Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Election

[0_0]

posting a different opinion is not baiting someone. and i dont think obamas speech was silly or irrelevant either. in fact i see your reply as in bad faith.

but anyway, riddle me this jerky: how can obama say in october 2016, just prior to trump winning:

"But the larger point I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even -- you could even rig America's elections, in part, because they are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time."

and then now the story is there were allegedly very clear indications of russian hacking all along?

I know you're asking Jerky the question, but I've got one for you in relation to this: can you name one President that didn't lie to the American people? Even good, well-intentioned Presidents lied to the American people; JFK coming to mind.

I realize, of course, the antecedent to my question is: can I name one US intelligence agency that didn't lie to the American people? The answer, of course, is hell NO!

So how does this bring us closer to the truth?

off course all presidents lie, altho i wouldn't say they lie all the time. and i'm not the one making any claims to truth here, in fact if anything i'm promoting a strong dose of skepticism

[seemslikeadream]

emptywheel

Let me be very clear: I think Stone is guilty as fuck.

ROGER STONE’S RAT-EATING SWISS CHEESE DENIALS

March 7, 2018/2 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe, Russian hacks, WikiLeaks /by emptywheel
Back when Roger Stone leaked his September testimony to HPSCI, I noted that it misrepresented the key allegations against him, meaning he never denied the important parts.

I’m even more interested in how he depicts what he claims are the three allegations made against him.

Members of this Committee have made three basic assertions against me which bust be rebutted her today. The charge that I knew in advance about, and predicted, the hacking of the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email, that I had advanced knowledge of the source or actual content of the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton or that, my now public exchange with a persona that our intelligence agencies claim, but cannot prove, is a Russian asset, is anything but innocuous and are entirely false.

In point of fact, this tripartite accusation is actually a misstatement of the allegations against him (though in his rebuttal of them, he is helped immensely by the sloppiness of public statements made by Democrats, especially those on the panel, which I’ve criticized myself). Generally, the accusation is more direct: that in conversing with both Julian Assange (though a cut-out) and Guccifer 2.0, Stone was facilitating or in some way helping the Trump campaign maximally exploit the Russian releases that were coming.

The same is true of his interview with Chuck Todd yesterday.

I’m most interested in the way how Stone addresses his direct exchange with Guccifer 2.0, then restricts the rest of his denials to Wikileaks. When Todd asks Stone why he reached out to both Guccifer and Wikileaks, Stone focuses his attention on the former.

Todd: Why did you reach out to Guccifer? Why did you reach out to Wikileaks?

Stone: First of all, my direct messages with Guccifer 2.0, if that’s who it really is, come six weeks, almost six weeks after the DNC emails had been published by Wikileaks. So in order to collude in their hacking, which I had nothing whatsoever to do with, one would have needed a time machine. Secondarily, I wrote a very long piece, you can find it still at the Stone Cold Truth. I doubt that Guccifer is, indeed, a Russian operative. I also once believed that he had hacked the DNC. I don’t believe that anymore either. I believe it was an inside job and the preponderance of evidence points to a load to a thumb drive or some other portable device and the device is coming out the back door. But, Chuck, ten days ago, the Washington Post that based on the Democratic minority that the Russians had sent documents to me for review. I never received any documents from the Russians or anybody representing them. I never had any contact with any

Todd: Did you receive any documents and you didn’t know it was a Russian?

Stone: I never received any documents from anyone purporting to be a Russian or otherwise, and I never saw the Wikileaks documents in advance.

In his response he does the following:

Raises doubts that he was actually talking to Guccifer 2.0 (even though Guccifer 2.0’s only identity was virtual, so Stone’s online interactions with any entity running the Guccifer Twitter account would by definition be communication with Guccifer 2.0)
Repeats his earlier doubts that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian operative
Emphasizes that he couldn’t have couldn’t have been involved in any hack of the DNC Guccifer 2.0 had done because he first spoke to him six weeks after the email release (in reality, he was speaking to him three weeks after the Wikileaks release)
Admits he once believed Guccifer 2.0 did the hack but (pointing to the Bill Binney analysis, and giving it a slightly different focus than he had in September) claims he no longer believes that
Invents something about a WaPo report that’s not true, thereby shifting the focus to receiving documents (as opposed to, say, information)
Denies he received documents from anyone but not that he saw documents (other than the Wikileaks ones) before they were released
This denial stops well short of explaining why he reached out to Guccifer. And it does nothing to change the record — one backed by his own writing — that Stone reached out because he believed Guccifer, whoever he might be, had hacked the DNC.

At the time Stone reached out to Guccifer (as I pointed out, he misrepresented the timing of this somewhat in his testimony), he believed Guccifer had violated the law by hacking the DNC.

He never does explain to Todd why he did reach out.

Guccifer 2.0 never comes back in the remainder of the interview. The first time Todd asks Stone if there had been “collusion” with the Russians, Stone answers it generally, insisting Trump needed no help to beat Hillary.

Todd: You have made the case here that there was no collusion here that you’re aware of. Would it have been wrong to collude with a foreign adversary to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign?

Stone: Well, there’s no evidence that this happened, you’re asking me to answer a hypothetical question. It seems to me that Mr. Steele was colluding with the Russians.

Todd: Let me ask you this. Do you think it’s fair game to get incriminating evidence from a foreign government about your political opponent?

Stone: But that didn’t happen, Chuck, so I’m not going to answer a hypothetical question. It was unnecessary. The idea that Donald Trump needed help from the Russians to beat Hillary Clinton it’s an excuse, a canard, a fairy tale. I don’t believe it ever happened.

The next time — when Stone first labels then backs way the fuck off labeling conspiring with the Russians as treason — Stone then focuses on how such conspiring would only be treason if you believed that Assange was a Russian agent.

Stone: Chuck I’ve been accused of being a dirty trickster. There’s one trick that’s not in my bag. That’s treason. I have no knowledge or involvement with Russians–

Todd: And you believe

Stone: And I have no knowledge of anybody else who does.

Todd: Let me establish something. You believe, if unbeknownst to you, there is somebody on the Trump campaign who worked with the Russians on these email releases, that’s a treasonous act?

Stone: No, actually, I don’t think so because for it to be a treasonous act, Assange would have to be provably a Russian asset, and Wikileaks would have to be a Russian front and I do not believe that’s the case.

Todd: Let me back you up there. You think it’s possible Wikileaks and the Trump campaign coordinated the release?

Stone: I didn’t say that at all. I have no knowledge of that and I make no such claim.

Todd: No, I understand that. You just issued that hypothetical. So what you’re saying is had that occurred you don’t believe that’s, you don’t believe, you don’t believe that that’s against the law?

Stone: This is all based on a premise that Wikileaks is a Russian front and Assange is a Russian agent. As I said I reject that. On the other hand I have no knowledge that that happened. It’s certainly did not happen in my case. That isn’t something I was involved in.

When asked whether it would be illegal to work with Wikileaks (Stone’s contacts with Guccifer at a time he believed Guccifer to have hacked the DNC go unmentioned) Stone again focuses on whether Wikileaks was Russian, not on the conspiracy to hack and leak documents.

This focus on Wikileaks instead of Guccifer 2.0 carries over to the statement Stone issued to ABC:

I never received anything whatsoever from WikiLeaks regarding the source, content or timing of their disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton, the DNC or Podesta. I never received any material from them at all. I never received any material from any source that constituted the material ultimately published by WikiLeaks. I never discussed the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton or the DNC with candidate or President Donald Trump before during or after the election. I don’t know what Donald Trump knew about the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary or the DNC if anything and who he learned it from if anyone.

No one, including Sam Nunberg is in possession If any evidence to the contrary because such evidence does not exist … This will be an impossible case to bring because the allegation that I knew about the WikiLeaks disclosures beyond what Assange himself had said in interviews and tweets or that I had and shared this material with anyone in the Trump campaign or anyone else is categorically false. Assange himself has said and written that I never predicted anything that he had not already stated in public.

There’s very good reason Stone would want to focus on Wikileaks rather than Guccifer.

Even by his own dodgy explanation, at the time he reached out to Guccifer, he believed that Guccifer had hacked the DNC. While it’s true that the public record shows Stone stopping short of accepting documents from Guccifer (all this ignores Stone’s reported involvement in a Guccifer-suggested Peter Smith effort to obtain Hillary’s Clinton Foundation emails), Stone’s interest in coordinating with the hack-and-leak is clear.

And it seems Sam Nunberg may fear that his past testimony and communications with Stone would document that interest. If he knows Stone did have non-public communications with Guccifer, but didn’t believe Guccifer to be Russian, it would also explain why Nunberg said he thought Putin was too smart to collude with Trump, but that his testimony might hurt Stone.

Adding one more point to this: early in the interview, Stone goes to some lengths to say that he proved he had actually separated from the Trump campaign by contemporaneously showing two reporters his resignation letter. This is akin to something Carter Page did in his HPSCI testimony. But given how many of those conspiring with Russia on the Trump campaign (Carter Page — especially after his departure, George Papadopoulos, and Paul Manafort) didn’t have formal roles, it’s not clear that letter would be definitive. Indeed, it might be the opposite, one of a group of people who arranged plausible deniability by getting or staying off the campaign payroll.

Update: Fixed my misrepresentation of Stone’s claim about the six week delay, and fact-checked it to note it was only three weeks.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/03/07/r ... e-denials/

HOW THE DNC HACK SKEPTICS’ DOMINANT THEORY SINKS STONE

March 12, 2018/11 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Cybersecurity, emptywheel, Mueller Probe /by empty wheel

I’ve been thinking about something since I wrote this piece on Roger Stone’s Swiss cheese denials of conspiring with Guccifer 2.0 or Wikileaks on the hack-and-leak. As I laid out, Stone’s denial consists of two tactics: he admits he spoke with Guccifer 2.0 at a time he believed him to have done the hack but notes that that happened after (he claims six weeks, but it was really three) the documents already started coming out. And he denies knowing anything in advance about Wikileaks, which wouldn’t be a problem anyway, he says, because there’s no evidence Wikileaks is a Russian asset.

Effectively, that puts Stone’s involvement after the undeniably criminal act — the hack of the DNC and puts the rest into simple general foreknowledge of Wikileaks’ plan.

As I noted in my first post on Stone’s non-denials, that doesn’t address the possibility he was involved in the Peter Smith led rat-fuck negotiations with Russian hackers to find Hillary’s deleted emails.

But there’s one other problem with it.

According to the public record, Guccifer 2.0 first spoke with Stone on August 12 (though in his statement to Congress, he fudged that date interestingly and claimed the first contact — perhaps meaning DM — was August 14). While that post-dates all known hacking, it pre-dates at least one and possibly several key dates on the leak part of the operation. As Raffi Khatchadourian lays out, Wikileaks may have obtained the John Podesta emails around this time.

A pattern that was set in June appeared to recur: just before DCLeaks became active with election publications, WikiLeaks began to prepare another tranche of e-mails, this time culled from John Podesta’s Gmail account. “We are working around the clock,” Assange told Fox News in late August. “We have received quite a lot of material.” It is unclear how long Assange had been in possession of the e-mails, but a staffer assigned to the project suggested that he had received them in the late summer: “As soon as we got them, we started working on them, and then we started publishing them. From when we received them to when we published them, it was a real crunch. My only wish is that we had the equivalent from the Republicans.”

All of the raw e-mail files that WikiLeaks published from Podesta’s account are dated September 19th, which appears to indicate the day that they were copied or modified for some purpose.

Indeed, Stone’s “Podesta time in the barrel” comment, which Chuck Todd noted addressed Tony but not John Podesta, may even have preceded Wikileaks’ receipt of the emails.

But Stone’s discussions with Guccifer 2.0 undeniably precede an event that, at least according to the skeptics’ theory, necessarily precedes the publication of Podesta’s emails. That’s Craig Murray obtaining … something from someone while he was in the US for the Sam Adams Award on September 25. He has said he didn’t obtain the documents, but it might be a key or something.

That still doesn’t, by itself, make Stone’s conduct criminal. But it does mean his timeline is not exonerating.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/03/12/h ... nks-stone/

[/quote]

[0_0]

slad you already posted that exact same article 4 pages ago in this here very thread. Stillrobertpaulsen, question for you: what do you think of the discussion atmosphere on this board if you for example would read through from my first posting of obama's speech on the previous page, whereupon i am accused of baiting slad, being dandruff, being told about the problem with people like me, being put words in my mouth, people projecting their strong feelings about obama on me etc. Is that the kind of vibe you guys are going for with the new moderator team?

[seemslikeadream]

Rand Paul Says He’ll Oppose Trump Nominees For CIA, Secretary Of State

The GOP senator’s stance could imperil both nominations in what is expected to be a heated confirmation process.

Igor Bobic
WASHINGTON ― Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday he intends to oppose President Donald Trump’s nominees to head the CIA and the State Department.

Trump on Tuesday announced the ouster of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and said he was replacing him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Trump also said he plans to nominate Gina Haspel, now deputy CIA director, to replace Pompeo as head of the spy agency. Haspel helped oversee the agency’s controversial torture program, and allegedly played a part in the destruction of video recordings that captured torture sessions.

Paul, a libertarian-leaning critic of U.S. military intervention, said he was “perplexed” by both nominees, and called them “the wrong fit for America.” He added that he feared Pompeo and Haspel both would push for military force in Iran because they supported nearly two decades of war in Iraq that followed the U.S. invasion.

Paul criticized Haspel for what he called her “gleeful enjoyment” torturing detainees. “I find it amazing that anyone would consider this woman as the head of the CIA,” he said at a press conference.


Paul’s opposition could imperil both nominations in what is likely to be a heated confirmation process. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is still recovering in his home state after being diagnosed with cancer, leaving Pompeo and Haspel with as few as 49 GOP votes in the Senate.

Paul’s position on the Foreign Relations Committee could threaten Pompeo’s nomination early in the process. Republicans hold a one-seat majority on the panel, and Pompeo’s nomination could stall if Democrats on the committee decide to oppose it.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the architects of the Iraq War, defended Haspel on Twitter and accused Paul of “defending and sympathizing” with terrorists.


It’s unclear, however, how many Democrats will end up supporting either nomination. Pompeo was confirmed as the CIA director by a bipartisan 66-to-32 vote.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who blocked Haspel’s promotion to acting head of the CIA’s clandestine service in 2013 for her involvement in the torture program, offered some praise for the nominee on Tuesday, but did not say how she planned to vote.

“Well, I have spent some time with her, we’ve had dinner together, we have talked ... everything I know is, is that she has been a good deputy director of the CIA,” Feinstein said. “I think hopefully the entire organization learned something from the so-called enhanced interrogation program. I think it’s something that can’t be forgotten. And I certainly can never forget it. And I won’t let any director forget it.”

Other Democrats, meanwhile, are calling on the administration to declassify information surrounding Haspel’s management of the CIA torture program.

“We should not be asked to confirm a nominee whose background cannot be publicly discussed and who cannot then be held accountable for her actions. The American public deserves to know who its leaders are,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said in a statement.

This article has been updated with Cheney’s comments.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ra ... c8bf160d72

[Jerky]

Baf. Rand Paul only makes a noise when he knows it won't make a difference. He's grandstanding again.

Still, I'd love to know what was behind the hellacious beating he took last year, eh? Gotta be a great story there.

J.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

slad you already posted that exact same article 4 pages ago in this here very thread. Stillrobertpaulsen, question for you: what do you think of the discussion atmosphere on this board if you for example would read through from my first posting of obama's speech on the previous page, whereupon i am accused of baiting slad, being dandruff, being told about the problem with people like me, being put words in my mouth, people projecting their strong feelings about obama on me etc. Is that the kind of vibe you guys are going for with the new moderator team?

If you have a complaint, alert on the post and explain which rule is being broken.

And stop whining. If you want a better vibe from me.

Your line of questioning would be skepticism if you were more direct in your assertions. Right now, it's just playing off as disruption and, yes, baiting people. That's what I think of your contributions to the discussion atmosphere here. Try some better tactics and consider this an official warning.

[seemslikeadream]

oh part of that post was not a repeat....part was because I believe someone must have overlooked it and I posted that part of the reply as a reminder

this was not a repeat
HOW THE DNC HACK SKEPTICS’ DOMINANT THEORY SINKS STONE

Tomorrow Headline:

TRUMP FIRES NIKKI HALEY VIA CARRIER PIGEON

JUST IN: Nikki Haley blames Russia for poisoning ex-spy after White House hesitated to
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -spy-in-uk

GOP Rep. Tom Rooney Breaks Ranks On Russia Report: 'We've Lost All Credibility'

Ed Mazza
A GOP member of the House Intelligence Committee is breaking ranks with his fellow Republicans over a contentious report released Monday on Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to the campaign of Donald Trump.

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) told CNN that “there is evidence” the Russians worked to help Trump.

“I don’t know that necessarily there was a full-fledged campaign to do everything that they could to help elect Donald Trump,” he added. “I think that their goal was chaos.”

The draft report released by his fellow Republicans on Monday claims otherwise, saying Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in the election but not with the goal of aiding Trump.


However, he also justified ending the committee’s investigation.

“We’ve gone completely off the rails, and now we’re just basically a political forum for people to leak information to drive the day’s news,” Rooney said. “We’ve lost all credibility, and we’re going to issue probably two different reports, unfortunately.”

He was referring to the likelihood that the committee’s Democratic members will issue their own report challenging the findings.

“GOP just shut down House Intel investigation, leaving questions unanswered, leads unexplored, countless witnesses uncalled, subpoenas unissued,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who also sits on the committee, wrote on Twitter.

Rooney, who announced last month that he will not seek reelection, said he hopes the recommendations of the report could help protect this year’s midterm elections.

“Hopefully we can help salvage something positive out of it.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/to ... b705d573f0

[0_0]

slad you already posted that exact same article 4 pages ago in this here very thread. Stillrobertpaulsen, question for you: what do you think of the discussion atmosphere on this board if you for example would read through from my first posting of obama's speech on the previous page, whereupon i am accused of baiting slad, being dandruff, being told about the problem with people like me, being put words in my mouth, people projecting their strong feelings about obama on me etc. Is that the kind of vibe you guys are going for with the new moderator team?

If you have a complaint, alert on the post and explain which rule is being broken.

And stop whining. If you want a better vibe from me.

Your line of questioning would be skepticism if you were more direct in your assertions. Right now, it's just playing off as disruption and, yes, baiting people. That's what I think of your contributions to the discussion atmosphere here. Try some better tactics and consider this an official warning.

wow ok, well consider me gone then.. good of me to check exactly how the moderator team is blowing. and dont you be surprised or start "whining" now when you dont see any kind of adult discussion here anymore, which you profess to like so much. byyyye!

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Thank you for demonstrating your maturity, both intellectually and emotionally, 0_0.

[0_0]

yes i am mature enough to know when i am wasting my time.

[Rory]

Thank you for demonstrating your maturity, both intellectually and emotionally, 0_0.

They've got a point, whether or not the maturity level of the response is considered higher or lower than some metric.

This feeds back into the whole discussion of what constitutes discussion on a discussion board, and when one or two members refuse to engage but otherwise dominate real estate through daily flooding with copy pasta

[stillrobertpaulsen]

It certainly "feeds back into the whole discussion of what constitutes discussion on a discussion board." But copy pasta is not the issue. Baiting people is. Please don't confuse the issues - that issue is being discussed elsewhere, so let's keep it there.

[Sounder]

Wombat was one of my favorite posters. Now he has my respect even more.

0-0 fwiw, thanks for your input here, and all the best for you and yours in your future travels.

[seemslikeadream]

Sex And Human Slave Trafficking Is A huge Issue In Panama. WHY? Russian Mafia

Panama’s Human Trafficking Story
Posted on June 10, 2016
By: Izzy Ullmann

The human trafficking story in Panama is one I have heard before, but never officially: human trafficking does not exist. According to Jenise Lawrence*, an American attorney working to combat human trafficking in Panama, this is the story that the government puts out.

And yet, the US 2015 Annual Trafficking in Persons Report reports Panama as a source, transit, and destination country for primarily sex, but also labor trafficking.

I sat down with Jenise Lawrence* in Panama City to learn about the dynamics that she has noted working on this issue (almost solely in the country). As she explained, prostitution in Panama is legal above the age of 18, thus easing traffickers’ ability to sell their victims. About 80% of those trafficked into the sex trade are from Latin America and the Caribbean. Many are brought through a specific visa program, called alternadora, which the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs explains specifically allows foreign national women to work in entertainment establishments [Read more here]. In a leaked report of the US Trafficking in Persons Office’s visit to Panama in 2006, Attorney General Ana Matilde Gomez emphatically stated her distaste for what she deemed, “the alternadora visa for prostitutes,” and wished to speak to the president about abolishing the visa program. According to Lawrence, however, 12 years later the visa is still being used rampantly.

As Lawrence explained, different mafias control much of the sex industry, which serves as one of the primary reasons that the government is paralyzingly tentative to intervene. She mapped out for me the domains of mafia- controlled prostitution.


Venezuelans and Columbians exert a great degree of control over the sex industry in Panama City and the Colón Free Trade Zone. In the Chinese community, there are a few families with concentrated power. These families go to China and bring back people who are willing to be indentured servants. They are then brought to work in Chinito stores for no pay and are provided housing above or behind the shops, subject to debt bondage. As the Russian embassy has gained in power in Panama, there has additionally been an increased presence of the Russian mafia bringing eastern European girls to the country for trafficked prostitution.

As she described it, human trafficking exists as a pretty well organized criminal network. The industry has been working to improve its sex-tourism, and has coordinated taxi drivers and hotel managers and staff to direct wealthy businessmen to prostitutes, all the while making a cut of the profits.

IMG_3307
Child Trafficking campaign poster in Tocumen International Airport, Panama City

In 2014, Panama’s Ministry of Tourism launched a measly effort to raise awareness about human trafficking with posters in the airport, but this was the extent of the campaign. It was catalyzed by a scandal in which a Columbian couple was caught kidnapping children, killing them, and selling their organs. This enraged people in Panama City where the scandal occurred, and provided fuel for the campaign, but the charges “mysteriously” were dropped and neither of the couple was prosecuted.

This reflects a much larger issue that Panama faces of a debauched legal system. Due process is typically nonexistent and according to several locals, the corrupt police force accept bribes for most crimes. Lawrence explained that along the Columbian border, the Panamanian guards are being constantly paid off by the Columbian traffickers to ensure that they do not expose the criminals.



134486975_14388297683461n.jpg
Immigrant sleeping in shelter, Darien Province, Panama

Another issue that feeds into the exploitation of humans is Panama’s identity as a destination and transit country for immigration. Because of its relatively stable economy, the World Bank calculated the net migration to Panama in 2012 as about 28,105, which (factoring in those that are emigrating from the country) comes to about 100 people immigrating into Panama per day. According to Lawrence, about 60% of them plan to stay, while 40% are headed towards Mexico or the United States. Despite this high number of incomers, Lawrence explains that Panama only has two official shelters for incoming migrants: one which hosts 25 women, and another which holds 65 men. When these shelters reach capacity, government officials drive immigrants in cattle trucks to a central location where they are dumped and told they have 48 hours to leave the country. According to Lawrence, “The problem is so overwhelming to the government.” She continued, “[Immigrants] are not allowed to settle. They are all illegal but the country does not know what to do. The people do not have papers for Panama, they are not allowed to go into Costa Rica or any other country that would allow them transit through Panama or to stay in Panama, and Panama does not have the resources to send them back to their country of origin.” And few people do leave immediately. Many of these people are expertly linked into underground networks of trafficking, especially for sex.

Panama_Canal
Container ship, Panama Canal

With limited border patrol, trafficking a person into the country is fairly easy. Lawrence explained that people are trafficked over the Columbian border, through the airports, and in cargo ships through the Panama Canal. She described a survivor from Malaysia who she’d met in an orphanage who had escaped her container on a ship and swam to the edge of the Canal to freedom.

But it is not just foreign nationals; Panamanians are being trafficked too. Lawrence told me a story about two indigenous girls who were simply riding in a taxi one day and were kidnapped by their taxi driver, taken to the border where they were raped and drugged and then forced to work in a push button hotel [essentially a secret room with a menu of women who you can purchase at an hourly rate]. Below is a pretty gross video about push buttons.




While the US Trafficking in Persons Report for the past 10 or so years has placed Panama as Tier 2, and commended it for some steps towards combatting trafficking, Lawrence explains how each of Panama’s supposed efforts are moot. The 2015 TIP report says that in 2014, “authorities investigated 11 new trafficking cases, four for sex trafficking and seven for labor trafficking,” and has reported back similar numbers in the 2008, 2011, and 2014 reports, but according to Lawrence, “not one person has been prosecuted.” She explained that the judicial system and enforcement of component of law enforcement is essentially nonexistent. This sentiment was reinforced by many people I spoke to in Panama. The 2015 report also details a “dedicated helpline for reporting human trafficking cases,” but Lawrence counters that, “in reality, there is no phone number or anyone dedicated to the hotline, and if there was, I am sure they were not trained correctly.”

But underlying this slew of issues, Lawrence explains that there is a general apathy about human trafficking. Most people do not know it exists, and those that do are are plagued by the its-not-my-problem mentality. This blockades the serious action needed.

From mafia-controlled areas of the country to an overwhelming immigration problem to an uncoordinated and corrupt justice system to an apathetic public, Panama sure has a lot of issues on its hands. But they do seem solvable. Awareness needs to be raised more fully, especially in schools so that students know about the potential risks that could befall them. And the judicial and legal systems need to be made more accountable, through police trainings, crackdowns on corruption, and instilling an attitude of responsibility among law enforcement and justice officials.

Contrary to public knowledge, human trafficking exists in Panama. Foreigners like Lawrence could continue to enter the country and try to determine ways of combatting the human slavery, but the Panamanian people ultimately need to figure out how to improve their own system to eradicate this problem and protect their citizens and immigrants.
https://tostopthetraffick.wordpress.com ... ing-story/

“As the Russian embassy has gained power in Panama... “ hmmm like Russians buying condos in Trump’s Ocean Club

THAT'S A LOT

Pentagon Spent $17,000 at Panama Trump Hotel

Trump Organization employees were facing legal action over how poorly the branded-resort performed. Then the U.S. military showed up.


BETSY WOODRUFF
03.14.18 5:10 PM ET
Pentagon officials spent more than $17,000 at the Trump Ocean Club hotel in Panama in the first half of 2017, according to documents obtained by a government watchdog group. The money was spent to cover general lodging expenses, according to the documents. It isn’t clear why

Property of the People filed the Freedom of Information Act request that produced the documents.

Neither the Pentagon nor the Trump Organization responded to requests for comment for this story.

The Trump Organization does not own the Panama property. Rather, as is the case with many Trump-branded properties, it licensed Trump’s name to the resort and managed it.

“With the Defense Department’s spending at Trump properties, and Trump’s refusal to divest from his sprawling business empire, once again we find the President’s hand deep in the taxpayer’s pocket,” said Ryan Shapiro, the group’s co-founder. “Trump’s venality and his administration’s open contempt for transparency creates a functionally unprecedented potential for conflicts of interest and corruption.”

Earlier this year, majority owner Orestes Fintiklis successfully pushed to remove the Trump name from the property. He said Trump Organization employees were grossly mismanaging the property, according to USA Today, and muscled them out. A Panamanian judge ruled in his favor, but the Trump Organization told the newspaper they would still fight for their contract.


According to filings in a 2018 lawsuit between Fintiklis’ company and the Trump Organization, the contract between the two entities was designed to incentivize Trump employees at the Panama hotel to perform well. The Trump Organization got 3.5 percent of the hotel’s operating revenue every year and additional payments “if certain contractually prescribed benchmarks are met.” Trump Organization employees had not “come close” to meeting those benchmarks for years, according to the lawsuit.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/pentagon- ... ama-hotel/

Trump's Panama tower used for money laundering by condo owners, reports say

Trump Ocean Club drew people accused of corruption and future president benefited from laundered funds, reports say

Rory Carroll
@rorycarroll72
Sat 18 Nov 2017 02.00 EST Last modified on Fri 9 Feb 2018 13.36 EST

The Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower ‘aligned’ Trump’s financial interests with those of crooks, according to Global Witness. Photograph: Rodrigo Arangua/AFP/Getty Images
The Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower soars over Panama City bay, a 70-storey skyscraper shaped like a sail. Donald Trump’s first international hotel venture, it opened in 2011, a mix of condominiums, hotel rooms and a casino.

As one of the tallest structures in Latin America, it was a bold and lucrative expression of the Trump brand, earning him as much as $13.9m in management fees and royalties in the last three years.

By day it glints in the tropical sunshine, an apparently shining testament to the US president’s business savvy.

But a curious thing happens at night. Many of the lights stay off. The restaurants are near deserted; the corridors silent. The skyscraper appears to be largely empty – a dark tower.

Many of those who bought the condos, it turns out, did so not to live there but allegedly to launder illicit money – Russian gangster money, drug cartel money, people-smuggling money.

A joint Reuters-NBC News investigation published on Friday alongside a report by the non-profit Global Witness said the skyscraper with Trump’s name had ties to international organised crime.

The reports detailed how the future president gave the project to his daughter Ivanka as a “baby” effort to gain real estate experience, and said it ended up drawing a cast of characters accused of fraud, corruption and kidnapping.

Trump may not have intended to facilitate criminal activity but the Panama tower “aligned” his financial interests with crooks, said Global Witness. “Trump seems to have done little to nothing to prevent this. What is clear is that proceeds from Colombian cartels’ narcotics trafficking were laundered through the Trump Ocean Club and that Donald Trump was one of the beneficiaries.”

There is no evidence that the Trump Organization or members of the Trump family broke the law or knew of the criminal backgrounds of some of the tower’s brokers, buyers and investors.

The White House and Ivanka Trump referred requests for comment to the Trump Organization, which issued a statement distancing itself from the tower.

“The Trump Organization was not the owner, developer or seller of the Trump Ocean Club Panama project. Because of its limited role, the company was not responsible for the financing of the project and had no involvement in the sale of units or the retention of any real estate brokers.”

The story may endure. The president won last year’s election on the promise of draining corruption in Washington and building a wall to keep out drugs and undesirable immigrants. Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating Russian influence in the election, is looking at Trump’s business dealings.

Trump lent his name but did not exert management control over the tower’s construction and was under no direct legal obligation to conduct due diligence on other people involved.

But Arthur Middlemiss, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan and a former head of JP Morgan’s global anti-corruption program, told Reuters that since Panama was “perceived to be highly corrupt”, anyone engaged in business there should conduct due diligence on business collaborators. If they did not, he said, there was a potential risk in US law of being liable for turning a blind eye to wrongdoing.

Trump wanted to use the Panama project as a “baby” for Ivanka, Roger Khafif, a Panamian developer who pitched the deal to Trump in 2005, told Reuters.

She helped kickstart the project a year later by selecting a Brazilian former car salesman, Alexandre Ventura Nogueira, as a lead broker to sell units. He promised quick sales at high prices. Ventura’s firm, Homes Real Estate Investment & Services, delivered, selling 350 to 400 units, about $100m worth of property, he told Reuters and NBC.

He met Ivanka numerous times, met her brothers Eric and Donald Jr, and met the future president once, at a celebratory event in 2008 at Mar-a-Lago, the family’s Florida estate.

A year later, however, Ventura was arrested in Panama for real estate fraud, unrelated to the Trump project, and fled on bail.

Now a fugitive, the 43-year-old spoke from an undisclosed European city wearing a disguise.

Ventura said some of his brokers and clients who traded units in the Trump Ocean Club were connected to the Russian mafia and other organised crime groups.

He said he sold seven to 10 units to David Murcia Guzmán, a disgraced entrepreneur who is currently in US custody awaiting extradition to Colombia after being convicted by a US federal court of laundering money for drug cartels, including through real estate.

Ventura said he sold about half the units to Russian-speaking brokers, including Arkady Vodovozov, who, according to court files cited by Reuters, was convicted of kidnapping in Israel, and Igor Anapolskiy, who, according to Ukrainian court documents cited by Global Witness, was convicted in 2014 of forging travel documents.

Another was Stanislav Kavalenka, who, according to Ontario court documents, was charged in Canada with “compelling” and “procuring” women to engage in prostitution. The case was later withdrawn.

Many buyers remained unidentified because many units were bought and sold through anonymous shell companies. Ventura said he set up hundreds of such corporations, charging roughly $1,000 each.

“I had some customers with questionable backgrounds,” he said. “Nobody ever asked me. Banks never asked. Developer didn’t ask and (the) Trump Organization didn’t ask. Nobody ask: ‘Who are the customers, where did the money come from?’ No, nobody ask.”

Mauricio Ceballos, a former financial crimes prosecutor in Panama who investigated Ventura, told NBC the skyscraper was a “vehicle for money laundering”.

Alan Garten, the Trump Organization’s chief legal officer, played down Ventura’s connections with the Trumps, telling Reuters they did not remember meeting him, and that such contacts would have been “meaningless” and just one of hundreds of public appearances they make each year.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ng-reports

House Republicans Say Japanese Did Not Meddle in Pearl Harbor

By Andy BorowitzMarch 13, 2018

Photograph by Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call via Getty
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Reaching the opposite conclusion of many of their committee peers, Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee said on Tuesday that the Japanese did not meddle in the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

“After an exhaustive investigation, we have come to the conclusion that there was no attempt by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service to influence the outcome of Pearl Harbor,” Rep. Mike Conaway, a Republican of Texas, said. “Any suggestion to the contrary amounts to nothing more or less than a witch hunt.”

Conaway said that while there were Japanese bombers in the vicinity of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, their role in the attack there has been “blown out of proportion.”

“Is it possible that some of their planes were flying in places they shouldn’t have flown and dropping some things that they shouldn’t have dropped, by accident?” Conaway said. “Absolutely. Does that prove that there was intent to meddle in Pearl Harbor? Absolutely not.”

The House Republican praised his fellow G.O.P. committee members for “finally putting the controversy of Pearl Harbor to rest.”

“December 7, 1941, is a day that will live in a big misunderstanding,” he said.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowit ... arl-harbor

[seemslikeadream]

“Trump Wants Them Out of There”: After Swinging the Axe at Tillerson, Trump Mulls What to Do with McMaster, Sessions, Jared, and Ivanka

With tariffs done, Trump’s sights are now on the Iran deal—and, possibly, the Russia investigation. “The president is finally realizing he is the president,” a former White House official told me. “He’s just making these decisions on his own.”

Gabriel ShermanMarch 14, 2018 2:33 pm
White House

Next on the chopping block: John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, and Jeff Sessions.

From left, by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images, by Zach Gibson/Bloomberg/Getty Images, by Alex Wong/Getty Images.
From the moment Donald Trump appointed Chief of Staff John Kelly last summer, he vented to friends and advisers that Kelly was too overbearing, preventing him from acting on his instincts and impulses, the things that got him elected president. To truly be himself, Trump turned to Twitter and Fox & Friends. But over the past week, even though Kelly is still nominally on the scene, his presidency has entered a new phase—one in which Trump feels emboldened to throw off the shackles that have thus far constrained him.

In the span of a few days, Trump launched a global trade war by imposing new steel and aluminum tariffs; stunned the world by making a snap decision to sit down with Kim Jong Un at a nuclear summit this spring; fired his long-suffering secretary of state, Rex Tillerson; and appointed notorious supply-sider Larry Kudlow. “The president is finally realizing he is the president,” a former White House official told me. “He’s just making these decisions on his own.”

Speaking to reporters shortly after tweeting that he had replaced Tillerson at Foggy Bottom with hardline C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo, Trump indicated he would soon move against his remaining antagonists, many of whom he appointed with glee, in the executive branch. “I’m really at a point where we’re getting very close to having the Cabinet and other things that I want,” he said.

Some of what’s driving Trump is a desire to surround himself with loyalists. But there are also high-stakes policy implications to Trump’s uninhibited management style. Sources said Trump fired Tillerson partly because Tillerson opposed Trump’s oft-stated desire to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal—Trump even mentioned their disagreement when speaking to the press. And three sources told me that the next official likely to go is National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, who, like Tillerson, had advocated for remaining in the deal.

Last Tuesday, Trump met with ultra-hawkish former U.N. ambassador John Bolton in the Oval Office to discuss a potential job offer. Bolton has for years argued that the United States should pre-emptively attack Tehran. In 2015, he wrote a New York Times op-ed headlined, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran,” and last month, he wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed outlining the legal case for a pre-emptive strike against North Korea.

According to a person who spoke with Bolton after the meeting, Bolton recalled that Trump said he wanted him to join the administration: “We need you in here, John.” Bolton responded that there were only two jobs he’d consider: secretary of state and national security adviser. Trump said, “O.K, I’ll call you really soon.” Sources added that Trump spent much of the time with Bolton fuming that McMaster was speaking privately with Barack Obama’s former national security adviser Susan Rice. “Trump kept saying, ‘Can you believe it? To Susan Rice? Can you believe it?’”

Perhaps most consequential for Robert Mueller’s investigation, sources said Trump has discussed a plan to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions. According to two Republicans in regular contact with the White House, there have been talks that Trump could replace Sessions with E.P.A. Administrator Scott Pruitt, who would not be recused from overseeing the Russia probe. Also, as an agency head and former state attorney general, Pruitt would presumably have a good shot at passing a Senate confirmation hearing.

Then there is the question of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s futures. Trump has told people for months that he wants them to go back to New York. “Trump wants them out of there. He thinks they’ve been getting hit too hard,” a friend of the president said. But Javanka are digging in, sources said. “They’ve damaged us so much already. What else can they say about us?” Kushner recently said, according to a person who spoke with him. “And if we go back to New York, they’ll keep attacking. So what do we have to lose?” In recent days, the couple have argued for their continued relevance by cooperating with pieces in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Sources said that if Kelly is forced out, Jared and Ivanka will fight to stay on.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Pruitt would not have to undergo a Senate confirmation hearing.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/03 ... al_twitter