NATO members Pay Billions

Posted on April 4, 2016April 4, 2016 by Denise Simon

There is no doubt the NATO member countries have offered aid and support in the war on terror. Could countries do more? Yes, yet member countries are hardly free riders. NATO does coordinate more than what is realized in current conditions of hostilities in the Middle East.

NATO: The first group of officers from Iraq’s national security forces started their NATO training course at the King Abdullah Special Operations Training Centre in Amman, Jordan, on 2 April 2016. Their training is part of NATO’s effort to help Iraq build up its defence capacities, reform its security sector and increase its ability to contribute to regional stability. In the next six months, 350 Iraqi officers will be trained in the NATO course. Training will begin with a focus on military medicine, civil military planning and on countering improvised explosive devices.

NATO Intelligence Fusion Cell Operations since 2006

Trump Willing to Break Up NATO

AtlanticCouncil: Donald J. Trump on Saturday went further than ever before in his criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, telling a crowd here that he would be fine if NATO broke up.

Mr. Trump had previously questioned the need for the organization, and on Saturday he reiterated his criticism that other NATO countries were “not paying their fair share” in comparison with the United States.

“That means we are protecting them, giving them military protection and other things, and they’re ripping off the United States. And you know what we do? Nothing,” Mr. Trump said at a subdued rally here on the outskirts of Milwaukee. “Either they have to pay up for past deficiencies or they have to get out.”

“And if it breaks up NATO, it breaks up NATO,” he concluded.

The role of the United States in NATO has become a point of contention here between Mr. Trump and his chief rival, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, as the candidates battle to win the state’s 42 delegates in Tuesday’s primary. Mr. Cruz has criticized Mr. Trump’s comments on NATO, saying that the United States needed to support the organization’s fight against terrorism and to counterbalance Russia’s influence….

Later, at an event in Wausau, Wis., Mr. Trump seemed to acknowledge the controversy his initial remarks about NATO had prompted.

“I said here’s the problem with NATO: it’s obsolete,” Mr. Trump said, recounting his comments. “Big statement to make when you don’t know that much about it, but I learn quickly.”

**** WSJ:

Paying up? Well yes, no free-riders

In part from Bloomberg: Even before being pinched by the global financial crisis, most NATO nations repeatedly cut their defense budgets, failing to meet the 2 percent benchmark. On the other hand, this viewpoint — part of what my colleague Eli Lake calls the Obama-Trump Doctrine — ignores some facts.Japan, Korea and European countries to some extent subsidize the U.S. troop presence inside their borders; Germany pays over $1 billion and Japan upped its 2016 contribution by 1.4 percent, to $1.6 billion. Recall, too, that the allies have been there for American-initiated wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Consider NATO. According to the latest annual report from Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, 16 members spent more on defense last year than in 2014. While the Baltic states and other smallish countries living in Russia’s shadow generally had the largest percentage increases, Germany has approved boosts of $2.1 billion per year through 2019, and the U.K. has pledged an additional $18 billion over a decade.

More important, perhaps, NATO nations are spending a lot more on actual fighting equipment rather than staffs and pensions — eight allocated more than 20 percent of their military budgets to hardware. Readiness is also being stressed: Last year’s Exercise Trident Juncture in Southern Europe was the largest joint drill in over a decade, involving 36,000 troops, 140 aircraft and 60 ships.

Just as Russia has shaken Europe out of its defense stupor, so have China and North Korea energized the rest of East Asia. Japan has allocated a record $42 billion in fiscal 2016 (although a sluggish yen means its global spending power has increased at a lower rate). The budget includes purchases of six next-generation Lockheed-Martin F-35s and three Global Hawk drones, and funding for building a new guided missile destroyer. For more information and charts on funding NATO.

Gitmo Detainees Released to Senegal

Posted on April 4, 2016April 4, 2016 by Denise Simon

Both of these detainees are Libyan. DW: According to their leaked prisoner files, the men had ties to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and al Qaeda. A US official told Reuters news agency they were the first of a group of around a dozen inmates who are expected to be moved from the detention center in the next few weeks.

Secretary of State John Kerry thanked the west African country of Senegal for offering “humanitarian resettlement” to the two men after US authorities approved their release.

Senegal is not without jihad terror threats. US Wary of Africa ‘Terrorist’ Threat, Senegal Detains Suspects

Detainee Transfers Announced

Press Operations

Release No: NR-118-16
April 4, 2016

The Department of Defense announced today the transfer of Salem Abdu Salam Ghereby and Omar Khalif Mohammed Abu Baker Mahjour Umar from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to the Government of Senegal.

As directed by the president’s Jan. 22, 2009, executive order, the interagency Guantanamo Review Task Force conducted a comprehensive review of this case. As a result of that review, which examined a number of factors, including security issues, Ghereby was unanimously approved for transfer by the six departments and agencies comprising the task force.

On Aug. 20, 2015, the Periodic Review Board consisting of representatives from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence determined continued law of war detention of Umar does not remain necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States. As a result of that review, which examined a number of factors, including security issues, Umar was recommended for transfer by consensus of the six departments and agencies comprising the Periodic Review Board. The Periodic Review Board process was established by the president’s March 7, 2011 Executive Order 13567.

In accordance with statutory requirements, the secretary of defense informed Congress of the United States’ intent to transfer these individuals and of the secretary’s determination that these transfers meets the statutory standard.

The United States is grateful to the Government of Senegal for its humanitarian gesture and willingness to support ongoing U.S. efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The United States coordinated with the Government of Senegal to ensure these transfers took place consistent with appropriate security and humane treatment measures.

Today, 89 detainees remain at Guantanamo Bay.

Iran Violations Mount vs. Nuclear Deal

Posted on April 4, 2016April 4, 2016 by Denise Simon

The Houthis, the Saudi, Yemen and the history.

U.S. Navy Seizes Suspected Iranian Arms Shipment Bound for Yemen

A cache of weapons is assembled on the deck of the guided-missile destroyer USS Gravely (DDG 107). The weapons were seized from a stateless dhow which was intercepted by the Coastal Patrol ship USS Sirocco (PC 6) on March 28. US Navy Photo

USNI: Two U.S. Navy vessels seized a ship laden with illegal weapons in the Persian Gulf that were bound for Houthi fighters in Yemen, the service announced on Monday.

The stateless dhow was initially intercepted by the Cyclone-class patrol craft USS Sirocco (PC-6) on March 28 and the boarding team discovered 1,500 AK-47s automatic rifles, 200 RPG launchers and 21 .50-caliber machine guns in the hold that had been presumably shipped from Iran, according to the service.

200 RPG launchers as part of the seizure. US Navy Photo

Sirocco called in guided missile destroyer USS Gravely (DDG-107) for assistance in seizure and collected the weapons from the dhow, according to a statement from U.S. 5^th Fleet.

“This seizure is the latest in a string of illicit weapons shipments assessed by the U.S. to have originated in Iran that were seized in the region by naval forces,” read a Monday statement from the service.
“The weapons are now in U.S. custody awaiting final disposition. The dhow and its crew were allowed to depart once the illicit weapons were seized.”

USS Sirocco (PC 6) assigned to Commander, Task Force (CTF) 55 during a bilateral exercise with the Iraqi Navy. US Navy Photo

The interdiction of the weapons is the third similar interception since late February by allied forces in the Persian Gulf.

“The Royal Australian Navy’s HMAS Darwin intercepted a dhow Feb. 27, confiscating nearly 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 100 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, 49 PKM general purpose machine guns, 39 PKM spare barrels and 20 60mm mortar tubes,” said the service.
“A March 20 seizure by the French Navy destroyer FS Provence yielded almost 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 64 Dragunov sniper rifles, nine anti-tank missiles and other associated equipment.”

Sirocco is part of the forward-deployed Cyclone force based out of Bahrain and Gravely is attached to the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (CSG).

The following is the April 4, 2016 release on the seizure from U.S. 5th Fleet.

MANAMA, Bahrain (NNS) — For the third time in recent weeks, international naval forces operating in the waters of the Arabian Sea seized a shipment of illicit arms March 28, which the United States assessed originated in Iran and was likely bound for Houthi insurgents in Yemen.

The U.S. Navy Coastal Patrol ship USS Sirocco, operating as part of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, intercepted and seized the shipment of weapons hidden aboard a small, stateless dhow. The illicit cargo included 1,500 AK-47s, 200 RPG launchers and 21 .50 caliber machine guns.

The seizure was supported by USS Gravely (DDG 107), which was directed to the scene by United States Naval Forces Central Command following the discovery of the weapons by Sirocco’s boarding team.

The weapons are now in U.S. custody awaiting final disposition. The dhow and its crew were allowed to depart once the illicit weapons were seized.

This seizure is the latest in a string of illicit weapons shipments assessed by the U.S. to have originated in Iran that were seized in the region by naval forces.

The Royal Australian Navy’s HMAS Darwin intercepted a dhow Feb. 27, confiscating nearly 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 100 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, 49 PKM general purpose machine guns, 39 PKM spare barrels and 20 60mm mortar tubes.

A March 20 seizure by the French Navy destroyer FS Provence yielded almost 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 64 Dragunov sniper rifles, nine anti-tank missiles and other associated equipment.

NAVCENT is responsible for approximately 2.5 million square miles of area including the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, parts of the Indian Ocean and 20 countries.

*****

Meanwhile, Congress does maintain a list of Iranian violations and is working to compile evidence that the Obama administration has in fact just lied to Congress.

*****

Congress Investigating Obama Admin Deception on Iran Nuke Deal

Sources: Admin misled lawmakers about terms of deal

FreeBeacon: Congress is investigating whether the Obama administration misled lawmakers last summer about the extent of concessions granted to Iran under the nuclear deal, as well as if administration officials have been quietly rewriting the deal’s terms in the aftermath of the agreement, according to sources and a formal notice sent to the State Department.

The concerns come after statements from top officials last week suggesting that Iran is set to receive greater weapons and sanctions relief, moves that the administration had promised Congress would never take place as White House officials promoted the deal last summer.

“When multiple officials—including Secretary Kerry, Secretary Lew, and Ambassador Mull—testify in front of Members of Congress, we are inclined to believe them,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) told the Washington Free Beacon.

“However, the gap between their promises on the Iran nuclear deal and today’s scary reality continues to widen. We are now trying to determine whether this was intentional deception on the part of the administration or new levels of disturbing acquiescence to the Iranians,” Pompeo said.

Congress is believed to be investigating what insiders described to the Free Beacon as a range of areas in which administration officials may have understated the breadth of concessions made to the Islamic Republic when trying to persuade lawmakers to sign off on the final deal.

Multiple disputes have surfaced in the last week.

In one dispute, congressional leaders are concerned that the administration no longer considers recent Iranian ballistic missile tests a “violation” of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which codifies the nuclear deal.

Top administration officials including Secretary of State John Kerry vowed to Congress that Iran would be legally prohibited from carrying out ballistic missile tests under the resolution.

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., shifted course last week, refusing to call recent Iranian launches a “violation” in a letter she signed criticizing those launches.

A second dispute centers around recent statements from Treasury Department officials suggesting that the administration is now set to grant Iran non-nuclear sanctions relief, including indirect access to the U.S. financial system, weeks after top Iranian officials began demanding this type of sanctions relief.

Top administration figures, including Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, had promised Congress that years-old restrictions barring Iran from accessing the U.S. financial system in any way would remain in place even after the nuclear deal.

But new concerns have raised alarm bells among lawmakers, who fear that the administration will ease longstanding restrictions on Iran.

Kerry “and other administration officials assured the American people and Congress that UNSCR 2231 still allowed the U.S. to respond to dangerous actions, like these, from the Iranians,” Reps. Pompeo, Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), and Lee Zeldin (R., N.Y.) wrote in a letter last week to the State Department.

“While many lawmakers, ourselves included, are certain that Iran’s latest tests violate UNSCR 2231, your decision to cease labeling the launches a violation is alarming,” they wrote. “We are troubled by reports that the administration is stifling voices within its ranks for stronger action against Iran—putting the JCPOA and political legacy above the safety and security of the American people.”

The United States backed down in recent days from its claim that the ballistic missile tests violate the deal. The United States now says that they are “inconsistent with” promises made by Iran while the deal was being negotiated.

“This seeming American refusal to name these Iranian tests as violation is in direct conflict the administration’s earlier commitments,” the lawmakers wrote.

As the nuclear deal was being negotiated, Kerry informed Congress that, under the deal, Iran would be “restrained from any … work on missiles.” Other administration officials at the time made also clear that such tests “would violate” the agreement.

The administration has recalibrated its stance in recent days in the wake of several recent ballistic missile tests by Iran. Officials are no longer claiming that these tests violate the deal.

“In opposition to this testimony, administration officials have recently told the press that UNSCR 22231 was ‘drafted/structured in a way to appeal to Iran’s sensitivities,’” the lawmakers write.

Mark Dubowitz, executive director for the Foundation For Defense of Democracies (FDD), told the Free Beacon that the administration is redefining the terms of the nuclear deal.

“The Obama administration is involved in yet another sleight of hand on sanctions relief as well as the status of U.N. missile sanctions,” Dubowitz sai. “This is very familiar to those who tracked the Iran nuclear talks and recall the many ways in which broken commitments were justified and redlines were abandoned.”

Iranian allies on the U.N. Security Council, mainly Russia, have defended the missile tests, arguing that resolution 2231 has only “called upon” Iran to refrain from these tests.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin recently stated that the newest U.N. resolution governing the nuclear agreement only suggests that Iran stop test firing missiles.

“A call is different from a ban so legally you cannot violate a call, you can comply with a call or you can ignore the call, but you cannot violate a call,” Churkin was quoted as saying. “The legal distinction is there.”

Congressional critics have dismissed the argument and are pressing on the Obama administration to stand up to Iran’s defenders.

“The Kremlin’s absurd legal argument after Iran’s March tests that ‘legally you cannot violate a call’ would essentially allow the Iranian regime to do anything it wants to further develop its ballistic missile program,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter.

“Russia’s refusal to punish Iran, combined with its veto and China’s veto on the Security Council, will continue to prevent any real international effort to respond to Iranian infractions.”

Meanwhile, Iranian officials have said in recent days that they are preparing to expand the country’s ballistic missile program.

“We have always said we will continue with developing our defense capacity and the defense equipment has nothing to do with chemical weapons,” Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif stated on Twitter. “The missiles are only for defensive purposes and we have not invaded any country, neither we will do so in the future.”

Other Iranian officials have also said the ballistic missile tests have nothing to do with the nuclear agreement.

A bipartisan delegation of lawmakers in Congress has expressed opposition to an Obama administration plan to grant Iran sanctions relief outside the purview of the nuclear deal.

This new relief is reported to include access to the U.S. dollar and American financial markets. Lawmakers have expressed anger over the proposal, citing past comments from administration officials who claimed this would never take place under the deal.

More Details on Panama Papers and Implications

Posted on April 4, 2016April 4, 2016 by Denise Simon

Fusion: It’s being called the “Panama Papers” — a trove of 11.5 million leaked internal documents from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, showing how hundreds of thousands of people with money to hide used anonymous shell corporations across the world. Fusion’s investigative unit was one of the more than 100 media organizations that dove into the files — and found drug dealers, arms traders, human traffickers, fraudsters. We also found no shortage of politicians or their family members.

Here is a listing of current and former world leaders connected to the files. Check out Dirty Little Secrets, Fusion’s full investigation into the leak and the underworld it exposes.

For additional information on these names and more, read “The Power Players,” an interactive presentation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), from which much of this information is gleaned.

MAURICIO MACRI

President of Argentina
Macri — who as president has vowed to fight corruption — is listed, with his Italian tycoon father Francisco and brother Mariano, as a director of Fleg Trading Ltd., incorporated in the Bahamas in 1998 and dissolved in January 2009 — a financial connection Macri didn’t disclose on asset declarations when he was mayor of Buenos Aires. His spokesman said didn’t list Fleg Trading Ltd. as an asset because he had no capital participation in the company. The company, used to participate in interests in Brazil, was related to the family business group. “This is why Maricio Macri was occasionally its director,” he said, reiterating that Macri was not a shareholder.

AYAD ALLAWI

Former Iraqi PM

A wealthy Iraqi exile who helped lead the push for war with Saddam Hussein, Allawi returned to Iraq to serve as prime minister in 2004. He also served as vice president s recently as last year. From 1985 to 2013, Mossack Fonseca helped run his Panama-registered company I.M.F. Holdings Inc. I.M.F. owned a house in Kingston upon Thames, England worth roughly $1.5 million, and another offshore company of his, Moonlight Estates Ltd., held a property in London. Representatives for Allawi confirmed that he “is the sole director and shareholder of Foxwood Estates Limited, Moonlight Estates Limited and IMF Holdings Inc.,” adding that he ran many of his house purchases through anonymous offshores “in light of an assassination attempt on him.” Indeed, he survived an attempt on his life in 1978, presumably by Saddam Hussein.

SIGMUNDUR DAVID GUNNLAUGSSON

PM of Iceland

A radio personality who led the Progressive Party to victory after the financial crisis of 2008, Gunnlaugsson and his wealthy wife owned a British Virgin Islands shell company called Wintris Inc., that held nearly $4 million in bonds in Iceland’s three major banks. He failed to declare his ownership of Wintris on entering the Parliament in 2009. In March, a TV interviewer asked Gunnlaugsson if he had ever owned an offshore company. “Myself? No,” he said, adding: “Well, the Icelandic companies I have worked with had connections with offshore companies.” A spokesman told the ICIJ that Gunnlaugsson and his family had followed all Icelandic laws.

KING SALMAN BIN ABDULAZIZ BIN ABDULRAHMAN AL SAUD

King of Saudi Arabia

Through a series of British Virgin Islands shell companies, the Saudi king appears to have taken out several luxury mortgages for houses in London — at least $34 million worth — and held “a luxury yacht the length of a football field.” The king did not answer the ICIJ’s requests for comment.

PETRO POROSHENKO

President of Ukraine

Known as Ukraine’s billionaire “chocoloate king,” Poroshenko swept into office in 2014 vowing reforms that have not yet come. He became the sole shareholder of Prime Asset Partners Limited in 2014, as Russian troops invaded Eastern Ukraine. The following year, Poroshenko vowed to sell most of his assets; news reports said they ultimately ended up in “Prime Asset Capital.” His spokesman told the ICIJ said that “creation of the trust and related corporate structures had no relation to political and military events in Ukraine,” adding that his assets held by an independently managed fund — Prime Asset Capital.

RAMI AND HAFEZ MAKHLOUF

Cousins of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad

“For years, any foreign company seeking to do business in Syria had to be cleared by Rami, who controlled key economic sectors such as oil and telecommunications. Hafez, a general in charge of Syria’s intelligence and security apparatus, has been suspected of helping his older brother intimidate business rivals.” The cousins have been subjected to international financial sanctions and appear to have used multiple offshore accounts to siphon wealth from Syrian industry and avoid freezes on their assets. In early 2011, emails show employees at Mossack Fonseca discussing U.S. sanctions and allegations of bribery and corruption made against members of the Makhlouf family. By that June, Mossack had cut its ties with the Makhloufs.

KOJO ANNAN

Son of ex-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan

Then only son of former U.N. head Kofi Annan courted controversy in 1998, when a firm of his won a big contract under the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food humanitarian program in Iraq. An inquiry eventually cleared father and son of any corruption in the deal. Internal Mossack Fonseca documents show Koji Annan has held several offshore shell companies, using one to purchase a half-million-dollar apartment in central London. A spokesman for Annan said his business was for “normal, legal purposes of managing family and business matters and has been fully disclosed in accordance with applicable laws.”

FAMILY OF NAWAZ SHARIF

PM of Pakistan

For years, Sharif, a longtime presence in Pakistani politics, has had to answer questions about his family’s “riches from a network of businesses that include steel, sugar and paper mills and extensive international property holdings,” ICIJ says. Mossacks’ documents show a series of offshore companies operated by Sharif’s children, Mariam, Hussein and Hasan, including one to hold “a UK property each for use by the family” and others that moved million in assets. Mossack Fonseca resigned from a company Hasan directed in 2007, calling him “a politically exposed person.” The Sharif family did not respond to the ICIJ’s requests for comment.

ARKADY AND BORIS ROTENBERG

Lifelong friends of Russian President Vladimir Putin

The billionaire brothers grew up with Putin and have benefited richly from his turns as Russia’s president and prime minister. The U.S. has sanctioned their wealth over alleged corruption, particularly allegations they profited over contracts from the 2014 Sochi Olympics. They ran at least seven British Virgin Islands shell companies “involved in everything from investing in a major pipeline construction company… to buying equipment for the construction of an Italian villa in Tuscany for Arkady’s son.”

SERGEY ROLDUGIN

Close persona friend of Putin

Widely known as one of the world’s better cellists, Roldugin has been close to Putin since the 1970s, when the future president worked in the Soviet KGB. Documents show Roldugin owned three shell companies, two of which were funded by a Russian organ that the U.S. government calls “Russia’s ‘personal bank for senior officials.’” Through those companies, Roldugin appears to hold significant shares of Kamaz, Russia’s largest truckmaker, and a major state media corporation.

IAN CAMERON

Father of David Cameron

The father of Great Britain’s current Conservative Prime Minister died in 2010, having amassed a fortune in smart investments. According to the documents, “Cameron helped create and develop Blairmore Holdings Inc. in Panama in 1982 and was involved in the investment fund until his 2010 death.” Blairmore was valued at $20 million in 1998 and was promoted to investors in brochures as “not liable to taxation on its income or capital gains.” The promotional literature added that Cameron’s fund “will not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax on its profits.”

******

Analysis: The security implications of the Panama Papers

IntelNews: Aside from their immediate shock value, the Panama Papers reveal the enormous extent of tax evasion on a worldwide scale. This unprecedented phenomenon is inextricably tied with broader trends in globalized finance-capitalism that directly threaten the very survival of the postwar welfare state. National intelligence agencies must begin to view offshore tax evasion as an existential threat to the security of organized government and need to augment their economic role as part of their overall mission to protect and secure law-abiding citizens.

THE BACKGROUND OF THE LEAK

The source of the Panama Papers leak —the largest in history— is apparently a single individual who contacted the widely respected German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung over a year ago. After receiving assurances that his or her anonymity would be safeguarded, the source proceeded to provide the paper with what eventually amounted to over 11.5 million files. They include company emails, banking transaction records, and files of clients that span the years 1977 to 2015. The source asked for no financial compensation or other form of reimbursement in return, saying only that he or she wanted to “make these crimes public”.

Faced with the largest data leak in recorded history, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reporters contacted the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which is the international arm of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity. With ICIJ acting as an umbrella group, the German reporters were eventually joined by 370 journalists representing 100 news outlets from 76 countries. On Sunday, following a year-long analysis of the data, the reporting partners began publishing revelations from the Panama Papers, and say they will continue to do so for several days to come.

THE ROLE OF MOSSACK FONSECA

The documents are from the internal records of Mossack Fonseca, a law firm headquartered in Panama City, Panama, with offices in 42 countries. The company is one of the world’s most prolific registrars and administrators of shell companies in offshore locations. It has created more than 300,000 shell companies throughout its history, most of them in offshore tax havens like the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, or Guernsey. Its clients are offered the ability to incorporate a generic-sounding company and headquarter it in an offshore tax haven. In exchange for an annual fee, Mossack Fonseca provides the company with a sham director and shareholders, thus concealing the true owner and actual beneficiary of the business.

The power of the leaked documents is that they reveal the actual owners of 214,000 offshore shell companies managed by Mossack Fonseca. The long list of names includes dozens of current and former heads of state, as well as hundreds of politicians, public figures and celebrities. Many of these individuals have failed to declare their earnings from their shell companies in their annual tax statements, which means they have not been paying taxes in their country of citizenship or residency. Thus, there are now thousands of Mossack Fonseca clients in over 100 countries who are preparing to face the legal consequences of tax evasion.

SECURITY IMPLICATIONS

Equally importantly, however, the leaked documents reveal that Mossack Fonseca’s clients appear to include at least 33 individuals and companies that are involved in organized crime or have close contacts with terrorist organizations. This sheds light on the increasingly disappearing line that once separated illicit activities such as tax avoidance and tax evasion, from money laundering, organized crime and terrorism. This phenomenon is assisted by unscrupulous companies like Mossack Fonseca, which act as anonymizing platforms for wealthy celebrities, criminals and terrorists alike.

The leak also shows the extent to which national governments have been unable to stem the tide of unfettered finance-capitalism, which today threatens the stability and cohesion of developed and developing economies alike. Moreover, the sheer scale of offshore capital funds, which, according to one expert, amount to as much as $32 trillion, threaten the economic security of nation states and must be viewed as an existential threat to the ability of states to fund public expenditures though taxation. The political arrangement that led to the creation of the postwar welfare state is today being directly threatened by the inability or unwillingness of organized states to monitor the largely unregulated flow of capital to offshore tax havens.

Today, entire economies, including much of southern Europe, the Balkans, as well as Latin America, are crumbling under the fiscal weight created by mass-scale tax evasion and organized crime. Organized criminals are now actively working closely with the banking sector, thus creating even more opportunities for money laundering and other financial illegality on an unprecedented scale. The Süddeutsche Zeitung revelations demonstrate that the line that separates legitimate economic activity from the rogue underbelly of global capitalism is exceedingly thin. It is high time that Western intelligence agencies viewed this worrying development as an asymmetrical threat against the security of law-abiding societies and began dealing with offshore tax havens with the same intensity that they have displayed against terrorist safe havens since 9/11.

► Author: Joseph Fitsanakis

The FBI, DoJ, Hillary and Lawyering UP

Posted on April 3, 2016April 3, 2016 by Denise Simon

Just this week, the FBI sent a request to the U.S. State Department to stop all server and email investigations and the State Department has complied. Formal letters have been dispatched the key Hillary people for scheduling upcoming interrogatories with regard to the server and emails.

*** Clinton Aide Abedin ‘Terrified’ of What May Be in Emails

What is quite interesting as you continue to read the American Thinker piece below is the matter of Beth Wilkinson. Who is she that she seems to know just about all the heads of the various departments at main Justice?

DailyCaller: The wife of CNN political analyst David Gregory is the attorney representing Hillary Clinton’s ex-aides in the FBI’s investigation into her private server usage, raising concerns of a possible conflict of interest.

It was reported by Politico on Friday that Gregory’s wife, Beth Wilkinson, is representing four of Hillary Clinton’s former state department staffers in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of private email. Wilkinson is a former federal attorney who prosecuted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

Gregory, who used to be the host of “Meet the Press,” has joined CNN as a political analyst, and most of his work will be done on their morning show “New Day.”

Politico’s report doesn’t mention that Wilkinson is Gregory’s wife until the fourteenth paragraph. They also mention that according to FEC records Wilkinson is a donor to both the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

CNN has not returned multiple requests for comment on whether Gregory will be discussing Clinton on TV and whether viewers will be made aware of this conflict.

Gregory is not the first TV newsman to be connected to Clinton. MSNBC host Chris Matthews’ wife’s congressional campaign is largely funded by Clinton donors.

Four Hillary aides hire joint defense counsel

AmericanThinker:

Politico yesterday revealed that four of Hillary Clinton’s aides – not including Huma Abedin and Bryan Pagliano – are using the same high-powered, well-connected D.C. lawyer for their counsel as they face likely FBI questioning over their role in the private server/classified email and possible criminal referral. The group includes chief of staff Cheryl Mills; her deputy chief Jake Sullivan; Heather Samuelson, also on Mills’s staff; and Philippe Reines, who served as Clinton’s spokesman at State.

The lawyer in question, Beth Wilkinson, has served as a high-profile Justice Department prosecutor, in-house general counsel for Fannie Mae following its scandals (for undisclosed but likely substantial compensation), and a partner in two top law firms prior to setting up her own boutique law practice in January of this year.

As Politico notes:

The united front suggests they plan to tell investigators the same story — although legal experts say the joint strategy presents its own risks, should the interests of the four aides begin to diverge as the probe moves ahead. (snip)

Hiring the same attorney allows Clinton’s advisers to have one gatekeeper for most of the DOJ’s inquiries — and it likely indicates that they expect to offer substantially similar testimony if they’re questioned. Lawyers are barred from simultaneously representing people who may have conflicting interests in an investigation, or who would say something negative or potentially legally harmful about the lawyer’s other clients, experts say, although some such conflicts can be waived by the clients.

Thus, the aides’ decision to use a so-called “joint-representation” or “common-defense” strategy suggests the staffers believe they’re in this together and are unlikely to turn on each other.

On the other hand, if one of the aides ends up in criminal jeopardy as part of the probe, choosing a “common-defense” strategy could mean trouble for that staffer, who may need to say something adverse about his or her attorney’s other clients.

“The premise of employing the same counsel is that they believe there is not likely to be a situation where they start pointing a finger at one another to save their own skins — or perhaps at Secretary Clinton,” said Dan Metcalfe, founding director of the DOJ’s office of information and privacy. “And there’s a sense that if one of them goes down, they all go down. It shows they think they can coordinate the defense to everyone’s benefit.”

Metcalfe, now a law professor at American University, called it an “optimistic approach”: “They must believe prosecutors don’t have that much.”

It is unclear when the agreement for joint counsel was made. Senator Grassley quizzed Wilkinson late last year about who is paying her for serving as counsel and was rebuffed on the ground of client confidentiality. It is clear, however, that Hillary Clinton would be the outside party positioned to benefit from a unified set of answers among her aides, and also in a position to pony up the large sums a lawyer like Wilkinson would charge. But if and when any differences in responses appear in testimony, the aides will face heightened peril, as their common attorney will face a conflict of interest in whom to protect.

It was necessary for the Department of Justice to grant exemption from conflict-of-interest rules for this arrangement to be legal. That seems to indicate that the DoJ is not neutral in the case, something Joe DiGenova sees clearly:

DiGenova questioned why the DOJ would greenlight the arrangement in the first place, arguing that it “presents an amazing conflict of interest” and allows for coordination of stories.

“If it’s a serious case, you don’t run the risk of having all sorts of collusion between people — it’s just not done,” said diGenova. “If the department has accepted that, that tells me they’re walking down the line of not bringing a case, because they’re not serious if they have accepted that arrangement … They’ve thrown in the towel.”

The DOJ declined to comment.

If all goes as Hillary plans, this arrangement will surely benefit her. But if the FBI has information that the four people do not anticipate and they give conflicting answers, then the arrangement could blow up on her.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/four_hillary_aides_hire_joint_defense_counsel.html#ixzz44ovyf93z
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook