Categories
Saved Web Pages - Audio Posts

The Trump-Netanyahu Alliance

Remnick-Comment-041219-FB.jpg

Illustration by João Fazenda

Twenty-one years ago, Benzion Netanyahu, a scholar of medieval history and the father of an Israeli Prime Minister serving his first term, relaxed with a reporter at his home on Haportzim Street, in West Jerusalem, and wondered aloud if his boy, who went by “Bibi,” was made of the right stuff. Benzion was an uncompromising ideologue, a maximalist, and a member of the Revisionist movement. (The Revisionist hymn included the line “the Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, the other one, too.”) He despised the liberal élites. They had stifled his academic career, he believed, and weakened the country with their prattle about making peace with the Palestinians. Supporters of the Labor Party, the dominant force in Israeli politics for decades, did not, in his mind, live in the real world. “Jewish history is in large measure a history of holocausts,” he said that day.

Benzion died in 2012. He was a hundred and two. Any lingering worries he might have had that his son lacked the political cunning and the ideological mettle to put an end to the two-state expectations raised by the Oslo peace accords were misplaced. Benjamin Netanyahu, who won a fifth term last week, has proved himself shrewd, cynical, and willing to do and to say anything to survive in office.

Practicing a politics of division, he targets enemies in the press, the academy, and the courts. Increasingly, he finds his global allies in the ever-growing club of the Illiberal International, from the Sunni Arab leaders in his own region to Viktor Orbán, in Hungary; Jair Bolsonaro, in Brazil; and Vladimir Putin, in Russia. He has determined that the world no longer cares very much about the Palestinians or about democratic niceties. He has marginalized the left––even the center-left. The “peace camp” that Benzion loathed now barely exists.

Netanyahu’s paramount interest, though, is self-interest. He has not only extinguished any pretense of coming to a settlement with the Palestinians, he now entertains the idea of annexing the Jewish settlements on the West Bank. By at least speaking the language of annexation, he could try to win the enduring support of the racists and the absolutists in a potential right-wing coalition, who might, in turn, quash the multiple corruption indictments that he faces. The political discussion in Jerusalem was once about trading land for peace; Netanyahu might now seek to trade the rule of law for annexation.

This is new. In the past, when Israeli Prime Ministers faced legal trouble, they tacked left to broaden their support both at home and abroad—as when, in 2005, Ariel Sharon evacuated Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip. And American Presidents used to coax Netanyahu to observe limits. In 1998, Bill Clinton pushed him to make the Wye River deal, intended to reinvigorate the peace process, with the Palestinians. Under pressure from Barack Obama, Netanyahu delivered a speech at Bar-Ilan University, in 2009, in which he paid lip service to a two-state solution. That has all changed, especially now that he has found a like-minded protégé in Donald Trump.

Just as Netanyahu provided Trump instruction on the political possibilities of right-wing populism, Trump has provided Netanyahu with instruction on the possibilities of outrageous invective, voter suppression, and disdain for the law. Netanyahu now delights in the use of such phrases as “fake news.” Investigations into his financial adventures are “witch hunts.” To suppress the Arab vote in last week’s election, his supporters mounted more than a thousand cameras at polling places where Arab citizens ordinarily vote, the better to intimidate them. And, of course, both men like a wall. As Trump put it, “Walls work. Just ask Israel.” To which his proud mentor tweeted, “President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea.”

Anshel Pfeffer, a reporter for Haaretz and the author of an astute biography of Netanyahu, writes that both men thrive on resentment and “have an uncanny ability to sense their rivals’ weak spots and sniff out their voters’ inner fears.” Netanyahu was initially wary of Trump, suspecting that an erratic dunce had entered the Oval Office. Over time, he was not necessarily dissuaded from that impression, but he was beyond enchanted when he realized that Trump was prepared to do whatever he asked.

On Trump’s first trip abroad, he went to Israel from Saudi Arabia and declared, “We just got back from the Middle East.” With a sense of fellow-feeling, Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, told Trump, “The majority of the people of Israel, unlike the media, love us, so we tell them how you are great, and they love you.” Trump has given Netanyahu one long-desired prize after another. He pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and, in the midst of the Israeli election campaign, recognized that nation’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

For two years, meanwhile, Trump has talked about “a secret plan” to resolve the Israeli-Arab problem. The idea is that Jared Kushner, Trump’s Metternich, will somehow succeed where more than a century’s worth of diplomacy has failed. The plan is likely to call for enormous Palestinian concessions, which the Palestinians will almost certainly reject. That will allow Netanyahu to operate without constraint, and either continue to manage the status quo or make good on his intimations of annexation.

As the 2020 U.S. Presidential race begins to take shape––the Iowa caucuses are less than ten months away––it’s worth reflecting on the degree to which one leader can transform the political life of a country. It took Netanyahu many years—and the good fortune of Trump’s election, in 2016––to fulfill his father’s expectations, but Israel has become a different country under his rule.

Trump has become more himself with time. He has far less patience with advisers who try to rein him in or challenge his ugly and fantastical distortions of reality. His appointments grow worse, his resentments more inflamed, his policies more damaging. His reëlection would have a catastrophic effect on the rule of law, liberal democracy, the values of tolerance, and the baseline of decency in American life. We are seeing it all over the globe: the politics of fear and division exact an inestimable price. ♦

Categories
Saved Web Pages - Audio Posts

Trump, Netanyahu and US-Israel relations

trump_netanyahu.jpg?w=500

Editor’s note:

In Unpacked, Brookings experts provide analysis of Trump administration policies and news.

THE ISSUE: Under the cloud of two controversies, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with President Trump on Wednesday, February 15, to discuss U.S.-Israel relations.

“Netanyahu in particular wanted to concert strategy not just to push back on Iran in the region, but also to deal with that problematic nuclear deal.”

THE THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s meeting with President Trump at first appeared as though it would be a great success, but two recent complications could cause disruption:

First, General Michael Flynn, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, resigned from his position two days before the meeting.

Flynn was Netanyahu’s natural partner in his campaign against Iran. General Flynn had already taken steps to “put Iran on notice.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted to coordinate strategies on pushing back against Iran in the region, along with ways to address the Iran nuclear deal. That will be less possible with Flynn gone.

The second point of controversy surrounds President Trump’s public objection to recent Israeli settlement activity and his decision to appoint David Friedman as his ambassador to Israel.

The Friedman pick sent a green light to Netanyahu’s coalition partners to accelerate settlement activity and push for annexation of West Bank territory.

Instead of pushing back on Iran, President Trump pushed back on this settlement activity, declaring that he wanted to make peace Israeli-Palestinian peace and judging Israeli settlement activity unhelpful in that context.

After facing similar opposition from President Barack Obama for the past eight years, Netanyahu now must work with another U.S. President who wants to establish peace without settlements expansion.

Categories
Saved Web Pages - Audio Posts

Investigative journalism: Hypothesis-based investigations

What is a hypothesis-based investigation, how do you come up with one and how do you investigate and prove it? Part 2 of our series on investigative journalism

Coming up with hypotheses is one of the investigative journalist’s most important mental and organisational tools. 

The hypothesis is critical to how an investigation proceeds. And because of how critical it is, it cannot simply be cooked up out of nowhere. It must have a solid grounding in carefully acquired facts and draw on preliminary research showing that there is a story worth writing.

A hypothesis is made up of facts and assumptions. Facts here means solid, corroborated and carefully documented information, while assumptions means information that is yet to be corroborated, which the journalist works to prove or disprove. 

Read more

Investigative journalism, Part 1: What should you investigate?

Investigative journalism in the digital age

Investigative journalism, like science, is about coming up with hypotheses, testing them, and trying to prove them. The best examples of investigative journalism are rooted in a hypothesis that allows them to work out what happened, how it happened, and why it happened. 

In investigative journalism, a hypothesis is a proposed explanation that assesses a problem or issue in order to establish the truth of what happened by making connections between the facts – even if those facts are not yet entirely verified. It provides provisional answers on how an event might be connected to an actor (a perpetrator) and its victim and how big the problem might be. These are the basic elements of a hypothesis, as Figure 1 shows:

IJ

Hypotheses are important because:

  • They make it easier to collect data, gather and organise new facts and evidence, and analyse it. 
  • They help us keep control of the investigation and manage it effectively. 
  • They help test the easiest and best methodology for establishing a hypothesis. 
  • They help us to focus and be precise and to establish the boundaries and goals of the investigation. 
  • They help us to more closely understand the issue that we are researching. 
  • They help us to come up with solutions in the event that problems arise. 
  • They are the cornerstone of a fully integrated investigation. 
  • They help us to market the idea to others.
  • They help us to set budgets and keep a tighter hold on time and resources. 
  • They help us to establish the sources of the investigation. 

IJ6

A hypothesis has the following characteristics: 

  • It can be tested. 
  • It is based on established and documented facts as well as uncorroborated information (assumptions). 
  • It is concise. 
  • It is coherent and based on facts that the journalist is looking to gather as well as information they already have. 
  • It deals with a single problem.

Despite the centrality of the hypothesis to the investigative process, it can always be amended if new evidence and facts require. A good journalist should always be open to evidence that contradicts their hypothesis and work just as hard to disprove the hypothesis as to prove it – that is, they should make just as much effort to find evidence contradicting it as they do to find evidence supporting it. The hypothesis is not an end in itself but a means of getting to the truth. 

Let’s take the example of road accidents in Country X. Our journalist has conducted her initial investigation, and is now categorising the data and assumptions she has come up with: 

Facts 

According to official reports that she has found, 10 main roads in Country X – all built between 2015 and 2019 – do not meet technical specifications. 

Technical reports and mapping of seventy different accidents on these roads between 2015 and 2019 show that engineering defects were the main reason in those accidents. 

There are twenty coroners’ reports showing deaths resulting from these accidents. 

There are 15 medical reports showing injuries resulting from these accidents. 

Data and information 

All tendering information on the construction of those roads, published in dailies and relevant websites. 

Our journalist has conducted interviews with experts and specialists who confirm that there are roads that do not meet the established technical standards. They say that the oversight committee takes money and gifts from contractors, and give plenty of examples – but no real evidence. 

All the annual reports of Country X’s Traffic Authority issued from 2015 to 2019. 

All the annual reports of the engineering bodies responsible for the construction of those roads during the same period. 

The names of all those responsible at the oversight committee. 

All the names of companies that won road construction tenders and the names of their owners and employees during this period. 

All the news items relevant to the roads, categorised by timeframe and information. 

Technical plans for the roads provided in the tendering documents before construction began. 

Construction and infrastructure legislation. 

IJ7

Assumptions 

  • The oversight committee is colluding with contractors. 
  • The committee receives money and gifts from contractors. In exchange, they turn a blind eye to problems with the roads. 
  • The contractors change the plans agreed on in contracts concluded with the government, without any justification, in order to cut costs. 
  • Contractors cut corners on construction in order to save money. 
  • The laws that regulate public infrastructure projects include loopholes that allow contracts to be circumvented. 
  • There are serious shortcomings in government oversight of roads. There is both abuse of office and neglect taking place. 

Our journalist then takes all of these points together and formulates the following hypothesis: “There are injuries and deaths on the motorways in Country X because of construction defects caused by contractors cutting corners. The government committee responsible for oversight is colluding with the contractors.” 

This hypothesis is clearly based on the preliminary research and the information and data that it has provided. It is concise, coherent and consists of one or two sentences. It breaks down into a number of central points, and each of these points produces a series of questions, each of which can be answered by a source or sources (whether human or documentary). This allows our journalist to produce a clear and specific hypothesis which can be tested and proved or disproved. 

Note that she has looked at open sources. She has inspected the roads herself by looking at official reports and speaking to experts. She has contacted human sources. 

The key to all this was generating a series of questions through an organised brainstorming exercise, questions she then tried to find answers for. The hypothesis shows the links between the event, the agent and the victim. It provides a provisional answer to the problem that our journalist wants to investigate. 

We can break it down into its central elements as follows: 

  • Two events. Firstly, contractors are cutting corners when building roads. Secondly, the government committee responsible for oversight is colluding with the contractors. 
  • Two actors. The contractors and the committee. 
  • The victim. Those killed and injured and their families. Also, the public purse, which is the common property of everyone. A hypothesis may involve one or more actors. It may also involve a single main event with several subsequent events. The same applies to victims.

IJ8

Planning an investigation 

After coming up with a hypothesis, a journalist can work out what information they have already and what information they want to get access to. The best way to do this is to produce a written research plan. A systematic plan requires systematic thinking. To produce a plan, we think up questions about the facts, sources, opinions and analysis, the background, and anticipated obstacles. 

  • The facts necessary to produce an investigation. 
  • The questions that lead us to those facts. 
  • The sources that answer these questions. 
  • The methodology. 
  • Acceptable standards for evidence. 

This division helps the journalist to prove the events took place and to gather evidence. Here we can use a schema like the one here: 

IJIJ

This schema will help our journalist to predict the results of the research plan. It will tell her where to start looking, and help her map out prospective and confirmed sources, establish sufficient standards of proof and decide on a methodology, budget and timeline for the investigation. 

When producing an investigation plan, we focus on proving that there has been logical, legal and ethical wrongdoing and establishing where this occurred, who is responsible and what their motives were (money, fear, coercion, maintaining the status quo, or neglect and incompetence). 

The schema answers the questions raised by the investigation plan: 

  • What is going on? Why should the public be interested in this investigation? Who is the target audience? The greater the likely audience interest, the more important it will be to the journalist and the news outlet. 
  • What is the mistake or wrongdoing that has taken place – that is, what is the event that we are focusing on? Is it a legal or an ethical violation? Does it make sense? How did this happen? Why did it happen? 
  • Who is the main actor? Who else participated? How did they do it? Why did they do it? Who benefited? 
  • What are the ramifications of this mistake? What are its effects? What are the likely consequences? 
  • Who was harmed directly? Who was harmed indirectly? Who suffers from this mistake or violation? 
  • Who benefits from publishing the investigation? Who will be hurt by its publication? Will it help enrich the public discussion

IJ0The ICIJ web page shows on a mobile phone. ICIJ is International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and well known for The Panama Papers [Shutterstock] 

Proving your hypothesis 

In investigative journalism, evidence must be proven beyond all doubt, because doubt will be seen as a failure of the hypothesis. If an investigation presents possibilities rather than facts, then it is not yet fully formed. 

If a journalist is unable to provide proof of the incident and connect the perpetrator to it, it will undermine the hypothesis as a whole. The assumption is that the event did not take place and that the perpetrator did not cause it. Disproving this assumption requires solid, provable evidence collected by the journalist. 

An investigation begins with a hypothesis. A hypothesis starts as a suspicion that something has happened and that somebody is responsible. A good journalist works to develop this suspicion and possibly turn it into a certainty. If, after exhausting all your options, you still are not certain, then you may have produced decent journalism – but it will not be investigative journalism. 

Investigative journalism requires conviction, conviction requires certainty and certainty requires the elimination of any doubt. Doubt can only be eliminated by marshalling solid, reliable evidence. 

Suspicion is about events. Do the events make sense? Did they really happen as claimed? Is there evidence to support this? Is there evidence to suggest otherwise? What evidence? 

Are there official documents? Is there a single account or are there several logical accounts that can be woven together? 

Another kind of reasonable suspicion arises after study and inspection, after weighing up the evidence and deciding which is more solid and precise or free of problems. A good journalist looks for evidence refuting their hypothesis. This is the best way of avoiding guesswork. 

Contradictory evidence may demonstrate that the event did not happen as suggested in the hypothesis, and that the error was not deliberate – that it occurred because of a third party wanting it to. In this case you should be fair to the person and seek justice and precision.

Evidence may prove that the error was the result not of collusion and bad intentions but dereliction of duty or neglect. This is a very different story, even if the ultimate result is the same. 

This article has been adapted from the AJMI Investigative Journalism Handbook

Categories
Saved Web Pages - Audio Posts

Biden “running out” of patience with Bibi as Gaza war hits 100 days

President Biden sits with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the start of the Israeli war cabinet meeting in Tel Aviv on Oct. 18, 2023. Photo: Miriam Alster/AFP via Getty Images

President Biden and other senior U.S. officials are becoming increasingly frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his rejection of most of the administration’s recent requests related to the war in Gaza, four U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the issue told Axios.

Why it matters: Since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack 100 days ago, Biden has given Israel his full backing, with unprecedented military and diplomatic support, even while taking a political hit from part of his base in an election year. That support has largely continued publicly, but behind the scenes, there are growing signs that Biden is losing his patience, the U.S. officials said.

  • “The situation sucks and we are stuck. The president’s patience is running out,” one U.S. official told Axios.
  • “At every juncture, Netanyahu has given Biden the finger,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who has been in close contact with U.S. officials about the war, told Axios. “They are pleading with the Netanyahu coalition, but getting slapped in the face over and over again.”

Behind the scenes: Biden hasn’t spoken to Netanyahu in the 20 days since a tense Dec. 23 call, which a frustrated Biden ended with the words: “This conversation is over.” They had spoken almost every other day in the first two months of the war.

  • Before Biden hung up, Netanyahu had rejected his request that Israel release the Palestinian tax revenues it’s withholding.
  • National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby tried to downplay the decrease in communication, telling reporters on Wednesday that “it doesn’t say anything” about the state of the relationship.
  • But more and more signs of irritation are emerging. “There is immense frustration,” a U.S. official said.

State of play: The main driver of Biden’s frustration is Netanyahu’s resistance to moving on requests that are U.S. priorities.

  • In addition to the tax revenue issue, Biden and his advisers believe Israel isn’t doing enough to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.
  • They’re also frustrated by Netanyahu’s unwillingness to seriously discuss plans for the day after the war and his rejection of the U.S. plan for a reformed Palestinian Authority to have a role in post-Hamas Gaza.
  • U.S. officials are now growing increasingly concerned that Israel won’t meet its timetable to transition to low-intensity operations in Gaza by the end of January, based on where things stand in Gaza, particularly in the southern city of Khan Younis.
  • If Israel doesn’t significantly scale down its operations in Gaza — which U.S. officials have been pressing for in hopes of reducing Palestinian casualties — it will likely become increasingly difficult for Biden to maintain the same level of support for Israel’s military campaign.

What they’re saying: Asked about the frustrations, an NSC spokesperson told Axios the administration is “focused on making sure Israel can defend itself from Hamas,” seeking to increase aid to Gaza “to alleviate the suffering of Palestinian civilians” and working with Israel “to secure the release of all the hostages.”

The big picture: Secretary of State Tony Blinken’s visit to Israel last week only exacerbated the frustrations within the White House and the State Department, the U.S. officials who spoke to Axios said.

  • Netanyahu did agree to allow a UN mission to enter northern Gaza to assess the needs for the future return of Palestinian civilians to the area, but that was about all he was willing to give Blinken.
  • Blinken was very blunt with Netanyahu and his War Cabinet, stressing that the Israeli government’s plan for the day after the war is “pie in the sky,” a U.S. official said.
  • Blinken, who pointedly visited Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar before heading to Israel, also told Israeli leaders that “no Arab country is going to bail them out” on the rebuilding and governance of Gaza if Israel doesn’t allow the PA to have a role and doesn’t allow for a political horizon for the Palestinians, the official said.

It became clear to Blinken and his team during their trip that Netanyahu’s refusal to release the Palestinian tax revenues is hampering U.S. efforts to push for reforms in the Palestinian Authority, according to two sources familiar with the secretary of state’s meetings.

  • Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told Blinken in Ramallah he was ready to form a new government — at the administration’s request — but stressed it wouldn’t be able to function without money, and the tax revenues are a big part of the budget, the sources said.

What to watch: The Biden administration is trying to change Netanyahu’s calculus by reviving efforts to reach a mega-deal with Saudi Arabia that would include a historic peace deal with Israel.

  • Blinken told Netanyahu that Saudi Arabia still wants normalization after the war ends, but only if Israel commits to the principle of a two-state solution, U.S. and Israeli officials previously told Axios.
  • While admitting it’s “far-fetched” to think Netanyahu could agree to a deal that sets a path towards a Palestinian state, U.S. officials say they want to present an alternative vision to what many fear will be an endless war in Gaza.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is also thinking long term and keeping the channels open with other political players in Israel.

  • During last week’s visit, Blinken held a separate meeting with war cabinet minister Benny Gantz, who domestic polls show would likely handily win an Israeli election if it were held today.
  • Blinken also met with opposition leader Yair Lapid and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Netanyahu’s key rival inside the prime minister’s Likud party.

For now, Netanyahu appears “more willing to listen” to the ultranationalist ministers in his government — namely Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich — than to “what the president of the United States says,” Sen. Van Hollen told Axios.

Categories
Saved Web Pages - Audio Posts

Trump, Russia, Mueller: The Countless Israeli Connections – Haaretz.com

757304459.jpg?precrop=2092,1218,x66,y14&

Haaretz | U.S. News

Analysis |

The Israel-lobbyists, Netanyahu cronies, psyops manipulators and well-connected oligarchs — could it all be just one big coincidence?

Get email notification for articles from Chemi Shalev Follow

May 26, 2018

Get email notification for articles from Chemi Shalev Follow

The Israeli media usually takes scant interest in Robert Mueller’s investigations. It prefers to dwell on Donald Trump’s supposedly pro-Israeli policies. Last week’s report in the New York Times about the participation of Joel Zamel, the Australian-born “Israeli specialist in social media manipulation,” in an August 3, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower in New York was an exception to the rule. The FBI, the Times reported, had even come to Israel to search the offices of Zamel’s company. Here was a direct Israeli link to the scandal that has bewitched much of America since Trump was first elected.

Paid by Attorney Rakefet Shfaim
Categories
Saved Web Pages - Audio Posts

Thousands Protest Across Israel Against the Government; Protesters Block Tel Aviv Highway – Israel News – Haaretz.com

aya.jpeg?precrop=5120,2977,x0,y98&height

Haaretz | Israel News

Police forcibly disperse anti-war protesters in Jerusalem. ‘Calling for the replacement of the government and its leader is not a political statement. It’s a matter-of-fact, factual and moral statement,’ Lt. Col. (res) Yoram Buskila said at the Tel Aviv rally

Thousands of Israelis demonstrated on Saturday night across Israel, demanding elections after the government’s failures of the surprise October 7 attack by Hamas.

Paid by Attorney Rakefet Shfaim
Categories
Saved Web Pages - Audio Posts

FBI sought evidence of intrusions in Hillary Clinton emails

R5WNDBLF6JOWPFXIIHOMVIIH7E.jpg?auth=a7fc

The FBI said it needed a search warrant for thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails discovered on a computer belonging to former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner in part because agents wanted to look for evidence of “intrusions” by people trying to steal classified information, according to court documents made public Tuesday.

The search warrant application, written by an agent whose name was blacked out, was filed Oct. 30, two days after FBI Director James Comey informed Congress that investigators had discovered a new trove of email correspondence that could be pertinent to an investigation he had closed over the summer into Clinton’s use of a private server to handle emails she sent and received as secretary of state.

In it, agents laid out their rationale for reopening the probe. They wrote that thousands of emails between Clinton and one of her top aides, Huma Abedin, had been discovered on a Dell laptop used by Weiner, Abedin’s estranged husband.

And, based on their previous work in the case, the agents said they had reason to suspect that those emails might contain classified material, possibly including top secret information that could cause “grave damage to national security” if disclosed.

“A complete forensic analysis and review,” the agent wrote, “will also allow the FBI to determine if there is any evidence of computer intrusions into the subject laptop, and to determine if classified information was accessed by unauthorized users or transferred to any other unauthorized systems.”

A magistrate judge signed off on the search warrant the same day.

After getting court consent to delve into the newly discovered emails on Oct. 30, agents spent several days analyzing them before Comey announced that they contained no new evidence of any wrongdoing by Clinton.

The surprise restart of the email probe, however, upended the presidential race just days before the election. Clinton supporters have blamed the investigation for her loss to Republican Donald Trump.

Weiner’s laptop was initially seized by agents investigating his online relationship with a teenage girl in North Carolina.

That inquiry is ongoing.

In statement, E. Randol Schoenberg, a Los Angeles lawyer who had sued to obtain the court papers, said he saw “nothing at all in the search warrant application that would give rise to probable cause, nothing that would make anyone suspect that there was anything on the laptop beyond what the FBI had already searched and determined not to be evidence of a crime, nothing to suggest that there would be anything other than routine correspondence between Secretary Clinton and her longtime aide Huma Abedin.”

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel ruled Monday that the public had a right to see the search warrant application and supporting court paperwork, but he said portions would be blacked out to protect the identity of the investigating agents.

The judge also ordered the redaction of sections of the paperwork related to the ongoing investigation into Weiner’s online correspondence.

Categories
Saved Web Pages - Audio Posts

Discretion Advised: Trump’s mob and Russia ties could prove embarrassing for the Donald and the FBI as investigations heats up

The investigation into Russian influence on the last election reached an absurd apogee on June 16, as President Donald Trump tweeted that he was under investigation for firing FBI Director James Comey (“I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt”), and then Trump’s lawyer denied Trump was under investigation at all.

It happened amid a subplot: rumors that Trump was looking for a way to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and Justice Department veteran who is leading the Trump-Russia investigation, while the Republican right was seeking to discredit the Dubya-appointed registered Republican as a partisan Democrat.

Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy U.S. Attorney General (and former Maryland U.S. Attorney) whose memo describing Comey’s sins provided the pretext for Comey’s ouster, told the Senate Intelligence Committee he would not fire Mueller without good cause, then reportedly told a colleague he may recuse himself from overseeing the investigation—that memo Trump referred to in his tweet makes him a potential witness.

It is telling that the focus is now on the theory that Trump, in firing Comey, committed obstruction of justice. As the old saw goes, “the cover-up is worse than the crime,” and a tidy obstruction case could be the fastest and simplest way to get Trump out of office—which appears self-evidently to be Mueller’s brief.

But what of the crime itself?

If Trump colluded with Russian government agents to interfere in the U.S. election, should not the details be made public in the broadest and clearest way possible? And what of Trump’s historic ties to Russia—to its government officials and to its mobsters? And what of his financial ties to Russian oligarchs and criminals?

It all looks complicated: hard to investigate and harder to turn into criminal charges. But the complications of Trump’s Russia ties could go farther than that: They could implicate top officials of the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI itself.

And that is the best reason to believe that Mueller’s investigation will not go there.

The Independent Counsel, chosen last month by increasingly embattled Rosenstein, has been praised by members of Congress. Republican Sen. John McCain, of Arizona, called Mueller “a great choice,” while Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) called him “somebody we all trust.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) says Mueller has “the guts and backbone to stand up and speak out against any kind of political influence.”

And, indeed, Mueller is a proven quantity. His tenure as FBI director, which began a week before the Sept. 11 attacks, was famously extended two years past its normal term by President Barack Obama. During his four-decade career as a high-powered lawyer in both government and private service, he’s demonstrated a steady hand, judicious reasoning, and a narrow focus on the business at hand—in sharp contrast to, say, Kenneth Starr, whose mid-’90s investigation into a failed real estate deal involving the Clintons spiraled into an absurd inquiry focused on the president’s ejaculate.

But Mueller’s habit of keeping his investigations tidy may not serve the nation well this time. It may not have served us well in the past, either. Several times in his career, Mueller could have sent more people to prison and shed important light on American policies and practices—but that would have been politically inconvenient (if not disastrous) for important people.

Two of those cases—the prosecution of Manuel Noriega and the investigation into the Bank of Credit and Commerce International—illustrate the issues (money laundering, spies, dubious deals cut by the Justice Department) that, just below the surface, also animate l’affair Trump/Russia.

Trump and Mueller have never crossed paths before, but they have both spent their careers in the power vortex where politicians, criminals, and spies mingle—the lawless nexus where billions of dollars are sloshed around the world in pursuit of covert aims, and high crimes routinely go unpunished in the name of “national security.”

Notwithstanding what most inside-the-beltway commentators seem to believe, Trump did not spring fully-formed from the November 2016 news void, or from Comey’s speech about Hillary. A careful examination of Trump’s career leads to the conclusion that he long had connections that could be very relevant to his current predicament.

In that, Trump could turn out to be very much like the late General Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian dictator who died last month in prison. Mueller was Attorney General Richard Thornburgh’s pick in 1989 when President George H. W. Bush dispatched the 82nd Airborne Division to arrest Noriega, a fellow head of state, on drug trafficking and money-laundering charges. The case could have been complicated—or even compromised—because Noriega had been on the Central Intelligence Agency’s payroll for decades, and Noriega wanted to argue that point in his trial. The information was explosive and could have harmed Bush’s re-election chances (as well as any number of ongoing U.S. intelligence operations). But at Mueller’s behest, the judge ruled against him, saying testimony about Noriega’s CIA ties would “confuse the issues before the jury.”

Noriega was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Mueller also oversaw the investigation into the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which collapsed in scandal in 1991. The bank, funded by Saudis, managed by Pakistanis, domiciled nowhere, acted as a money-laundering supermarket for drug-and-arms dealers (Noriega included), spies, and international mafiosi, a full-airing of the details of which could, again, have upset U.S. diplomatic interests, intelligence operations, and high-level political careers. Happily for all involved, BCCI was also a sloppy ponzi scheme, its Florida branches a hive of low-level scumbags, and so Mueller focused mainly on that—and stonewalled on the important stuff.

“In the U.S. investigators now say openly that the Justice Department has not only reined in its own probe of the bank but is also part of a concerted campaign to derail any full investigation,” Time Magazine reported in a 1991 cover story on the bank. “Says Robert Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney, who first launched his investigations into B.C.C.I. two years ago: ‘We have had no cooperation from the Justice Department since we first asked for records in March 1990. In fact they are impeding our investigation, and Justice Department representatives are asking witnesses not to cooperate with us.’”

Mueller “strongly disagreed” with the basic facts, telling then-Sen. John Kerry, on ABC’s “Nightline,” that a plea bargain with a minor BCCI player in a Tampa money laundering case was a major victory for the Justice Department. He ignored Kerry’s questions about how tapes of his investigator’s interviews with top BCCI officials, in which they allegedly discussed political bribes and its secret ownership of a politically wired Washington, D.C. bank, went missing. He ignored “Nightline” host Ted Koppel’s attempt to get Kerry’s questions answered as well.

The stonewalling of the BCCI investigation did Mueller’s career no harm. He soon took his place among the nation’s top white-collar defense attorneys, prosecuted murderers in D.C. and, in the 2000s, served his extended turn as head of the FBI, beginning it just before the World Trade Center fell to the biggest terrorist attack in history—and not long after the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan secretly dispatched Felix Sater, a twice-convicted Russian mobster, in search of terrorist missiles. Sater would soon come to work from Trump’s office tower, allegedly using Trump’s name to fleece thousands of Americans out of hundreds of millions of dollars, right under Mueller’s nose.

But Trump’s own association with mobsters and informants dates back much further than that—as does the FBI’s bewildering lack of curiosity about Trump’s many alleged crimes.

Trump and FBI Sources

For at least 35 years Trump used sources at the FBI (and was used by them) to facilitate the making of cases and careers—and fortunes. The history of Trump’s connections to the Mafia Commission case of the 1980s, and other New York intrigues, has not yet been told in full, but their outlines are revealed in the comb-over-shaped voids in the public record concerning the cases against a number of mafia families, some of whom were taken down in large part with the aid of Sater.

What follows are some key examples of the connections among Trump, the FBI, and mobsters of various national stripes—including some who have never been prosecuted and others who were major informants for the Bureau. Taken together, they raise questions about federal law enforcers’ reluctance to target the clownish mogul—and Mueller’s likely effort to avoid focusing on these connections and events.

The “Labor Consultant”

Consider what happened after FBI Special Agent Walt Stowe walked into Trump’s office with Daniel Sullivan, a mob-connected “labor consultant” Trump had previously hooked up with through his lawyer, Roy Cohn.

The year was 1981, and Trump was lining up his ducks to build his first casino while simultaneously developing (in an eyebrow-raising alliance with a mob-controlled concrete workers’ union) Trump Tower in Manhattan. He offered to help the FBI with their mafia investigations.

This story has been recounted many times, most recently by the Washington Post and Tom Robbins for The Marshall Project.

“Stowe welcomed the attention, but it was not primarily a friendship he was seeking at that time,” the Post’s reporters wrote last year, having tracked down Stowe. “Having a contact like Trump was a valuable asset for a rising star at the FBI. Trump was ‘a guy who knew people,’ Stowe said.”

What happened next was perhaps the least one should expect when trusting Trump with sensitive information: Questioned by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement about Sullivan, Trump promptly blew the longtime informant’s cover, thus preemptively scuttling any chance of a long-term investigation leading to the New Jersey gambling regulators.

The feds shook it off and, as the Post reports, “Stowe, now retired, became a gaming executive after rising through the ranks of the FBI.”

The Mafia Commission

Flash forward a few years, and the feds in New York are gangbusters, rolling up Fat Tony Salerno, Paul Castellano (both fellow clients, with Trump, of Roy Cohn) and six other top mobsters, charging them with inflating concrete prices in Trump’s E. 61st Street building.

Castellano was rubbed-out before trial by John Gotti (another Cohn client); the others were convicted in 1986 of murder, racketeering, payoffs, etc., in a sensational case called The Mafia Commission Trial.

It made a household name of Manhattan U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani—soon to be a tight pal of Trump and, after that, New York City’s mayor.

“Our approach,” Giuliani said, “is to wipe out the Five Families.”

The Mafia Commission case did not do that, but it weakened them and the so-called commission never met again, one mobster told a jury in a 2011 murder case.

Nearly everyone involved in the case became famous. Working under Giuliani, Michael Chertoff prosecuted the mob’s “concrete club.” He remained a prominent national figure for decades. In 1990 he became U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, and in the mid ’90s became special counsel to the Whitewater Committee investigating President Bill Clinton—where James Comey, another veteran of the New York office, served as his deputy special counsel.

Later he prosecuted Zacarias Moussaoui, co-authored the USA PATRIOT Act, and become the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The FBI’s lead investigator on the Mafia Commission case, James Kallstrom, later became the head of the Bureau’s Manhattan office, and rose to the rank of assistant director. He went into finance, returned to law enforcement after Sept. 11, and has lately been seen on Fox News, Breitbart, and other right-wing outlets attacking Hillary Clinton and supporting Trump. He is known as an expert in wiretapping.

Trump’s name only came up in the Mafia Commission Trial as a victim, though he had sold units in Trump Tower to several people connected with mafiosi, a pattern that began when the building was finished. What is not clear from the available record is whether Trump was merely being extorted, or was in business with mobsters. The distinction is not always clear, even to the players.

But if Trump was not obviously cordial with the Gambinos, Luccheses, and Genoveses, there was one mafia family whose members he partnered with unambiguously. And it happened to be the family whose most murderous member worked directly for the FBI for more than four decades, and the family that taught the Russian mafia how to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from the government.

The Colombos and The Grim Reaper

Trump connects to the Colombo crime family through at least two reputed members: John Staluppi and John Rosatti, business partners in numerous car dealerships who, in the mid-’80s, contracted with Trump to build a Trump-branded limousine—his first foray into personal branding of a non-real estate product.

Staluppi also operated a company called Dillinger Charter Service, which supplied helicopters to the Trump Organization (along with another colorful convict named Joe Weichselbaum). Staluppi and Rosatti also went into the yacht business, buying custom-built high-speed megayachts for themselves, naming them all after James Bond films and, they claimed, selling them after a couple years for a profit.

This may make them the only people in the history of boating to earn money by buying boats new and selling them used.

While Staluppi and Rosatti were building their wealth and enjoying their yachts, another Colombo capo, Gregory Scarpa, was racking up murders in Brooklyn under the watchful eye of his FBI handler, Lindley DeVeccio.

Known as “The Grim Reaper,” Scarpa remained on the FBI’s payroll as a “Top-Echelon Informant” from the early ’60s through the ’90s, even as he started a gang war within the Colombo family. In his massive book, “Deal With The Devil,” journalist Peter Lance presents evidence that DeVecchio knew Scarpa was killing people but abetted and protected him in order to make cases against other mobsters. He did this, Lance argues, eventually with the connivance of his superiors in the Justice Department. DeVecchio was at first cleared in an internal probe, and he was not charged with murder until a decade later—and that case ended in a bizarre mistrial. Lance argues in his book that the FBI kept the Scarpa revelations under wraps to protect its institutional reputation, as well as a number of dubious mob convictions.

Trump’s Colombo business partners, Staluppi and Rosatti, remained unscathed—even though Rosatti was busted by the FBI in 1994 and charged with being a felon in possession of a gun, and Staluppi was mentioned on wiretaps the feds had during the Colombo war.

Their mob ties are seldom mentioned these days.

But a close Colombo associate of theirs says he was a mentor to the Russian gangsters who dominated the 1990s. Those Russians connect to Trump—and to a Russian gangster called “The Boss of Bosses.”

And one of those same Russian mobsters—Felix Sater—worked for the FBI as an informant in anti-terror cases that remain secret even now.

The Colombos and the Russians

In the ’80s, as the Five Families’ influence waned, new organized criminals moved in. A faction of the Colombos had allied with the Russian mob, and capo-turned-informant Michael Franzese has claimed he personally taught them how to run a sophisticated gasoline bootlegging racket to siphon hundreds of millions of dollars by evading state and federal fuel taxes.

The world of Russian mobsters in ’80s and ’90s Brighton Beach was small, with many cross-connections—and connections to Trump. Consider David Bogatin, a career scammer who bought five units in Trump Tower directly from Trump. Bogatin was convicted in 1987 of a gasoline bootleg/tax fraud. He fled New York and was returned to the U.S. in 1993 for resentencing. His crew was allegedly commanded by Vyacheslav Ivankov, who also resided briefly in Trump Tower and reportedly had, in his personal phone book, the number to the Trump Organization.

Ivankov, known as “Yaponchik” (“Little Japanese”) and reputed to have ties to Russian intelligence services, began operating in Trump Tower in 1992. He was allegedly sent by Semion Mogilevich, reputed to be Russia’s “Boss of Bosses” to organize and lead those same Brighton Beach mobsters Franzese said were the “best partners I ever had.”

Ivankov was hard to catch, but the feds eventually tracked him, three years later, to the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, which was ever a Mecca for mobsters and money launderers.

When the FBI arrested Ivankov, the agent handling the matter described the bust in curiously diplomatic terms: “This is not a huge blow from the standpoint on the impact of the day-to-day operations of the Russian mob tomorrow or week from now,” James Kallstrom, then assistant director of the New York FBI office, told the Washington Post. “We didn’t go out and arrest 300 people and seize property. But it’s a shot across their bow.”

Just why Kallstrom’s FBI “didn’t go out and arrest 300 people and seize property,” but instead wanted only to “send a message,” was not clear. Kallstrom, remember, made his bones in the Mafia Commission case, is now a regular on Fox News, cheering for Trump and, not too long ago, exalting Comey’s ouster.

The Russian gangsters didn’t exactly cower. David Bogatin’s brother, Jacob Bogatin, partnered directly with Mogilevich as he bribed his way onto the Toronto Stock Exchange and ran up a penny stock with a fake company called YBM Magnex in an epic pump-and-dump scam operated from a Pennsylvania office. Indicted in Philadelphia in 2003, he was not extradited and remains in Moscow.

During the Clinton years, the FBI’s focus shifted from organized crime to terrorism and national security. But many of the same players remained in the game. Scarpa, by then in prison, was enlisted to dig up terrorism information—as was another mobster-turned-informant, Russia-born Felix Sater.

The Russians and the Feds

Sater was a stockbroker in 1993 when he stabbed a man in the face with a broken margarita glass during a bar brawl. After a year in prison, he went into the stock swindling business with members of the Genovese and Bonnano crime families, pleading guilty secretly in 1998 in a $40 million RICO case.

And then Sater’s case disappeared from the docket.

Sater changed his name to Satter and went to work as a federal informant in terrorism cases. In 2002, he was hired as Chief Operating Officer of the Bayrock Group, operating from Trump Tower and in partnership with Trump. The company would go on to defraud investors of about half a billion dollars, according to various lawsuits. And the feds, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, stood by and let it happen.

Sater’s FBI handler, Leo Taddeo, told a judge in the case that he “was well familiar with the crimes of Sater and [Sater’s] father, a Mogilevich crime syndicate boss.”

He did not respond to City Paper’s request for an interview.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch (who as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York had overseen Sater’s stock fraud bust) said Sater “provided valuable and sensitive information” for more than 10 years and that his work had been “crucial to national security and the conviction of over 20 individuals, including those responsible for committing massive financial fraud and members of La Cosa Nostra.”

By 2012, federal judges were ordering the civil complaints sealed, saying they endangered Sater’s life. One of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Richard Lerner, filed a remarkable writ of certiori with the U.S. Supreme Court, calling out the decade-long cover-up, wondering why the government would protect a criminal of his stature while he committed new crimes under Donald Trump’s name.

John Staluppi

Felix Sater

The Questions That Linger

As with the Scarpa cases of more than two decades before, the Sater/Trump cases implicate high Justice Department officials in a conundrum: People were injured because they put a career criminal on the street in hopes of snaring others, and stood by quietly as he partnered with Trump to allegedly multiply his frauds.

Trump has said he hardly knows who Sater is. “If he were sitting in the room right now, I really wouldn’t know what he looked like,” Trump testified in a 2013 video deposition for a civil lawsuit. This, even though he had dispatched Sater to chaperone his son, Don Jr., and daughter Ivanka around Moscow for a 2006 scouting trip. And even though Sater contributed the maximum amount allowed to Trump’s campaign, and visited the candidate at Trump Tower last summer.

These and many other examples of Trump’s close proximity to criminality certainly brought Trump to the attention of top federal law enforcers many times over the past four decades. That he has never before faced a publicly known criminal investigation, despite multiple documented instances of money-laundering and fraud, raises an obvious question: Was Trump enlisted as some kind of asset for federal law enforcement, as he obviously volunteered to be way back in 1980?

Comey should know all about Trump’s connections. He worked as deputy chief of the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan from 1987-1993, during the peak of Giuliani’s career-making (and Trump-connected) mob take-downs, and took over as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in 2002, just as Sater took over Bayrock and moved into Trump Tower—and just as Mueller settled into his chair as FBI director.

The reporting on Mueller’s investigation has so far spotlighted his potential conflicts of interest as a lawyer with Wilmer Hale, the powerhouse Washington firm he’s been with since his FBI stint. Wilmer represents Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, the president’s son-in-law and daughter; Paul Manafort, the lobbyist and former Trump campaign chairman; and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, all of whom have Russian ties.

On May 23, federal ethics officials cleared Mueller to move ahead as special counsel, saying he was not involved in the firm’s work with those clients.

There is no similar process for vetting any conflicts Mueller may have because of his previous roles in the Justice Department. In the past, congressional investigators have watchdogged him, as in 1991, when Sen. Kerry badgered Mueller about his lackadaisical BCCI investigation.

On the Trump investigation, Mueller reportedly intends to make sure congressional investigators give him the lead.

As special counsel, Mueller has broad investigative power, but he’s under no obligation to reveal the results of any part of the investigation that does not yield criminal charges.

And, of course, there is no guarantee Mueller will even be around to conduct an investigation. On June 19, Trump’s spokesman, Sean Spicer, reminded reporters that Rosenstein holds his job at Trump’s pleasure.

If getting rid of Trump is necessary to the functioning of the United States as a nation, understanding the full extent the Justice Department’s involvement with both Trump and Russian operatives over the past several decades might be even more necessary.

After all, Trump’s rise in politics was fueled in part by a general distrust in America’s institutions, from Congress to the banking sector to the criminal justice system itself.

But Mueller’s history as a lawman and prosecutor, and the FBI’s tendency to protect criminals, makes it far from certain that such a reckoning is likely soon. There is the looming possibility that, at some point, there will be one cover-up too many.

Categories
Saved Web Pages - Audio Posts

Anthony Weiner: Family Over Mayor Run

anthony-weiner-2-440-41229d7c9be04671848

What’s next for former New York congressman Anthony Weiner? Baby’s first steps, of course.

“I’m very happy in my present life,” Weiner, 47, tells PEOPLE in an exclusive interview. “The only next dramatic steps I’m planning on are Jordan’s first,” he says, referring to his 6-month-old son and remaining noncommital on whether he will run for office again.

In his first joint interview with wife Huma Abedin, who is deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the couple address how they survived Weiner’s lewd text and photo scandal that led to his resignation, as well as who has diaper duty.

“It took a lot of work to get to where are are today, but I want people to know we’re a normal family,” says Abedin, 37.

“Anthony has spent every day since [the scandal] trying to be the best dad and husband he can be,” she says of her husband, who does all the laundry. “I’m proud to be married to him.”

For more on the couple’s life now and exclusive at-home photos, pick up this week’s issue of PEOPLE, on newsstands Friday

Categories
Saved Web Pages - Audio Posts

License to Kill

Share

Cohen, Yossi Cohen.

As elegant as Bond, as lethal a killer, Israel’s top spy could probably star in his own Hollywood drama. 

Indeed, in Israel they call Cohen, the darkly handsome head of Mossad, “the model.” And those who know the 59-year-old spymaster say he rather likes his nickname.

That’s quite a turnaround for the super-secret world of the Mossad, w…