An aluminum stockpile (pictured), worth $2 billion and representing six per cent of the world’s aluminum, was discovered two years ago in San José Iturbide, a city in central Mexico
Liu (center) controls China Zhongwang Holdings Ltd, the world’s second largest aluminum producer in its category. His current fortune is estimated at $3.2 billion
Liu, who is currently the deputy secretary of China’s Communist Party, told the Wall Street Journal he didn’t have any connection with the aluminum in San José Iturbide. He denied trying to route his aluminum through Mexico to avoid the payments. More from the DailyMail.
A Chinese billionaire may have hidden 6 percent of the world’s aluminum in the Mexican desert
It’s not every day that Mr. Bean makes an appearance on the Wall Street Journal’s commodities coverage.
And that might not even be the strangest finding in the Journal’s investigation into a massive pile of aluminum that allegedly just sat there, unused, in the Mexican desert for years.
To start, some background: China’s growing industrial sector has been hard on the aluminum producers in the United States. In 2000 there were 23 smelters operating nationwide, now there are only five.
So when an aluminum executive named Jeff Henderson got wind of a giant stockpile of Chinese aluminum just below the U.S border with Mexico, he decided to commission a plane to check it out.
What did they find?
Six percent of the world’s aluminum, worth some $2 billion and enough to make 77 billion beer cans, according to the Journal‘s fascinating report.
The revelation led to tensions between U.S. trade authorities and China, as U.S. industry executives insist that the metal is linked to Liu Zhongtian, who runs China Zhongwang Holdings, an enormous industrial aluminum company.
U.S. industry officials allege the metal got there as part of a scheme to evade trade restrictions. The idea was to move aluminum through Mexico into the U.S. where it could benefit from provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
“These things have nothing to do with me,” Liu told the Journal, although the results of the investigation cast doubt on that claim.
Aluminum manufacturing is subsidized in China, and so Chinese firms were able to undercut U.S. producers; the United States responded by setting up tariffs to make domestic aluminum more attractive.
Routing Chinese aluminum through Mexico was a way to get around those tariffs.
Things went awry when a one of Liu’s alleged business partners Po-Chi “Eric” Shen, started to gain attention over some of his erratic practices, which the Journal report highlighted and included spending fortunes on dubious expenses like $70 million worth of red diamonds and rare Ferraris.
The relationship allegedly deteriorated quickly — Shen made headlines in 2014 when he wrecked Liu’s sports car while vacationing in Italy, and was rescued by Rowan Atkinson, of Mr. Bean fame.
The metal may never make it to the United States, in fact there are currently plans to ship it back to Asia, this time Vietnam.
Daily Archives: September 12, 2016
House Re-Starts Hillary Email Hearings with New Witnesses
Congress demands answers after surprise Clinton investigation immunity
WashingtonExaminer: Many observers were surprised to learn, in a New York Times report, that the contractor who destroyed Hillary Clinton’s emails while they were under a congressional subpoena received immunity from the Justice Department — and then still refused to answer some questions from the FBI. The surprised included the top two Clinton email investigators in Congress, Reps. Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz, who have both pored over the Clinton materials the FBI handed over to lawmakers.
It was news to them. Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, had no idea until the Times learned it. Same for Gowdy, head of the Benghazi committee.
“If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress — and by extension, the people we represent — I cannot think of what it would be,” Gowdy said in a statement. “I look forward to asking the Bureau about any witnesses who were granted immunity or claimed a privilege preventing them from answering questions.”
Chaffetz will start asking those questions tonight — in a rare Monday evening hearing before the Oversight Committee. Among the witnesses called are top officials who deal with Congress for the FBI and the Justice Department.
Perhaps the key question Chaffetz and his fellow Republicans — Democrats won’t be interested — will pose is: What more have you not told us? Committee members appreciated the FBI handing over Clinton email investigative materials, but they have since learned that the FBI was selective in what it gave to Congress. There are documents that weren’t handed over, and there are significant blackouts in the documents that were given to lawmakers.
The most fundamental questions concern the extent of the classified information that Clinton mishandled. In his July 5 public statement, FBI Director James Comey revealed that 110 of Clinton’s emails had material that was classified at the time they were sent, and more than 2,000 additional emails had material that was later determined to be classified. But what was the classified information that Clinton mishandled? Of course the FBI cannot release it, but it could give Congress, and by extension the American people, a more precise characterization of the secrets Clinton handled in what Comey called an “extremely careless” way.
And then there is the process of the FBI’s investigation itself. It’s not just the fact of the email deleter’s immunity that Congress didn’t know. Anyone who has had a chance to look over the only two documents that have been released to the public — a heavily-redacted copy of the FBI’s summary report plus the so-called “302” writeup of the agents’ interview with Clinton — has come away with some very important questions unanswered.
Like: Who actually gave the order to delete Clinton’s emails? And: Did that order come after — not before — that material was under a subpoena from Congress? And: Who decided to give the deleter immunity? And: What questions did the deleter refuse to answer? And: What does immunity mean if the witness granted immunity still refuses to answer questions? And more.
That’s what the Oversight Committee’s second hearing, to be held Tuesday morning, will address. Called to testify — actually subpoenaed to testify — will be Paul Combetta, the technician for Platte River Networks, the Colorado contractor hired by Clinton to handle her email system. Combetta is the man who had the infamous “oh s—t” moment described in the FBI report in which he allegedly realized he had forgotten to carry out a December 2014 order to destroy emails and instead carried it out sometime in March 2015, after the material was under congressional subpoena.
Combetta is also the one who was given immunity and then, according to the FBI, refused to answer questions about a conference call he had around the time of the deletions with Clinton lawyer David Kendall and top Clinton operative Cheryl Mills.
Republican investigators have a lot of questions for Combetta. The first is whether he will show up. Right now, that’s not clear.
Also called to testify is Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department tech worker who set up Clinton’s private email system — and who has also received immunity from the Justice Department. Along with them will be another worker for Platte River Networks and a longtime employee of former President Bill Clinton.
Pagliano’s immunity has been known for a while. But the revelation of immunity given to Combetta, who the FBI report says destroyed Clinton’s emails and backups after the subpoena, deeply troubles Gowdy, a former prosecutor.
“They gave immunity to the trigger man,” Gowdy told Fox News on Friday. “I mean, that’s why those of us who used to do it for a living didn’t like to give immunity … They immunized the one person you most want to prosecute for the destruction of government records.”
*****
DailyCaller: The Denver-based tech firm that worked on Hillary Clinton’s email server billed the candidate $250 an hour for interviews its employee gave to the FBI.
According to an invoice that the tech company, Platte River Networks (PRN), submitted last September to Clinton’s accounting firm, Marcum LLC., the payment was sought for interviews that PRN employee Paul Combetta gave to the FBI.
Politico reported last November that federal investigators interviewed PRN employees in September. The employees were not identified in the article.
One item on the invoice, which was obtained by the website Complete Colorado last year, is a $3,000 charge for 12 hours worth of work for Combetta, who is identified by name and by his initials on the invoice.
The charges were for “federal interviews” and “travel back east.”
Other charges on the invoice suggest that PRN — which charged an hourly rate of $250 — billed Clinton for seven hours of Combetta’s interviews. The date of the entry is Sept. 15. Three other entries on the invoice add up to $1,750 in charges for seven hours of work. One entry is a $1,250 charge for Combetta’s five hour flight to Denver.
Combetta entered the ongoing Clinton email scandal last week after The New York Times reported that he was granted immunity by the Justice Department in exchange for his cooperation with the federal investigation into Clinton’s email server. The report angered South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, who noted that the FBI’s recent report on the Clinton email investigation showed that Combetta lied to investigators about his decision to delete backups of Clinton’s emails.
Combetta used a software program called BleachBit to delete the backups. The decision came after a conference call with Clinton staffers. Clinton’s campaign said that nobody affiliated with the candidate knew about Combetta’s actions.
It is still unclear whether Clinton paid the PRN invoice which lists Combetta, but the fact that the firm billed for the interview is raising questions about whether it and Combetta were in effect working for Clinton during the investigation.
According to Complete Colorado, the site that published the PRN invoice:
If the Clintons were paying for Mr. Combetta’s time and travel, and especially if they were paying for any legal assistance he received through his employer, Denver-based Platte River Networks, it raises the question of how independent Mr. Combetta’s cooperation with the FBI was. Alternately, it could show he remained tethered, and therefore loyal to some degree, to Hillary Clinton and her team.
Platte River’s spokesman, Andy Boian, did not respond to a request for comment. Combetta did not answer phone calls and a voice mail seeking comment.
Obama to Veto the bill Authorizing Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia
It was thought that declassifying and releasing those 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report would produce the smoking gun that Saudi Arabia was exclusively behind the attacks. While there were some interesting facts and connections, the real proof was not there. In the first order of business since the return from summer break, the House voted along with the Senate approving legislation where victims’ families could sue Saudi Arabia. This puts, Barack Obama in a precarious position with regard to his veto pen. Does he stand with the families or with Saudi Arabia?
We have the answer according to Josh Earnest, the White House spokesperson:
“That is still the plan. The president does plan to veto this legislation,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters. “I do anticipate the president will veto the legislation when it is presented to him. It hasn’t been presented to him yet.”
The Press Secretary reiterated the White House’s concerns with passing the bill saying, “It’s not hard to imagine other countries using this law as an excuse to haul U.S. diplomats or U.S. service members or even U.S. companies into courts all around the world.”
“The president believes that it’s important to look out for our country, to look out for our service members, to look out for these diplomats and allowing this bill to come into law would increase the risk that it would face,” he continued. More here.
It was al Qaeda that struck America 15 years ago for sure, but Iran and Saudi Arabia had is some measure a hand in training, financial support and harboring key al Qaeda operatives. Meanwhile, the al Qaeda operation is still quite functional and not to be dismissed or under-estimated.
In part from the LWJ: Some US officials argue that al Qaeda has been “decimated” because of the drone campaign and counterterrorism raids. They narrowly focus on the leadership layer of al Qaeda, while ignoring the bigger picture. But even their analysis of al Qaeda’s managers is misleading.
Al Qaeda has lost dozens of key men, but there is no telling how many veterans remain active to this day. Experienced operatives continue to serve in key positions, often returning to the fight after being detained or only revealing their hidden hand when it becomes necessary. Moreover, al Qaeda knew it was going to lose personnel and took steps to groom a new generation of jihadists capable of filling in.
From left to right: Saif al Adel, Abu Mohammed al Masri and Abu Khayr al Masri. These photos, first published by the FBI and US intelligence officials, show the al Qaeda leaders when they were younger. Last year, several veterans were reportedly released from Iran, where they were held under murky circumstances. One of them was Abu Khayr al Masri, who paved the way for Al Nusrah’s rebranding in July. Another is Saif al Adel, who has long been wanted for his role in the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. At least two others freed by Iran, Abu Mohammed al Masri and Khalid al Aruri, returned to al Qaeda as well.Masri, Al Adel, and Aruri may all be based inside Syria, or move back and forth to the country from Turkey, where other senior members are based. Mohammed Islambouli is an important leader within al Qaeda. After leaving Iran several years ago, Islambouli returned to Egypt and eventually made his way to Turkey, where he lives today.
Sitting to Julani’s right during his much ballyhooed announcement was one of Islambouli’s longtime compatriots, Ahmed Salama Mabrouk. The diminutive Mabrouk is another Zawahiri subordinate. He was freed from an Egyptian prison in the wake of the 2011 uprisings.
Al Qaeda moved some of its senior leadership to Syria and several others from this cadre are easy to identify. But al Qaeda has also relied on personnel in Yemen to guide its global network. One of Zawahiri’s lieutenants, Hossam Abdul Raouf, confirmed this in an audio message last October. Raouf explained that the “weight” of al Qaeda has been shifted to Syria and Yemen, because that is where its efforts are most needed.
The American drone campaign took out several key AQAP leaders in 2015, but they were quickly replaced. Qasim al Raymi, who was trained by al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1990s, succeeded Nasir al Wuhayshi as AQAP’s emir last summer. Raymi quickly renewed his allegiance to Zawahiri, whom Raymi described as the “the eminent sheikh” and “the beloved father.” Another al Qaeda lifer, Ibrahim Abu Salih, emerged from the shadows last year. Salih was not a public figure beforehand, but he has been working towards al Qaeda’s goals in Yemen since the early 1990s. Ibrahim al Qosi (an ex-Guantanamo detainee) and Khalid al Batarfi have stepped forward to lead AQAP and are probably also part of al Qaeda’s management team.
This old school talent has helped buttress al Qaeda’s leadership cadre. They’ve been joined by men who signed up for al Qaeda’s cause after the 9/11 attacks as well. In July, the US Treasury Department designated three jihadists who are based in Iran. One of them, known as Abu Hamza al Khalidi, was listed in bin Laden’s files as part of a “new generation” of al Qaeda leaders. Today, he plays a crucial role as the head of al Qaeda’s military commission, meaning he is the equivalent of al Qaeda’s defense minister. Treasury has repeatedly identified other al Qaeda members based in Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Some members of the “new generation” are more famous than others. Such is the case with Osama’s son, Hamzah bin Laden, who is now regularly featured in propaganda.
This brief survey of al Qaeda is not intended to be exhaustive, yet it is still sufficient to demonstrate that the organization’s bench is far from empty. Moreover, many of the men who lead al Qaeda today are probably unknown to the public.
The threat to the West
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned that al Qaeda “nodes in Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Turkey” are “dedicating resources to planning attacks.” His statement underscored how the threats have become more geographically dispersed over time. With great success, the US worked for years to limit al Qaeda’s ability to strike the West from northern Pakistan. But today, al Qaeda’s “external operations” work is carried out across several countries.
During the past fifteen years, Al Qaeda has failed to execute another mass casualty attack in the US on the scale of the 9/11 hijackings. Its most recent attack in Europe came in January 2015, when a pair of brothers backed by AQAP conducted a military-style assault on the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris. AQAP made it clear that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was carried out according to Zawahiri’s orders.
Thanks to vigilance and luck, al Qaeda hasn’t been able to replicate a 9/11-style assault inside the US. Part of the reason is that America’s defenses, as well as those of its partner nations, have improved. Operations such as the 9/11 hijackings are also difficult to carry out in the first place. Even the 9/11 plan experienced interruptions despite a relatively lax security environment. (Most famously, for example, the would-be 20th hijacker was denied entry into the US at an Orlando airport in the summer of 2001.)
But there is another aspect to evaluating the al Qaeda threat that is seldom appreciated. It is widely assumed that al Qaeda is only interested in attacking the West. This is flat false. Most of the organization’s resources are devoted to waging insurgencies in Muslim majority countries.
The story in Syria has been telling. Although al Qaeda may have more resources in Syria than anywhere else, Zawahiri did not order his men to carry out a strike in the West. Al Qaeda’s so-called “Khorasan Group” laid the groundwork for such operations, but Zawahiri did not give this cadre the green light to actually carry them out. Zawahiri’s stand down order is well known. In an interview that aired in May 2015, for instance, Julani explained that the “directives that come to us from Dr. Ayman [al Zawahiri], may Allah protect him, are that Al Nusrah Front’s mission in Syria is to topple [Bashar al Assad’s] regime” and defeat its allies. “We have received guidance to not use Syria as a base for attacks against the West or Europe so that the real battle is not confused,” Julani said. However, he conceded that “maybe” the mother al Qaeda organization is plotting against the West, just “not from Syria.” Julani emphasized that this “directive” came from Zawahiri himself.
To date, al Qaeda has not lashed out at the West from inside Syria, even though it is certainly capable of doing so. Al Qaeda’s calculation has been that such an attack would be too costly for its strategic interests. It might get in the way of al Qaeda’s top priority in Syria, which is toppling the Assad regime. This calculation could easily change overnight and al Qaeda could use Syria as a launching pad against the West soon. But they haven’t thus far. It helps explain why there hasn’t been another 9/11-style plot by al Qaeda against the US in recent years. It also partially explains why al Qaeda hasn’t launched another large-scale operation in Europe for some time. Al Qaeda has more resources at its disposal today than ever, so the group doesn’t lack the capability. If Zawahiri and his advisors decided to make anti-Western attack planning more of a priority, then the probability of another 9/11-style event would go up. Even in that scenario, al Qaeda would have to successfully evade the West’s defenses. But the point is that al Qaeda hasn’t been attempting to hit the West nearly as much as some in the West assume.
In the meantime, it is easy to see how the al Qaeda threat has become more diverse, just as Clapper testified. AQAP has launched several thwarted plots aimed at the US, including the failed Christmas Day 2009 bombing. In 2009, al Qaeda also plotted to strike trains in the New York City area. In 2010, a Mumbai-style assault in Europe was unraveled by security services. It is not hard to imagine al Qaeda trying something along those lines once again. Other organizations tied to al Qaeda, such as the Pakistani Taliban, have plotted against the US as well.
Fifteen years after the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda lives. Fortunately, Zawahiri’s men have not replicated the hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 Americans. But the al Qaeda threat looms. It would be a mistake to assume that al Qaeda won’t try a large-scale operation again. Comprehensive story here.
Does Hillary Really Want to be Preezy in the First Place?
Several months before Hillary declared her candidacy, I was of the notion she was not going to run at all given how long it took for her to announce. There was thought that Hillary did not want the White House at all, she just wanted the pomp and circumstance and the money that comes with it. After she made her official announcement, I thought my conclusion was wrong and dismissed my conspiracy.
After this weekend, where Hillary had a serious health ‘episode’, the declaration that she was diagnosed last Friday with pneumonia and has been forced to cancel early campaign stops this week, my conspiracy is back on the table. Does she really want this or is her candidacy a ploy for the Foundation and her health condition is her ticket out?
Hillary and Bill have made several global secretive promises and pledges. They are hardly in any position to fulfill them, especially when under countless investigations, much less when Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is soon to publish his trove of documents.
For comprehensive information on the Foundation and facts to the Clinton’s money system, go here.
And new facts has also surfaced and that is yet another immunity condition for the person who did have a conference call with Hillary’s lawyers to delete her emails. This is coupled with the fact that the FBI did not turn over all the documents as previously promised to the Oversight Committee.
There are some clues as noted by Breitbart:
Cokie Roberts: Dems ‘Nervously Beginning to Whisper’ About Hillary Replacement; Floats Biden as Possibility
Monday on NPR’s “Morning Edition,” ABC political commentator Cokie Roberts offered her thoughts on the apparent health issues regarding Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the how the party could be looking to handle things if a replacement is needed for Clinton.
According to Roberts, there was already conversation within the party about such a possibility.
“The fact that it comes now when the polls are tightening and Democrats are already saying that Hillary was the only candidate who could not beat Trump and it is taking her off of the campaign trail, canceling her trip to California – it has them very nervously beginning to whisper about having her step aside and finding another candidate.”
When asked if that really could happen, Roberts called it “unlikely to be a real thing,” but floated the name of Vice President Joe Biden as a possible replacement.
“I think it is unlikely to be a real thing,” she added. “And I’m sure it is an overreaction of an already skittish party. But you know, they have looked at what happens in that circumstance. The Democratic National Committee chair convenes the committee and they vote. Now ironically, the candidate who everybody looks at is Joe Biden, who is older than Hillary Clinton. But then again, so is Donald Trump and by the way we know nothing about his health.”
More from the AmericanMirror:
****
Social Justice: National Sovereignty and the Right of Intervention
Where is this social justice movement coming from? Do you ever go keyboarding on the internet looking for one specific thing and uncover something related and much bigger? When it comes to this festering growth movement of ‘social justice’ as we are witnessing throughout the country, one must ask what is the genesis. We saw some demands surface after Ferguson and Baltimore. Between those two protests and legal investigations, the White House launched a 21st Century Policing Mandate. But how was this mandate conceived? Ah, seems we need to hop over to New York and that interesting building called the United Nations.
So, it is reasonable to consider the BLM movement is well funded and not only has made it’s way onto Elm Street, it is also taking a place onto network television, where we are forced to see it where the largest TV audiences merge, NFL football.
Are there some connections or collaboration going on here? It cant be proven, however this is a time you can be the judge as this appears to have history and will be with us for years to come.
There is a training program. There are countless issues that do need to be addressed and this movement does have valid reasons that deserve attention. The question is are all components being addressed including the true root causes?
Related reading and timeline: Black Lives Matter: The Growth of a New Social Justice Movement
This is a long United Nations document, almost 160 pages, but to help out the reader, begin at document page 11.
Circa 2006:
The application of social justice requires a geographical, sociological, political
and cultural framework within which relations between individuals and groups can
be understood, assessed, and characterized as just or unjust. In modern times, this
framework has been the nation-State. The country typically represents the context
in which various aspects of social justice, such as the distribution of income in a
population, are observed and measured; this benchmark is used not only by national
Governments but also by international organizations and supranational entities such
as the European Union. At the same time, there is clearly a universal dimension
to social justice, with humanity as the common factor. Slaves, exploited workers
and oppressed women are above all victimized human beings whose location matters
less than their circumstances. This universality has taken on added depth and
relevance as the physical and cultural distance between the world’s peoples has
effectively shrunk. In their discussions regarding the situation of migrant workers,
for example, Forum participants readily acknowledged the national and global dimensions
of social justice.
Social justice is treated as synonymous with distributive justice, which again is often
identified with unqualified references to justice, in the specific context of the activities
of the United Nations, the precise reasons for which may only be conjectured.
In its work, for reasons that will be examined in chapter 5, the United Nations has essentially
from the beginning separated the human rights domain from the economic
and social domains, with activities in the latter two having been almost exclusively
focused on development. Issues relating to the distributive and redistributive effects
of social and economic policies—issues of justice—have therefore been addressed
separately from issues of rights, including those inscribed in the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The unfortunate consequences of
this dissociation must be acknowledged. To support the concept of social justice is
to argue for a reconciliation of these priorities within the context of a broader social
perspective in which individuals endowed with rights and freedoms operate within
the framework of the duties and responsibilities attached to living in society. Notwithstanding
the implied associations between social justice, redistributive justice,
and justice as a more general concept, the fact is that the explicit commitment to
social justice has seriously deteriorated; over the past decade, the expression has
practically disappeared from the international lexicon and likely from the official language
of most countries. The position will be taken here that the United Nations
must work to try to restore the integrity and appeal of social justice, interpreted in
the contemporary context as distributive justice.
****
This part is chilling just considering the concept:
2.1 National sovereignty and the right of intervention
The Forum noted that on two recent occasions, force had been used against States
Members of the United Nations without the formal approval of the Security Council
and outside the provisions of chapter VII of the Charter.10 Even prior to these events,
the “right of intervention”, legitimized by the overriding need to protect human
rights and in particular to prevent genocide, had been openly and vigorously debated
in international circles. Today, it is generally agreed that the principles of respect for
national sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic affairs of a State can be
legitimately suspended to address unchecked and unpunished violations of basic
human rights and fundamental freedoms. Intolerance for such violations represents
a heightening of the human consciousness and real progress, and is a necessary
step in the building of a true world community. Vexing questions arise, however,
with regard to the type of legal regime needed to govern this right of intervention.