the US so far has taken no action, except to request more evidence.
As I was completing this blog, President Erdogan invoked the terrorist label, on condemning Israel, in response to Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as its capital, as follows:
“Israel is a state of occupation and a terror state,” Erdoğan said in a speech in the Central Anatolian province of Sivas on Dec. 10, vowing that Turkey “will not leave Jerusalem to the consciousness of a child-killer state.”
The west bank and Gaza strip are areas that Israel took by force during the Six Day war in 1967.
During the Syrian civil war, President Bashir Assad would claim that the US and other European countries were assisting terrorist, as we were training and providing arms to groups against the Assad regime. However, the US was also fighting against ISIS in Syria, with the support of Syrian government. So what were we to Assad – enemy or friend?
When there is a rebellion within a country, immediately the leader of the country will denounce the rebel groups as traitors, or agents of foreign governments. This is exactly what the President Gaddafi did in 2011 during the Libyan civil war. The US and NATO supported the rebel group with air support.
The Yemen civil war is a clash between the Houthi rebels and the Yemen government. By their rhetoric and slogans, the Houthi would seem just as radical as Al-Qaeda or ISIS. Written in Arabic on their flag:
“The God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam”
However, the Houthi appear to simply want to take over Yemen, not wreck havoc in the western world. The Houthi’s gained control in 2014 to 2015, through a coup d’etat. What sparked the uprising in 2014, was an end to government subsidies on fuel.
The Houthi have committed acts of indiscriminate violence, hence it would be easy to call them terrorists by the broad definition. Yet the coalition of countries fighting against the Houthi, with air strikes conducted by Saudi Arabia, has acted equally brutal bombing a Doctors without Frontiers hospital (October 13, 2016) and other civilian targets.
Since the Saudi-led coalition began military operations against Ansar Allah on 26 March 2015, Saudi-led coalition airstrikes unlawfully struck hospitals and other facilities run by aid organizations, according to Human Rights Watch.[352] Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) medical facilities in Yemen were attacked four times in three months.[353] On 26 October 2015, HRW documented six Saudi-led airstrikes which bombed a MSF hospital in Haydan district (Sa’dah Governorate), wounding two patients.[352][353][354] An Saudi-led coalition airstrike then hit a MSF mobile clinic on 2 December 2015, in Al Houban district (Taizz). Eight people were wounded, including two MSF staff members, and one other civilian nearby was killed. On 10 January 2016, six people were killed and seven wounded when a hospital in Sa’ada was hit by a projectile.[352][353] MSF said it could not confirm whether the hospital was hit in an air strike by warplanes of the Saudi-led coalition, or by a rocket fired from the ground, and at least one other landed nearby.[352][355] On 21 January 2016, an MSF ambulance was hit by an airstrike. Seven people were killed and dozens were wounded.[352][353]
MSF’s director of operations Raquel Ayora said: “The way war is being waged in Yemen is causing enormous suffering and shows that the warring parties do not recognise or respect the protected status of hospitals and medical facilities. We witness the devastating consequences of this on people trapped in conflict zones on a daily basis. Nothing has been spared – not even hospitals, even though medical facilities are explicitly protected by international humanitarian law.”[353]
Iran is accused of supporting the Houthi, which Iran denies. Iran was instrumental in the formation of Hezbollah, which they consider is a group defending the borders of Lebanon and Syria from Israeli aggression. Yet Iran joined with others in the war against ISIS. Both Hezbollah and the Houthi’s are Shi’a organization, so they would never align themselves with ISIS or Al-Qaeda.
Just yesterday, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley stood in front of parts of a recovered missile from Yemen, claiming this was hard evidence that Iran had supported Houthi rebels in direct violation of an UN resolutions. While it was great for the media, the problem was that it could have been supplied to the Houthi’s before the UN Resolution. Further, it was apparent to experts, that the missile could not carry a nuclear warhead (a violation of another UN resolution). There are various links on the internet, and I just posted the one from the NYT.
You see how complicated the label “terrorist organization” has become when it is extended beyond ISIS and Al-Qaeda. I will explore more the Hezbollah group in a future blog.
Stay tuned,
Dave
Links
NYT: U.S. Accuses Iran of U.N. Violation, but Evidence Falls Short
I could hardly believe this story when I first read it in the New York Times. It just seemed too bizarre to be true. A DOE proposal which subsidizes coal usage in power plants, whose extra cost will be passed on to consumers in electric bills. Bob Murray of Murray Coal must be very happy with this one, as his investment in Trump is paying off big time.
Per the NYT EdOp:
Mr. Perry’s proposal could add around $11 billion a year to the cost of electricity, depending on how the rule is interpreted, according to four separate research reports. Yet it would do little to improve the electrical grid. That’s because less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of power failures between 2012 and 2016 were caused by fuel supply emergencies, according to the Rhodium Group, a research firm.
Aren’t the Republicans known for opposing bailouts of any kind? This one is based on a pretext, that we have fuel supply emergencies causing power failure outages. Or we will have in the future. As stated in the New York Times:
During Hurricane Harvey in Texas, where Mr. Perry was once governor, coal-fired power plants had to switch to natural gas because their fuel became too wet to be moved.
Here are the facts. About 66% of our electricity comes from the burning of two fossil fuels, natural gas and coal. The rest comes from nuclear (~19%), hydroelectric (~6%) and alternative sources (solar and wind). What has hurt the coal industry is competition from natural gas. Employment in coal mining jobs has dropped due to automation of the mines. Environmental air quality regulations have made coal fueled plants more expensive, encouraging a switch to natural gas.
Here is why it is so bizarre. Opposition comes from environmental groups which would be normal, as the proposal will increase coal consumption. But, allied with the environmental groups are the big oil and gas companies, who would be hurt by reduced natural gas demand. So, the new regulations are bad for the consumer, the environment and big oil and gas companies (which support Trump on many issues).
The DOE has fast tracked the proposal through the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) with 5 members. Hopefully, they will not approve the DOE proposal.
Please read the New York Times article.
Stay tuned,
Dave
Links:
The Trump Administration’s Coal Bailout
Electricity Customers in 31 States Could Foot the Bill for Perry’s Coal Bailout
Rick Perry’s plan to subsidize coal and nuclear plants is bonkers
Note- this blog was updated on December 8, 2017, with a few corrections, and additional links. Still it’s all pretty damning evidence that Mulvaney has no interest in protecting consumers in real estate related transactions. Obviously, neither does Trump.
Mike Mulvaney does not believe in the bureau he has been appointed to run. In public statements, he clearly does not feel the government should be protecting the consumer in complicated financial transactions, typically mortgages. He has declared it a “sad, sick” example of bureaucracy gone amok. (see New York Times article) Judging by the number of successful prosecutions in support of consumers, it appears Mulvaney is wrong.
Nationwide Biweekly Administration (NBA) was accused by CFPB of widespread fraud, involving more than 100,000 mortgage customers. NBA has nothing to do with Nationwide Insurance, and its sole business is convincing mortgage holders that it is in their best interest to pay off their mortgages on a biweekly basis, resulting in 13 payments instead of 12, which the company would pocket.
The scam involved false advertising, promising customers that Nationwide would reduce their interest payments. It involved mass mailings as as many as 33 million mailers were sent out. Through billing the customers for 26 biweekly payments, the company would collect one extra monthly payment. Nationwide retains the first mortgage payment as a setup fee which can be up to $995 according to the CFPB. Plus they would add other service fees, increasing their mortgage payments to consumers.
It is an egregious ripoff and was found in violation of the laws and regulations protecting consumers. The CFPB alleges these practices violate the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition against unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices. See the government’s lawsuit against Nationwide.
Daniel Lipsky is the founder, president, and sole owner of Nationwide. He reportedly made 33 million dollars from the biweekly payment program. Nationwide Biweekly website link is provided in the links.
CFPB sued Nationwide and had a partial victory in the lawsuit. After lengthy litigation, a judge in September 2017 ordered Nationwide to pay nearly 8 million dollars in penalties. This was far less the 77 million dollars that the CFPB had sued for, which included restitution to its customers. See link at the end of this blog.
CFPB asked for a 8 million dollars in bond, while Nationwide appealed the verdict. This is completely routine to help insure the payment to fraud victims. The case was inches away from the finished line.
Mike Mulvaney arrived last week, determined to make the agency less effective for now and whoever comes after him. He ordered bond request withdrawn destroying . Victims may never get anything from the government’s lawsuit, after three years in the making. According to the Quartz link:
The decision could allow Lipsky to re-open Nationwide, which still has more than 100,000 customers. If the new-look CFPB takes the same approach to his appeals, he may face no penalty at all.
Can you imagine how let down the victims of fraud and CFPB investigators must feel? This action will embolden loan originators and con artists (like Nationwide Biweekly) to once again look for prey.
Not exactly making America great again!
Stay tuned,
Davc
Quartz: FALSE & MISLEADING, The abrupt reversal that shows Donald Trump’s approach to consumer protection
NYT: Consumer Bureau’s New Leader Steers a Sudden Reversal
Original complaint as filed by CFPB
We’re the CFPB. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a U.S. government agency that makes sure banks, lenders, and other financial companies treat you fairly.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit:
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/
Perhaps the future website will change verbs to the past tense.
Nationwide Biweekly Administration
I could not find the actual judge’s order, but this link provided the 77 million dollar value in the original lawsuit by CFPB. It is written by an attorney who advises real estate professionals, so it has some bias. CFPB makes allegations, and the courts then look at the evidence to decide appropriate penalties. Also note the opinion was as of September 17, 2017 before Mike Mulvaney took charge of the CFPB.
Mortgage-Payment Company Escapes Doom in Trial Against CFPB
Leandra English is still contesting Mike Mulvaney’s takeover of the CFPB:
Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe resigned on November 21, 2017. The military gave him a 24 hour ultimatum – resign or be impeached. Although the clear path was resignation, he refused to resign, thus the process of impeachment was initiated. Certainly, Mugabe saw the ultimatum as an affront to his authority, having been re-elected in 2013. He was the semi-legitimate president as many have reported it was a rigged election. Key to his reign was the support of the military, but of course that changed.
Robert Mugabe came into office with a jubilant crowd cheering his victory in 1980 and went out the same way, with the crowd cheering his departure. Anyone watching the news, could see the pure joy in Zimbabweans as their “beloved” president was shown the exit.
We are in the first round of a familiar situation. I’ve seen a similar situation first hand in Libya. With the tyrant gone, there is celebration, a great feel of national unity, a hope for democracy, freedom of expression and more equality. With the oppressive leadership gone, there is an overly optimistic view that prosperity with more jobs is just around the corner. Unfortunately, it isn’t, because those who benefited from the regime are very active in re-establishing themselves.
Zimbabwe’s new president is Emmerson Mnangagwa was appointed as vice president from December 2014 to November 27, 2017. But, is he really running the show, or is it the military? The military forced Robert Mugabe to resign, because he was setting up his wife, Grace Mugabe, to succeed him. Mnangagwa promised change and a new era of democracy. He dismissed his cabinet, and in two key positions, installed military leaders, as explained in the BBC news story (see links). According to the BBC:
Just two weeks ago many Zimbabweans were celebrating the so-called people’s commander – Gen Constantino Chiwenga – for leading the military takeover which led to the change in leadership. Now they wait to see whether he will be rewarded with a vice-presidency.
Next year, the scary part begins – elections. As Mugabe reign ended, there are a lot of players on the sidelines, looking to their next move. I’m not just talking of political parties inside Zimbabwe, but countries, including China, looking for new leaders who are foreign investment friendly. All Zimbabweans know that just before the military coup, Gen. Chiwenga was in China. Was he informing them of the coup? Or was he asking them for support, once the coup took place? The real important question, is whether he will be rewarded for his efforts by being appointed Vice President. Zimbabweans may be thinking there wasn’t really a change in government, since the same military that backed Mugabe is now behind Mnangagwa.
China’s aggressive world trade strategy (“the new maritime silk road”) is really about securing key seaports in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and then using these as hubs for commerce. Where the Chinese government really plays a role is in the financing of this network, be it new ports, trains, or roads. East Africa will be connected to West Africa from Kenya to Angola by seaports, rail and roads.
The political dynamics of Africa used to be mostly about what was going on inside the countries. This hasn’t been true for decades, however there are likely to be many players trying to take advantage of the new regime. I believe China’s economic might will have considerable sway in determining Zimbabwe’s future, and the long awaited freedoms, may have to wait longer. President Mnangagwa knows what the people of Zimbabwe want, the big question is, can he deliver?
Stay tuned,
Dave
Links:
BBC Report: Zimbabwe’s Mnangagwa gives key cabinet jobs to military figures
There are many excellent reports on the internet on Robert Mugabe and the military takeover in November 2017. For those unfamiliar with Zimbabwe and it’s history, this is an excellent summary:
Wikipedia: Zimbabwe
Salon.com: How Steve Bannon and Sean Hannity ginned up the Hillary Clinton uranium story
Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer’s Long History Of Errors, Retractions, And Questionable Sourcing
(Media Matters was reporting just prior to the release of the Clinton Cash book)
The Clinton-Uranium “Scandal” Is Right-Wing Nonsense. Here’s Everything You Need to Know.
(Reacti0n of book about 2 months after publication)
Factcheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
New York Times: What Is the Uranium One Deal and Why Does the Trump Administration Care So Much?
Politifact.com: What you need to know about Hillary Clinton, Russia, and uranium
Their should be a book entitled “Breitbart Cash” and the connections between the Breitbart organization
Wikipedia: General Accountability Institute
Sounds like the General Accountability Office, but of course it’s not!
Wynton Hall (very interesting resume)
Any negative campaign really depends on knowledgeable experts in social media
Breitbart staff list reveals additional ties to Bannon and Mercer
There are more links of Uranium One executives in my prior blog.
Stay tuned,
Dave
The Uranium One accusations are meant to be a distraction by conservative Republicans in Congress. Fox News through many commentators are attempting to make this into a scandal, when the facts argue otherwise- no wrongdoing on the part of the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. It is as if Fox News has taken up the book “Clinton Cash” as their bible with all of its false accusations.
The origins of the Uranium One story are an April 23, 2015 report in the New York Times, and details from the Clinton Cash book. As I have stated previously, the problem with the accusation against Bill Clinton’s speaking fee at an investor’s conference, is the timing is all wrong. Clinton was paid in June 2010 and approval occurred in October 2010.
What really puts the Uranium One controversy over the top, is it is recycled trash, first leveled against Bill Clinton in 2008 involving a merger to buy Russian uranium mining rights for Uranium One, then the facts are all re-arranged to make Hillary the target, for her approval of a sale of uranium to Russians. The real truth is not hard to find, as all my sources are out there on the internet.
It wouldn’t seem such a bad thing if uranium rights were bought from the Russian (allegation against Bill) instead of sold to the Russians (allegation against Clinton). But, the accusation that Bill Clinton fell apart as quickly as it was made. The allegation against Hillary lasted longer because she was running for President.
Buy uranium mining rights in Russia, would be for export to other countries. Buying uranium mining rights in the US, is completely different, as export would be prohibited without an export permit approved by the federal government.
A kickback scheme, as Fox News is alleging takes two: One that has political influence or can do a political favor, and another one that has money. Two names you will never hear on Fox News is Frank Giustra or Ian Telfer. Nor will you every hear on Fox News about the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Foundation or the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa. These are the two Canadians and former CEO’s of Uranium One.
The more I researched Frank Giustra and Ian Telfer, the more I realized that they were very involved in philanthropic activities – namely donating much of their wealth for good non-political causes, such as health and education.
Frank Giustra, CEO of Uranium One in 2007 made the donation of 130 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation, but in the fall of 2007, he sold his stock in Uranium One. Mr. Giustra had made a fortune in mining acquisitions, many of them in Brazil. What both Giustra and Telfer do these days, is exactly what Bill Gates, and other rich people do – give away their money to charitable organization. The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Foundation is a great example of a long term strategy to help the poor of South America through developing their own industries. I note that Carlos Slims, the Mexican billionaire, is also a contributor to this foundation.
Please take a look at the link to theClinton Giustra Enterprise Foundation at the end of this blog.
Following a New York Times article, Frank Giustra responded to this article and other unfounded attacks as follows:
A book that has not yet been published has caused the New York Times to publish a wildly speculative, innuendo-laced article about the Clinton Foundation and my role in contributing money to it. There is not one shred of evidence to back up the Times‘ conclusions. This is not about me, but rather an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign. If this is what passes for investigative journalism in the United States, it is very sad.
The facts do not comport with the story in the New York Times. The reporter, Jo Becker, wrote a similar piece in 2008, which was eventually debunked by Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/12/giustra-clinton-kazakhstan-pf-ii-in_rl_0912croesus_inl.html
I began working on financing the purchase of mining stakes from a private Kazakh company in early 2005. The purchase was concluded in late 2005. In late 2005, I went to Kazakhstan to finish the negotiations of the sale. Bill Clinton flew to Almaty a few days after I arrived in the country on another person’s plane, not on my plane, as the Times reported. Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the purchase of private mining stakes by a Canadian company.
I sold all of my stakes in the uranium company – Uranium One – in the fall of 2007, after it merged with another company. I would note that those were sold at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became the Secretary of State. No one was speculating at that time that she would become the Secretary of State.
Other media outlets have insinuated that I influenced the decision by the U.S. to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. At one point, I was an investor in Pacific Rubiales, a Colombian energy company. I sold my shares in Pacific Rubiales several years before the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which, I will note, was approved by several U.S. agencies and the White House. To theorize that I had anything to do with that is sheer conjecture.
I hope that the U.S. media can start to focus on the real challenges of the world and U.S. society. Focus on poverty, homelessness, infrastructure, health care, education, or fractious world politics. You are a great country. Don’t ruin it by letting those with political agendas take over your newspapers and your airwaves.
I am extremely proud of the work that we have done at the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership. Thousands of people, all over the world, have been helped by this initiative. I plan to continue that work long after the harsh glare of this week’s media stories has faded.
Of course, once the charitable donation of 130 million dollars is seen as a proper donation, there’s only 15 million dollars left, and most of these donations occurred long before the Uranium One deal.
However, there is only one donor, who contributed at the time of the Uranium One deal, and that was Ian Telfer, former CEO of Uranium One and currently Chairman of the Board of Goldcorp. He donated 2.35 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation in 2010. Like Giustra, he was impressed with Clinton’s world initiatives in the areas of health and poverty.
Ian Telfer is one person that you really have to like. His occupation as listed on Wikipedia is mining executive and entrepreneur. But, it should include philanthropist, as like Frank Giustra, he has made large donations, including a 25 million dollar contribution to the University of Ottawa, School of Management.
Ian Telfer had difficulty getting into any business school because of his low grades. University of Ottawa accepted him. Ian set up a scholarship program for the student admitted to the school, with the lowest grades. I couldn’t believe this when I first read it!
In conclusion, from all research I’ve done, large donations were made to the Clinton Foundation, because what they were doing. It is out of character for Bill Clinton to be bragging about what he has done, but to publicize what has been accomplished by the Foundation. Part of his job, is getting people with money, be it Carlos Slim or Frank Giustra to believe and trust in the good work of the Clinton Foundation.
You are not going to know about any of this listening to Fox News, which seems to have nothing better to do than rerun the 2016 smear campaign against her. Maria Bartiroma, Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs take turns suggesting a special prosecutor assigned to an investigation, where there is no real evidence of wrong doing.
It is what Trump wants, a diversion. Fox News will never interview Giustra and Telfer because their contribution are so consistent with their other philanthropic activities, and they will have high praise for the good work of the Clinton Foundation.
Frank Giustra, recognize was a Canadian and this was US politics, but he gave good advice, which Trump and Fox News should listen to:
I hope that the U.S. media can start to focus on the real challenges of the world and U.S. society. Focus on poverty, homelessness, infrastructure, health care, education, or fractious world politics. You are a great country. Don’t ruin it by letting those with political agendas take over your newspapers and your airwaves.
There will be no coverage of the good work of the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Foundation on Fox News. It doesn’t fit with their official political narrative directed at their base.
Link:
This document is a series of memos prepared by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, on the Trump campaign involvement with Russians. The author has described it as “raw intelligence” with all the information from unnamed sources. Christopher Steele disclosed the information to the FBI in October 2016.
The mainstream media including CNN, Washington Post, BBC and the New York Times and many other conservative focused news services, like Fox News and OAN, have demonstrated incredible restraint in their reporting of certain details of the dossier, and have not provided any links to the dossier itself. I believe this restraint is proper as the certain salacious details are baseless. Publication of the document would unjustly defame President Trump and in doing, confirm his long held accusation that the mainstream new media publishes fake news. Buzzfeed uploaded the document to the internet and is being sued as follows:
Aleksej Gubarev, chief of technology company XBT and a figure mentioned in the dossier, sued BuzzFeed for defamation on February 3, 2017. The suit, filed in a Broward County, Florida court, centers on allegations from the dossier that XBT had been “using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic Party leadership.
So, despite the restraint from the media, bits and pieces of the dossier are coming out. Steele and Orbis Intelligence Service are being sued in British High Court, for publication of these accusations against XBT. Their lawyers have responded in court, that none of Steele’s research was meant for public dissemination. However, it is likely Orbis was responsible for sending the dossier to many organizations, making its eventual disclosure inevitable. It will be an interesting case of who is ultimately responsible for unverified information, the originator or the news service that posts the dossier.
Of course, Donald Trump has made many references to this dossier in this tweets, linking it to a smear campaign by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. What is being kept out of the public eye, certainly adds to internet searchers’ curiosity. A Google search of “Trump Dossier” came up with 345,000 results. It also has helped Stephen Colbert’s Late Show and Saturday Night Live skits. As a result of the Trump tweets, lot of Americans, including myself, became curious, did a Google search to locate the source document.
Establishing the Linkage:
April/ May 2016 to November 2016: From Clinton campaign’s to Perkin Coie (Marc Elias) to Fusion GPS (Glenn Simpson) to Orbis Intelligence Service (Christopher Steele)
January 2016 to May 2016: From Free Beacon (Paul Singer) to Perkin Coie (Marc Elias) to Fusion GPS (Glenn Simpson) to Orbis Intelligence Service (Christopher Steele)
The DNC and Hillary Clinton campaigns were represented by Marc Elias, of Perkins Coie law firm. Mr. Elias contacted the company Fusion GPS, to conduct “opposition research.” Fusion GPS contracted Orbis Intelligence Service, of whom Christopher Steele is a co-founder. Christopher Steele is reportedly not cooperating with the House Intelligence Committee, and as a British citizen, can not be forced to testify. He did his best to remain anonymous, but his name was revealed in January 2017 as the author of the dossier by CNN. It has been reported John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, testified to the House Committee that he knew nothing about payments to Mr. Steele. Mr. Elias was pretty much operating on his own, without much oversight.
Fusion GPS has stated that Mr. Steele was paid $168,000 for his work. At least, this is what has been reported from leaked news from closed door sessions of House Intelligence Committee. There is an effort underway in court to obtain Fusion GPS bank records. The “wow number” of 9.2 million dollars is the total fees charge to the DNC (3.6 million) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign (5.6 million) to Fusion GPS for all work including legal and compliance services from July 2015 to December 2016. The contract between Fusion GPS and Orbis for the Clinton campaign did not begin until May 2016. Trump’s tweets came up with a 12 million dollar figure for the dossier which I really don’t know where this came from. Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS stated that none of Mr. Steele’s sources were compensated for their information, so the money trail to original sources, at least for now, has gone cold.
It has also been recently revealed that before that before the Republican primary, Fusion GPS “opposition research” was funded by a Republican right wing organization, the Washington Free Beacon, had funded Fusion GPS. The Free Beacon website is funded in large part by New York hedge fund billionaire, Paul Singer. Free Beacon stopped funding research around May 2016 when it was clear that Trump had the nomination secured and this is around the time the Clinton’s started funding. Wow, could Fusion GPS been doing the same intelligence for both Republicans and Democrats for a brief period of time? How much of the $168,000 came from Republicans? After the election, the research continued, but no funds came from Clinton’s campaign. Glenn Simpson has stated he paid from for the rest of the research himself.
Steele’s Sources of Information
The research (if I may call it that) gets really flimsy when there is only mention of Sources A, B, C and D within the dossier. As I stated at the onset, the dossier is simply a collection of memos, without the names of any sources. For those into the fine details of potential dossier sources, I include the “Grosev Hypothesis” and its subsequent rebuttal by Galetti. For more information consult the Wikipedia link as given on the first line of the links.
On December 26, 2016, Oleg Erovinkin, a former KGB/FSB general, was found dead in his car in Moscow. Erovinkin was a key liaison between Igor Sechin, head of state-owned oil company Rosneft, and President Putin. Steele claimed much of the information came from a source close to Sechin. According to Christo Grozev, a journalist at Risk Management Lab, a think-tank based in Bulgaria, the circumstances of Erovinkin’s death were “mysterious”. Grozev suspected Erovinkin helped Steele compile the dossier on Trump and suggests the hypothesis that the death may have been part of a cover-up by the Russian government.[49][50] Mark Galeotti, senior research fellow at the Institute of International Relations Prague, who specializes in Russian history and security, rejected Grozev’s hypothesis.[51][49]
Mueller’s investigation will likely be a good reality check on all of this. I believe Mueller will based his investigation on hard evidence from people within Trump’s campaign rather than the dossier.
Michael Cohen, a former top executive with the Trump Organization, has refuted the allegation that he was a key link in the Trump – Russia collaboration. The dossier claimed he traveled to Prague in August 2016, but he states that this is impossible as his passport would have been stamped. Other experts also expressed skepticism on the dossier, because it came from supposedly unpaid sources.
Impact
So what does this have to do with Clinton’s campaign? Nothing. None of the dossier information was public until well after the election. There are excellent sources of information on the internet.
The more salacious accusations in the dossier in my opinion of Trump’s activities in 2013, have been discredited – see last link.
I predict the various committee investigations will become highly partisan attacks on Clinton’s campaign, in attempt to divert attention from the Mueller investigations. I doubt if Mueller uses anything within the Trump dossier as primary support for his criminal investigation.
A very positive side to all of this, as the media showed great restraint. I suspect the lawsuit against Buzzfeed will be dismissed on the grounds of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech.
Finally, the FBI prepared a private briefing for Donald Trump after he won the election, just to make him aware of the dossier, so he wouldn’t be broadsided by a possible leak for information. He did not take the briefing well, as he blasted the FBI, Obama administration, Clinton and the DNC of collaborating against him.
Stay tuned,
Dave
Links:
Wikipedia, Donald Trump – Russia Dossier
CNN: Lawyer denies Cohen traveled to Prague
Washington Post, Breaking down the Trump dossier: What you need to know
Washington Post: Clinton lawyer kept Russian dossier project closely held
CNN: Ex-Trump security chief testifies he rejected 2013 Russian offer of women for Trump in Moscow
( Trump has never been accused of being with prostitutes. I always considered this part of the dossier was fabricated. I guess the tidbit of information is that someone offer him women and the rest is nonscense.)
“Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?) … the Uranium to Russia deal, the 33,000 plus deleted Emails, the Comey fix and so much more,” President Trump’s tweet.
(a) Lies can not be turned into the truth by a million repetitions.
When solid facts run up against a statement, the statement is a lie, unless the facts are disproved. This has not happened in the above allegations by Donald Trump. There’s been a lot written in recent months how easy it is today, to string together a few facts and with a lot of unrelated events, to show almost anything.
Perhaps the “so much more” in Trump’s tweet is all the other accusations he’s made during the Obama years, including how Obama was never born in the US, how the Trump tower was bugged by the FBI, how China invented global warming and how the liberal media altered video to make the crowd size at Trump’s inauguration look smaller. Of course, we need a special prosecutor to investigate all this!
So much more would include how Ivanka Trump shoes were thrown out of the Norstrom’s in February 2017.
My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!
Norstrom shoe gate scandal! We never knew what evil forces were involved, but likely included Democrats and the liberal media. White House Spokesperson Sean Spicer got involved saying, “There are efforts to undermine her name…because people have a problem with his policies.” Norstrom responded they pulled her shoes from the store because they just were not selling. A more reasonable explanation, I would think!
On the subject of the Uranium One Controversy, Wikipedia states in their summary:
The New York Times, FactCheck.org, and The Washington Post note that there is no evidence of wrongdoing concerning Clinton. F.B.I. agents and career public corruption officials who conducted preliminary investigations into the Clinton Foundation concluded that there was no evidence to move forward with a case in 2015.
I particularly like the detailed investigation of snopes.com, which labeled the story as False. See links at the end of this blog.
(b) There are adults in the room!
If there is a scandalous behavior, it is from Donald Trump, directing his hand-picked FBI Director, Christopher Wray and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to investigate controversies regarding the Clintons. What he’s saying, in effect, is Hillary Clinton was the one breaking the law, not me. Also, he wants a criminal investigation of James Comey, who for most of his career with the government was a registered as a republican.
If there has been criminal activity by Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation in the past, it is certainly within the powers of the FBI and the Justice Department to investigate. AG Jeff Sessions seems cognizant of his position and duties, to limit the DOJ to impartial investigations of criminal misconduct.
AG Jeff Sessions indicated to a House committee he would make an inquiry, evaluation or assessment of the Uranium One deal and whether this matter needed to be pursued within the Justice Department or with a Special Counsel. He chose his words carefully, as he did not call it a criminal investigation.
If Congressman Jim Jordan has his way, the Special Counsel would have an extraordinary broad scope of investigation, which would include the Clinton Foundations dealings, Hillary Clinton’s use of a outside server including the subsequent FBI investigation, the creation of the Trump dossier and the involvement of Fusion GPS and of course, Uranium one controversy. Jim Jordan actually just stated this on Fox News this morning (11/15/2017).
(c) Uranium One sound bite and the truth
Just for the record, here’s the Republican sound bite: “In June 2010, Hillary Clinton allowed the Russians to buy 20% of the US uranium production capacity in return for $500,000 kickback in the form of speaking fees for Bill Clinton from the Russians. In addition, the CEO of Uranium One donated hundreds of million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.” You can turn on Fox News almost at anytime and hear either Lou Dobbs or Sean Hannity repeating the same line. Actually, I just heard this on a Fox News show featuring Lisa Kennedy Montgomery or “Kennedy” show about hundreds of millions of dollars going into the Clinton Foundation as a result of the Uranium One deal. This is all sound bites, aimed to please their audience.
At the end of this blog, I have included several excellent summaries of the accusations and the facts which shows Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong.
Let me summarize a couple of facts, that really stand out for me. It is best to begin with the words “to buy.” If I buy a car, I get the keys and drive it off the lot, and I can bring this car to any place in the world, given the proper permits. Not true with US uranium resources. Russia has no export permit. Whatever uranium is produce stays in the US. Some minor exceptions have been discovered, as noted in the links given below.
Hillary Clinton ultimately was not the one to approve or reject the deal. This would be up to the president. However, the State Department is one of 9 federal agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US (CFIUS) to review transactions. Factcheck.com which labels Trump’s accusation as FALSE, states:
The committee can’t actually stop a sale from going through — it can only approve a sale. The president is the only one who can stop a sale, if the committee or any one member “recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.
For this and other reasons, we have written that Trump is wrong to claim that Clinton “gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States” to Russia. Clinton could have objected — as could the eight other voting members — but that objection alone wouldn’t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom.
“Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction,” the federal guidelines say.
We don’t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee’s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times that he represented the department on the committee. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” he told the Times, referring to the committee by its acronym.
The CFIUS is a review board as stated on it’s website.
(d) The Payoff or Quid Pro Quo
The second part of this accusation, that Bill Clinton or the Clinton Foundation benefited financially from this approval, has a real timing problem. In a kickback scheme, a politician does a favor to someone, and then either simultaneous or soon after its done, the person who benefited pays off the politician for the favor. It’s all backwards in this case. Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee in June 2010 and the deal was reviewed by the CFIUS in October 2010. He was not paid by Uranium One, but by Renaissance Capital, specializing in Russian investments. Investment banks pay big speaker fees to have world leaders speak at their investment conferences. Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain also spoke at the conference.
The contribution to the Clinton Foundation by individuals associated with Uranium One was 145 million, and so this would seem at first to be highly suspicious. But, the lion’s share of this contribution, 131.5 million was from the CEO of Uranium One, Frank Giustra, who sold all of his Uranium One stock in 2007, three years before the deal. Hillary Clinton wasn’t the Secretary of State at the time. Only one individual contributed during the same timeframe as the deal was taking place, Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman. According to snopes.com:
His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
(e) How much of Uranium One’s Production in the US is controlled by Russia?
The latest estimates are 5.9% of Uranium One’s production makes up the US supply of Uranium. Russia could do little harm if they shut down the uranium mines owned by the US, as outside supplies are plentiful (Forbes.com)
(f) Concluding remarks
I’ve included a lot of online fact checking reviews in the links. I did not go into the same level of detail as they did.
A report published by “The Hill” last month said the FBI was investigating possible Russian attempts to influence the U.S. nuclear sector at the time the CFIUS was considering the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom. The Justice Department receives FBI reports when there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and it could have raised objections to the deal through the CFIUS in their review. It would be up to the president to block the deal.
The accusation of approval of the Uranium One deal for any monetary gain is just as baseless as it was in 2015. This new information has no effect on this conclusion. See Politifact.com link.
Hillary Clinton has recently stated the Trump administration and members of Congress (James Jordan in particular) are using this as a diversion from the Mueller investigation. See link at the end.
My prediction is there will be no special counsel to investigate the Uranium One controversy. AG Jeff Sessions may draw out his “assessment” of a need for a criminal investigation for as long as he wants.
As for the list of Trump’s tweet, I will end this blog with the very appropriate comment of Senator Bob Corker, “The President has great difficulty with the truth on many issues.”
Stay tuned,
Dave
Links:
There are many other good links available.
Factcheck.org The Facts on Uranium One
Politifact.com: What you need to know about Hillary Clinton, Russia, and uranium
Hillary Clinton’s Interview with Mother Jones
The trial of Ahmed Abu Khattala is proceeding in Washington, DC. He is accused of being the mastermind of the attack in Benghazi in September 2012. Why did it take so long to arrest Khattala and bring him to stand trial in the US? It is because the FBI and the Department of Justice wanted to build a rock solid case against Khattala and any of his associates involved in the attack on the US diplomatic mission and CIA compound in Benghazi. They are going after the top dog who planned the attack, and not the many followers. Excellent!
It really looks like the time was well spent. The New York Times reports the prosecution is presenting a strong case against Khattala in federal court. They must show that Khattala was more than just a leader of a group who hated Americans and Western influence in the country. They have to show he was part of the attack.
The case relies on the testimony of two Libyan who provided damaging details about Mr. Khattala before and after the attack. The really critical details comes from a third Libyan, who befriended Khatttala in 2012, with the objective of collecting damning evidence to be used against Khattala. It was a very slow process to gain Khattala’s trust. Any slip up by this informant would have meant certain death for him and likely his family. He testified on Tuesday, November 7 under the pseudonym of Ali Majrisi.
Khattala slowly opened up to Majrisi on the attack. Khattala revealed one critical element – he had planned to attack and kill the American rescue team. His words, recalled by Majrisi were, “I intended then to kill everyone there – even those who were at the airport.” There was no saving the two Americans who died at the diplomatic mission; they died of smoke inhalation approximately 15 minutes after the attack. The rescue mission would have been directed at saving lives at the CIA mission, in which two Americans died. The Republicans have been making a case that not enough was done to save lives at Benghazi. The reality is that the delay at the Benghazi airport was likely a fortuitous event, as many more would have been in harm’s way had a rescue attempt been made.
Majrisi was able to provide the vital evidence to link Khattala to the attack, and also a second leader, Mustafa al-Iman. Iman appeared on surveillance videotape on the night of the attack. The attack was well planned. It was not a spontaneous angry reaction to a video about the Prophet Mohammed, as originally speculated by National Security Adviser Susan Rice. The Obama administration quickly backed off from this assertion, but it was later reported that the leaders were able to recruit others for the attack, because of the anger generated by the release of the video. Hopefully the trial may clarify this issue.
Over the years, Majrisi was well paid for his services, up to 7 million dollars. This fact is being used now to discredit Majrisi’s testimony as being financially motivated. In my opinion, it was money well worth it, as nothing could be worse than being unable to make a case against Khattala for lack of evidence. Hopefully both Khattala and Iman will be convicted.
Both the Obama and Trump administrations deserve credit for what appears to be a highly successful investigation. It is extremely difficult for the FBI or the CIA to conduct an investigation without total cooperation of the Libyan government, or at least the part of the government now controlling Benghazi. The credit goes to the Department of Justice and the FBI. During most of this investigation, Director James Comey was in charge of the FBI, and there was never a single leak to the media. It would have been devastating to the investigation if Khattala knew he was being spied on.
The Libya witnesses who came forward, provided the real hard evidence and are my heroes. I am hoping for life sentences for Khattal and Iman. Up until President Trump took office, the people of Benghazi were extremely grateful for the support of the US, as we helped them in 2011, when Qaddafi was certainly going to bomb their city. Obama was able to push through UN Resolution 1973, essentially grounding Qaddafi’s air force. Now, I think this support is being lost as Trump includes Libya as one of the countries in his travel ban.
Stay tuned,
Dave
Link:
I really hate this headline, as the print version has the headline “Libyan Informant Describes His Role in the Benghazi Suspect’s Capture.” I believe the trials of Khattala and Iman will provide new details on what was transpiring outside the compounds, for a long time prior to the attacks.
It sure looked like the EPA administrator Scott Pruitt was doing everything in his power to attack the independence of environmental scientists within his Department, when he refuse to allow 3 scientists to make presentations at the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program in Rhode Island.
Then came a breath of fresh air. In November 3, the first part of the National Assessment on Climate Change Effects, was published. See links at the end of this blog for the report. They don’t call it Global Warming anymore, but that still a big part of the overall problems associated with the 5 billion metric tons of carbon emissions the US sends into the atmosphere. With 5% of the world’s population, we are responsible for nearly 30% of all carbon emissions. The weather patterns are changing around the planet causing more severe storms and droughts. The poorer African nations will suffer the most, as there are more famines.
Why didn’t Scott Pruitt block this one? It was because it did not come directly from the EPA, but rather a multi-agency scientific group as described in their report below. Second, the National Assessment had to be done, as a matter of law, and the report provided to Congress and the President. Trump couldn’t really block it, without creating more publicity for the report.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was established by Presidential initiative in 1989 and mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990. Its mandate is to develop and coordinate “a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.”
USGCRP comprises 13 Federal agencies that conduct or use research on global change and its impacts on society. It functions under the direction of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research of the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability.
USGCRP has three major sets of responsibilities: (a) coordinating global change research across the Federal government, (b) developing and distributing mandated products, and (c) helping to inform decisions.
One of the products mandated by the GCRA is a quadrennial assessment that USGCRP is to prepare and submit to the President and the Congress. This assessment, referred to as the National Climate Assessment (NCA), is directed by the GCRA to:
-Integrate, evaluate, and interpret the findings of the Program and discuss the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings
– Analyze the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity
– Analyze current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and project major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years
Environmental scientists from the EPA participated in the study. The report is limited to the effects of climate change within the US. The United Nations studies climate change on a worldwide basis.
This lead agency in preparation of this report is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), operating under the Department of Commerce. Hopefully, it stays there as if it is moved to the DOE or EPA, it would be immediately filled with political appointees. Particularly bad if the EPA someday takes over NOAA.
The last assessment was done in 2014. The opening lines from this report were very powerful:
Climate change is happening now. The United States and the world are warming, global sea level is rising, and some types of extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more severe. These changes have already resulted in a wide range of impacts across every region of the country and many sectors of the economy.
The new assessment is similar to the 2014 report in reporting the consequences of climate change. It wasn’t blocked by the Trump administration because really they couldn’t block a report that was the result of 13 governmental agencies. This is where our country excels, in collaborative efforts of experts in the complex area of climate change. The warming of our seas is a likely contributing factor in causing more intense hurricanes, on the 4 to 5 level scale. A little bit of information that Scott Pruitt felt was inappropriate to discuss two months ago. Maybe now is the time.
Links:
Climate Science Special Report – Nov 2017
A Climate Science Report That Changes Minds? Don’t Bet on It
Washington Post- No alternative explanation
Stay tuned,
Dave
The EPA has existed for 47 years. It was created by Richard Nixon in 1970, by Executive Order. Richard Nixon also signed into law, the Clean Air (1970) and Clean Water Acts (as amended 1972). The first line of the Clean Water Act states:
The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.
This first sentence is powerful, as the act directs the federal government in conjunction with state agencies to RESTORE the quality of the nation’s waters. Thus, there was an acknowledgement of a problem. Thus, the creation of the agency was direct the government to take a leadership role in the restoration of our water and air resources. Nixon being from California, likely understood this, as the Colorado watershed encompasses 7 states in the US and 2 states in Mexico. California is downstream to all pollutants discharged into the Colorado River in the US.
Scott Pruitt may like to see environmental policy run from the state and local level, mainly for political reasons, but it is the geographical reality which makes so many of our environmental problems, a national problem, requiring federal action. The pollutants from the coal burning plants goes to the upper atmosphere, where there are no signs saying “You are entering Massachusetts” or even, “You are entering Canada.”
Scott Pruitt is an attorney of law. He has done nothing to restore or improve air or water quality in his home state of Oklahoma, as Attorney General. Instead, he accepted contributions from Tyson foods, who were being sued for polluting the Illinois River that flows through Oklahoma.
Oklahoma AG and EPA Pick Pruitt Stalled Pollution Lawsuit After Contributions From Poultry Industry
His track record as AG was to attack EPA actions, initiating 13 lawsuits against the EPA.
Now as administrator of the EPA, his actions run counter the core mission of the EPA, to preserve the water, land and air natural resources of the US for future generations to enjoy. His perspective is one of an advocate for individuals to pollute as much as they want, so long as they don’t endanger the health and safety of general population. Individual liberties may sound good, but in result can be extremely harmful.
I have posted numerous blogs on the actions of the EPA under the Trump administration, including the most recent one on banning EPA scientists from making presentations at a scientific meeting on the Narraganset Bay estuary. I was please to see Steven Colbert, the late night show host, really tearing into Scott Pruitt’s policies, noting that until he pulled the 3 scientists from the meeting, it is likely few people knew about this estuary, or even what an estuary was.
Scott Pruitt latest attack on the agency he runs is to remove as many of the independent and dedicated environmental scientists in the advisory groups in the EPA and replace them with people of his own choosing. This tactic in this case is to bar anyone who is receiving funding from the EPA from participating in the advisory groups.
Citing The Bible, The EPA Just ChangedAdvisers Its Rules For Science
In support of his drastic actions, Scott Pruitt relies on the pretext that scientists receiving funds from the EPA might have a conflict of interest. However, this was quickly countered by numerous organizations, noting there was already strict disclosure rules in place, the prevent conflict of interest. Dr. Tiech from George Washington University stated the following:
” Disqualifying the very people who know the most about a subject from serving as advisors makes no sense.”
More succinctly, he wrote, “Frankly, this directive is nuts.” Others voiced similar opinions, as follows:
The change calls into question EPA’s ability to protect the country, according to Rush Holt, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “We question whether the EPA can continue to pursue its core mission to protect human health and the environment,” Holt said in a statement issued Tuesday.
Scott Pruitt battled the EPA through lawsuits as Attorney General of Oklahoma. Now, he must battle the organization he heads.
Stay tuned,
Dave
PS. I’ve posted numerous blogs on the EPA and the Trump administration’s indifference to environmental issues. See the various categories such as Environment, Global Warming. Coal, or Chloropyrisfos. Also you can search under EPA or Scott Pruitt.
“So long as I know it not, it hurteth mee not.”
I like the original proverb, by G. Pettie in 1576 than today’s version, “What I don’t know can’t hurt me.” Unfortunately, what we don’t know, does hurt us. From our ignorance we just don’t know the best way to respond to problems.
The Environmental Protection Agency cancelled the participation of three of their scientists in the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program’s workshop. One scientist was prohibited from giving a keynote address at the workshop. The other two scientists removed from the program were to speak about “The Present and Future Biological Implications of Climate Change.”
See Links:
The EPA Stopped Three Agency Scientists From Talking About Climate Change at a Conference
Even Fox Business News reported the story:
EPA cancels appearance by scientists at climate change conference
An estuary is where fresh outflows come in contact with the salt water from bays or oceans. They are particular sensitive ecosystems. Fresh water inflows may contain contaminants harmful to the more saline water in the estuary and depend on plants and other material to act as to keep the ecosystem in balance. See link:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/estuaries03_ecosystem.html
EPA Director Scott Pruitt clearly put politics ahead of science. Climate change is harmful to estuaries. See link below:
NOAA report highlights climate change threats to nation’s estuaries
Fortunately, NOAA is under the US Department of Commerce, out of the reach of Pruitt.
Stay tuned,
Dave
Translation, My God, it isn’t true. How on earth can a Rodin scupture be hiding in plain sight for decades in the corner of a municipal building in NJ?
A Rodin sculpture of Napoleon has been discovered in a Madison, NJ. Auguste Rodin died in 1917 and was in his time, a very controversial artist.
It was reported by the New York Times, in a wonderful story, which has posted it on the internet.
A Rodin Hiding in Plain Sight in a New Jersey Suburb
William Rockerfeller, Jr is mentioned in the article. He is John D. Rockerfeller’s brother and co-founder of Standard Oil.
Stay tuned,
Dave
news and views 