Obama’s Library has a Kitchen, Yoga but no NARA

Posted on January 8, 2018January 8, 2018 by Denise Simon

Image result for obama presidential library photo

As a refresher, the former president also has broken with the procedure of the National Archives. What does that mean?

The Obama Presidential Center in Chicago’s Jackson Park will take a different route, opting out of the presidential library network operated by the National Archives and Records Administration —and the millions of dollars in federal support that go along with membership.

The break from the National Archives will free up the Obama Foundation, the nonprofit group charged with building the center and raising funds for it, in several ways.

The foundation won’t have to amass an endowment equivalent to 60 percent of the construction cost of a NARA-operated presidential library. The foundation also won’t have to adhere to the agency’s stringent architectural and design standards for presidential libraries. And it won’t have to pay NARA to help run an agency-controlled portion of the center. More here.

***

An interesting piece of information: Back in June of 2017/

Judicial Watch announced that the National Security Council (NSC) on May 23, 2017, informed it by letter that the materials regarding the unmasking by Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice of “the identities of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team” have been removed to the Obama Library.

The NSC will not fulfill an April 4 Judicial Watch request for records regarding information relating to people “who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities.”

The agency also informed Judicial Watch that it would not turn over communications with any Intelligence Community member or agency concerning the alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election; the hacking of DNC computers; or the suspected communications between Russia and Trump campaign/transition officials. Specifically, the NSC told Judicial Watch:

Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library. You may send your request to the Obama Library. However, you should be aware that under the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after an administration has left office.

Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) April 4 request sought:

1.) Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the following:

Any actual or suspected effort by the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf of the Russian government to influence or otherwise interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

The alleged hacking of computer systems utilized by the Democratic National Committee and/or the Clinton presidential campaign.

Any actual or suspected communication between any member of the Trump presidential campaign or transition team and any official or employee of the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf of the Russian government.

The identities of U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities.

2.) Any and all records or responses received by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council in response to any request described in part 1 of this request.

3.) Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request.

The time frame for this request was January 1, 2016, to the April 4, 2017.

While acknowledging in its FOIA request that “we are cognizant of the finding by the Court of Appeals … that [the NSC] “does not exercise sufficiently independent authority to be an ‘agency’ for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act,” Judicial Watch argued:

The records sought in this request pertain to actions by the former National Security Advisor that demonstrate a much higher degree of independent authority than was contemplated by the court; specifically, the issuance of directives to the Intelligence Community related to the handling of classified national security information…

The recent revelations of the role of Susan Rice in the unmasking the names of U.S. citizens identified in the course of intelligence collection activities and the potential that her actions contributed to the unauthorized disclosure of classified national security information are matters of great public interest.

Judicial Watch has filed six FOIA lawsuits related to the surveillance, unmasking, and illegal leaking targeting President Trump and his associates (see here, here, here, here, here and here).

“Prosecutors, Congress, and the public will want to know when the National Security Council shipped off the records about potential intelligence abuses by the Susan Rice and others in the Obama White House to the memory hole of the Obama Presidential Library,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We are considering our legal options but we hope that the Special Counsel and Congress also consider their options and get these records.”

***

The Obama Presidential Center design, as seen from the south side of the campus. (Obama.org)

FNC: In their effort to break the mold, the planners of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago are taking heat for some less-than-lofty features in the sprawling complex.

Namely, a “test kitchen.”

Reports first surfaced last fall that the monument to the first black president’s legacy was taking on an activity-center vibe. There would be a museum – but also a basketball court, possibly a room for yoga classes, and a test kitchen to teach visitors “about the full production cycle of nutritious food.”

It’s a reference to former first lady Michelle Obama’s campaign for healthy eating and lifestyles.

But Chicago Tribune columnist Ron Grossman trashed the “test kitchen” idea as not worthy of the ideals and history for which the presidential center is supposed to stand.

This view of the Obama Presidential Center designs shows the museum, forum and library. (Obama.org)

“Mr. President, I’ve got to tell you: The renderings for your museum are ‘little plans,’ more likely to congeal than stir blood,” he wrote.

NO OBAMA DOCUMENTS IN OBAMA LIBRARY?

The problem, Grossman wrote, isn’t the design but the add-ons.

“What brought me up short was a space in the adjoining Forum building labeled ‘test kitchen.’ Presumably that reflects Michelle Obama’s war on junk food. The museum’s champions similarly suggest it could host yoga classes,” he wrote. “President Obama, is that how you want to be remembered? As the healthy-eating and meditation-advocating president?”

He added, “That’s not how I want the story to come down to my grandchildren’s children.”

Grossman encouraged the planners to reflect the “revolution” his election stood for, breaking through decades of racism and exclusion for black Americans.

This is hardly the first time the presidential center’s plans have raised eyebrows.

Planners are taking an unconventional approach, including by opting to host a digital archive of former President Barack Obama’s records, but not keep his hard-copy manuscripts and letters and other documents onsite.

Back in May, Obama described it as “more like a campus,” with plans to position it as a “premier institution for training young people in leadership.”

The project is scheduled to be completed in 2021.

Obama/Democrats DID vote for the Wall and an Immigration Proposal

Posted on January 8, 2018January 8, 2018 by Denise Simon

June, 1995: The White House today welcomed a Federal advisory panel’s recommendation to cut legal immigration by one-third. But the proposals met fierce opposition from Hispanic, Asian-American, Roman Catholic and Jewish groups, as well as from the National Association of Manufacturers.

Barbara Jordan, chairwoman of the panel, the Commission on Immigration Reform, delivered the plan to President Clinton, and he congratulated the panel. “Consistent with my own views, the commission’s recommendations are pro-family, pro-work, pro-naturalization,” he said.

Mr. Clinton said the panel had “laid out a road map for Congress to consider.” His press secretary, Michael D. McCurry, said that “the President indicated to Barbara Jordan today that he will support such reductions,” which would represent the biggest change in immigration policy in more than 40 years.

In addition, Mr. Clinton said the proposal “appears to reflect a balanced immigration policy that makes the most of our diversity while protecting the American work force so that we can better compete in the emerging global economy.” More here.

Image result for democrats vote for immigration plan photo

*** For an 8 minute video clip of then Senator Barack Obama on the matter of immigration and the border wall, go here. In a separate speech on April 3, 2006, Barack Obama included these concepts:

The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws.

To begin with, the agencies charged with border security would receive new technology, new facilities, and more people to stop, process, and deport illegal immigrants. But while security might start at our borders, it doesn’t end there. Millions of undocumented immigrants live and work here without our knowing their identity or their background. We need to strike a workable bargain with them. They have to acknowledge that breaking our immigration laws was wrong. They must pay a penalty, and abide by all of our laws going forward. They must earn the right to stay over a 6-year period, and then they must wait another 5 years as legal permanent residents before they become citizens.

But in exchange for accepting those penalties, we must allow undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and step on a path toward full participation in our society. In fact, I will not support any bill that does not provide this earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population–not just for humanitarian reasons; not just because these people, having broken the law, did so for the best of motives, to try and provide a better life for their children and their grandchildren; but also because this is the only practical way we can get a handle on the population that is within our borders right now.

And before any guestworker is hired, the job must be made available to Americans at a decent wage with benefits. Employers then need to show that there are no Americans to take these jobs. I am not willing to take it on faith that there are jobs that Americans will not take. There has to be a showing. If this guestworker program is to succeed, it must be properly calibrated to make certain that these are jobs that cannot be filled by Americans, or that the guestworkers provide particular skills we can’t find in this country. The full text is here.

In part from Politifact:

The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico.

The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.

At the time the act was being considered, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer were all members of the Senate. (Schumer of New York is now the Senate minority leader.)

Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.

200,000 Salvadorians Face Termination of Protected Status Program

Posted on January 8, 2018January 8, 2018 by Denise Simon

Back in November of 2017, the Trump administration began dismantling a longstanding humanitarian program known as temporary protected status, leaving hundreds of thousands of Central American immigrants living in heightened fear of deportation.

The program grants temporary visas that allow immigrants to live and work in the U.S. and protects them from being forced to return to their home countries. The U.S. has granted TPS to immigrants from 10 countries, mostly in Central America, for decades. The countries gain the designation after being ravaged by war or natural disasters.

DHS in coordination with the State Department and Health and Human Services is the agency of record in this matter. DHS designates the native country TPS-eligible. The initial period provided is not less than six months and not more than 18 months, but DHS can extend this time if country conditions warrant it.

*** For more information and details on TPS by DHS, go here.

Image result for temporary protective status immigrants photo

The Trump administration is ending special protections for Salvadoran immigrants, forcing nearly 200,000 to leave the country or face deportation, officials said Monday.

El Salvador is the fourth country whose citizens have lost Temporary Protected Status under President Donald Trump, and they have been, by far, the largest beneficiaries of the program, which provides humanitarian relief for foreigners whose countries are hit with natural disasters or other strife.

Two U.S. officials discussed the decision on condition of anonymity with The Associated Press because they were not authorized to speak publicly ahead of the announcement. One official said Salvadorans will have until September 2019 to leave the country or adjust their legal status.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s decision, while not surprising, will send shivers through parts of Washington, Los Angeles, New York, Houston and other metropolitan areas that are home to large numbers of Salvadorans, who have enjoyed special protection since earthquakes struck the Central American country in 2001. Many have established deep roots in the U.S., starting families and businesses over decades.

It also represents a serious challenge for El Salvador, a country of 6.2 million people whose economy depends on remittances from wage earners in the U.S. Over the last decade, growing numbers of Salvadorans — many coming as families or unaccompanied children — have entered the United States illegally through Mexico, fleeing violence and poverty.

In September 2016, the Obama administration extended protections for 18 months, saying El Salvador suffered lingering harm from the 2001 earthquakes that killed more than 1,000 people and was temporarily unable to absorb such a large number of people. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen faced a Monday deadline to decide whether to grant another extension.

El Salvador President Salvador Sanchez Ceren spoke by phone Friday with Nielsen to renew his plea to extend status for 190,000 Salvadorans and allow more time for Congress to deliver a long-term fix for them to stay in the U.S.

The decision comes amid intensifying talks between the White House and Congress on an immigration package that may include protections for hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who came to the country as children and were temporarily shielded from deportation under an Obama-era program. Trump said in September that he was ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, but gave Congress until March to act.

The U.S. created Temporary Protected Status in 1990 to provide a safe haven from countries affected by earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, war and other disasters, and it currently shields nearly 320,000 people from 10 countries. There are nearly 440,000 beneficiaries from the 10 countries, including 263,000 from El Salvador, but many have obtained legal status other ways.

The benefit, which includes work authorization, can be renewed up to 18 months at a time by the Homeland Security secretary. Critics say it has proved anything but temporary — with many beneficiaries staying years after the initial justification applies.

Nielsen said last week that short-term extensions are not the answer.

“Getting them to a permanent solution is a much better plan than having them live six months to 12 months to 18 months,” she told the AP.

In November, Nielsen’s predecessor, acting Secretary Elaine Duke, ended the protection for Haitians, requiring about 50,000 to leave or adjust their legal status by July 22, 2019, and for Nicaraguans, giving about 2,500 until Jan. 5, 2019. She delayed a decision affecting more than 50,000 Hondurans, foisting the decision onto Nielsen.

Last year, the Trump administration extended status for South Sudan and ended it for Sudan. Other countries covered are Nepal, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

UNRWA De-Funded by the United States, Finally, Sorta

Posted on January 5, 2018January 5, 2018 by Denise Simon

Primer: April – August 1948: More than 700,000 Palestine refugees are displaced as a result of the Arab-Israeli War. Per the United Nations Relief and Works Agency website. So, we have a generational refugee condition, where they are refugees in essentially their own land…let that sink in.

UNRWA human development and humanitarian services encompass primary and vocational education, primary health care, relief and social services, infrastructure and camp improvement, microfinance and emergency response, including in situations of armed conflict.

Bleh…..after 70 years….it still has to be funded? Did you catch that set of words ‘armed conflict’? Even the left leaning Huffington Post agrees, the Palestinians DON’T want peace.

The Palestinians not only have rejected one offer after another for a peaceful settlement in the past nearly 70 years, but also, tragically, their misguided actions now make any chance of an accord going forward still less likely.

Friday’s UN Security Council resolution is a case in point.

If the goal was to increase the chance of Palestinian statehood alongside Israel (and not in its place!), it was an abysmal failure, despite the lopsided vote. Those diplomats who rushed to applaud the outcome – and I’ll set aside thuggish countries like Venezuela that don’t bring a shred of good will to the UN table – should think twice about what they actually achieved.

If they wanted to excoriate Israel, a longstanding vocation of too many UN member states, then they can thump their chests, even if, alas, they habitually reserve such scrutiny for the only democratic nation in the Middle East. But for those truly committed to advancing prospects for peace, they took a big step backwards, once again falling into the Palestinian trap.

*** The Palestinians have a capital it is called Ramallah. Image result for ramallah palestinians

And Israel has a capital, Jerusalem. Image result for jerusalem photo

The Palestinians want peace, just not with Jews.

So, when the United States suspended funding to UNRWA….it was not all the funding, don’t be fooled. The United States gives an estimated $390,000,000 to UNRWA each year. Add that to the collection of other nations’ contributions and UNRWA is hardly out of business.

The United States administration froze a $125 million grant to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the UN’s agency for “Palestinian refugees”, which was supposed to be delivered on January 1, Channel 10 News reported on Friday, citing three Western diplomats.

The amount frozen is one-third of the annual funding the United States provides the organization, according to the report.

The three diplomats, who asked to remain anonymous because of the political sensitivity of the issue, told Channel 10 the grant had been frozen until the end of the reexamination of U.S. aid to the Palestinians, which began in recent days. According to the diplomats, officials in the administration have informed UN officials in the past two days that President Donald Trump is considering cutting this amount completely and could even increase the cut to $180 million, which would be half the total U.S. funding for UNRWA.

The cutting in the UN funding to UNRWA is a U.S. sanction against the organization, which has come under strong criticized from both the United States and Israel, as well as against the Palestinian Arabs, in an attempt to pressure them to renew peace talks with Israel.

News of the freezing of the grant came as a meeting took place in the White House discussing the cutting of aid to the Palestinian Authority and to UNRWA.

The meeting followed Trump’s tweets earlier this week in which he expressed doubt over the usefulness of American aid to the Palestinians, given their refusal to resume peace talks with Israel.

The United States is the largest single donor to UNRWA, providing approximately a fourth of the organization’s budget.

Reports in Israel on Thursday indicated that the Israeli Foreign Ministry is opposed to Trump’s planned cut in the aid to UNRWA, but on Friday Jewish Home chairman Naftali Bennett said that cutting aid to UNRWA is the correct move.

For years, UNRWA has been a target for criticism in light of Hamas’s activity in its educational institutions and the use of its facilities by Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations in Gaza.

UNRWA was documented storing Hamas rockets and weapons “designed to kill Israeli citizens” in its schools, a fact which the UNRWA chief admitted himself.

In addition, the organization has actively taken part in inciting anti-Semitic violence.

By the way, it is called a global diaspora regarding where and how many Palestinians live across the globe.

The countries outside the Palestinian territories with significant Palestinian populations are:

Jordan 3,240,000

Israel 1,650,000

Syria 630,000

Chile 500,000 (largest Palestinian community outside the Middle East).

Lebanon 402,582

Saudi Arabia 280,245

Egypt 270,245

United States 255,000 (the largest concentrations in Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles (History of Palestinians in Los Angeles)-San Diego).

Honduras 250,000

Guatemala est. 200,000

Mexico 120,000

Qatar 100,000

Germany 80,000

Kuwait 80,000

El Salvador 70,000

Brazil 59,000

Iraq 57,000

Yemen 55,000

Canada 50,975

Australia 45,000

Libya 44,000

Puerto Rico est. 30,000

Greece est. 30,000

United Kingdom 20,000

Peru 19,000

Denmark 15,000

Colombia 12,000

Japan est. 10,000

Paraguay 10.000

Netherlands 9,000

Sweden 7,000

Algeria 4,030

Austria 4,010

Norway 3,825

Iran/Turkey Evade Sanctions Work, Guilty and DC

Posted on January 4, 2018January 4, 2018 by Denise Simon

If you think you can describe relationships and motivations globally and the connective tissue into Washington DC….you may need to think again.

This particular legal case decided yesterday has the makings of an HBO television documentary that includes past and present political power-brokers. We have Trump, Giuliani, Flynn, Obama, FBI, Justice, Iran, Turkey, lobbyists and even some violence.

What did the Obama administration know and why did they know it, then what?

Primer:

May 2017: MIAMI — President Donald Trump’s longtime Florida lobbyist, Brian Ballard, has expanded his practice globally and just signed a $1.5 million contract with the government of Turkey, which will be represented by the firm’s new big hire, former Florida Congressman Robert Wexler.

Ballard Partners’ Turkey contract, inked Friday, comes on the heels of two other international clients signed by the firm: A March 6 $900,000 contract with the Dominican Republic and an April 1 $240,000 contract with the Socialist Party of Albania, the ruling party in the Balkan nation. More here.

For a current list of clients for Ballard Partners, go here.

***

Just the facts and the case of GOLD below, while several are still at large.

Enter the good guys, outside of government who perform remarkable and respected investigative work.

The Biggest Sanctions-Evasion Scheme in Recent History

And the swashbuckling gold trader at its center

SchanzerYesterday, Turkish banker Mehmet Hakan Atilla was found guilty in a Manhattan courtroom for a range of financial crimes. His dramatic trial revealed that tens of billions in dollars and gold moved from Turkey to Iran through a complex network of businesses, banks, and front companies.

photo

The trial was a long time coming. In late October of 2016, Justice Department officials paid a visit to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Washington-based think tank where I serve as senior vice president. They wanted to talk about Reza Zarrab. A dual Iranian-Turkish national, Zarrab was the swashbuckling gold trader who had helped Iran evade sanctions with the help of Turkish banks in 2013 and 2014, yielding Iran an estimated $13 billion at the height of the efforts to thwart Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. A leaked report by prosecutors in Istanbul in March 2014 suggested that Zarrab spearheaded a second sanctions-busting scheme involving fake invoices for billions more in fictitious humanitarian shipments to Iran that were processed through Turkish banks.

At FDD, we’d spent considerable time digging into Zarrab’s activities. Our think tank already had an established track record of identifying and exposing Iran’s malign activities. We had also just launched a new program to explore Turkey’s recent drift into Islamist authoritarianism. The more we investigated, the more we realized that Zarrab’s schemes, which could have helped Iran pocket more than $100 billion, rank among the largest sanctions evasion episode in modern history.Despite the headlines generated by the gold trade and leaked report, the Turkish government insisted that everything was above board. The Obama administration seemed to echo this sentiment, saying that the gold trade had slipped through a legal loophole (a loophole the White House inexplicably left open for an additional six months, even after the problem was flagged). We soon learned Ankara’s political motivations: The gold trade helped boost Turkey’s flagging export numbers at a moment when those numbers might have hurt President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s chances for reelection. Zarrab, who became fabulously wealthy by taking a percentage from every transaction (he later estimated his take at $150 million), even received a reward for his efforts from a Turkish trade association in 2015, with Erdogan applauding from the audience.

But it all came to an abrupt halt last March, when Zarrab inexplicably brought his family to America for a vacation at Disney World. With the 2015 nuclear deal in effect, he may have believed that the sanctions laws he violated before the deal were no longer in force. Some suggest that Zarrab was trying to flee Iranian justice, particularly as the regime came to grasp just how much he skimmed off the top. Either way, when he arrived in Florida, U.S. authorities arrested him for engaging in conspiracies to violate sanctions, commit bank fraud, and launder money.

It was about time. For three years, my colleagues and I had been briefing the Treasury Department, the State Department, and Congressional offices. We had tracked the export data (which, remarkably, Turkey did not hide), showing an astronomical spike in Turkish gold exports. We identified the companies and players, with the help of the 2014 prosecutor’s report. It was painstaking work, but it was all out there in open sources for a think tank like ours to document.Yet, it was an inconvenient moment to reveal unsavory truths about Iran, amid the push for the nuclear agreement. Nor did anyone, Democrat or Republican, want to touch the third rail of relations with Turkey, a NATO ally that had recently begun backing terrorist groups like Hamas (which still maintains a disturbing presence in Turkey) and a range of Sunni jihadi groups fighting the Assad regime in Syria (including al-Qaeda’s affiliate, according to senior U.S. government officials we interviewed). Stable allies in the Muslim world were scarce, and decision-makers seemed reluctant to take any chances with Ankara.

It may also have been difficult for officials to hear that the sanctions tools we have in place to prevent bad actors from moving money are just that—tools. Without intense vigilance and enforcement, there is ample opportunity for Iran and other sanctioned countries to find workarounds. But if we’re going to follow the money, we’d better be prepared to follow it to the most inconvenient places.

That’s why it was a pleasant surprise when the Justice Department came knocking on FDD’s door. It had never dawned on us that they might be interested in our work. But they were. They wanted to see what we already knew of the complex web of companies, networks, and schemes, that Zarrab employed to move money out of Turkey and into Iran. After all, even with the vast evidence they had collected, our research predated their investigation.In the weeks and months that followed, one visit begat another. Both I and Mark Dubowitz, FDD’s CEO, were asked by the assistant U.S. attorney to serve as an expert witness for the prosecution. We pored over invoices tracking the transactions that turned gold into Iranian cash. We analyzed spreadsheets detailing the dizzying trail of sales and purchases designed to obfuscate the illicit nature of the transactions. There were also photos, including one of Zarrab himself standing next to a six-foot high tower of plastic-wrapped bricks of $100 bills. The documents were privileged at the time, but will soon be made public now that the trial is over. The documents are damning, with textbook examples of money-laundering techniques like over-invoicing (charging significantly more for a given product to yield more margin) and circular invoicing (making multiple transactions involving the same funds or goods to hide a money trail or even benefit from arbitrage). The figures themselves were astounding: hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions in every stack of papers we viewed.

The case took a wild turn on March 28, when, Justice Department officials from the Southern District of New York arrested Atilla, the deputy CEO and general manager at Turkey’s state-owned Halkbank. They accused him of conspiring with Zarrab to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through the U.S. financial system on behalf of Iran. It was Halkbank that held one of the oil escrow accounts for Iran. The escrow accounts constituted a creative method of withholding petrodollars from Iran, as mandated by the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA) of 2012. In brazen defiance of U.S. sanctions, Halkbank released those funds to buy gold, which was then shipped off to Iran. Halkbank was also accused of helping to process Zarrab’s aforementioned fictitious invoices, the ones first exposed in the 2014 prosecutor’s report.

Uranium or gold

Halkbank was clearly in trouble. In September, it hired Ballard Partners, a U.S. lobbying firm that already represented the Turkish government, for a whopping $1.5 million. Separately, Zarrab hired former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in an attempt to derail the proceedings. But the real drama came in late November when Zarrab pled out, making him a witness for the prosecution. Atilla would stand trial alone.

Related reading: Iran’s Turkish gold rush

That’s when the Turkish government got angry. They took their anger out on me and Mark Dubowitz, who testified on the first day of Atilla trial about the Iran sanctions architecture. The state media called us terrorists, alleging we were affiliated with Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen’s network, the group Erdogan blamed for the attempted coup in July of last year. Ankara also issued an arrest warrant for my colleague Aykan Erdemir, a former Turkish parliamentarian. Turkish authorities froze his assets and even seized the apartment that his grandfather had bequeathed to the family. They said he “destroyed paperwork relating to state security” and “stole documents with the intention of using them abroad.” They also falsely identified him as being on the witness list.

But Ankara could not stop Zarrab from delivering seven days of sensational testimony. On day one, he appeared in court wearing a beige prison jumpsuit; for the remainder, he was allowed to wear a blazer. He was a natural in front of the jury, using diagrams to coolly explain how he orchestrated the scheme. He looked like a business school professor teaching a class on corruption.Here’s what Zarrab testified: The scheme began in 2010, when Iran began to feel the squeeze from U.S. sanctions for its nuclear drive. Zarrab said that around 2012 the Iranian government gave him explicit directions to conduct these illegal transactions. Turkish officials were also on the take, Zarrab said, with its economy minister allegedly taking $50 million in bribes to help facilitate the scheme. He said other Turkish officials were on the take, too—many of whom were in Erdogan’s inner circle. According to Zarrab, other Turkish banks may have been involved at the government’s behest. All this might explain why the Turkish government, even after the prosecutor’s report was leaked in 2014, killed all inquiry into the Zarrab scheme.

Testimony from David Cohen and Adam Szubin, two former Treasury Department undersecretaries would also reveal that Halkbank officials repeatedly reassured them their gold-trader clients, including Zarrab, were in compliance with U.S. sanctions against Iran. (Zarrab testified that he continued his operations up until his arrest in March 2016, which meant that Halkbank would have been lying to U.S. officials.)

In the end, the trial ran long. With the judge calling for the prosecution to wrap things up quickly, I managed to avoid taking the stand. Atilla testified in a last-ditch self-defense, and the jury began its deliberations on December 20.Yesterday, after spending 11 days away for Christmas and New Years, the jury returned to deliberate again, and after only a few hours delivered their verdict: guilty on five out of six counts. Atilla’s rap sheep now includes four conspiracy counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, plus one count of bank fraud. (He was acquitted for money laundering.)

All eyes are now on the United States government and whether it issues a fine against Halkbank, particularly now that it has proven in a court of law that the bank engaged in a massive, illegal financial scheme. French Bank BNP Paribas was fined $8.9 billion for far lesser transgressions in 2015, for its violations of sanctions against Sudan, Cuba, and Iran.

Fine or no fine, it’s hard to envision tranquil U.S.-Turkish relations going forward. Erdogan, who now rivals Russia’s Vladimir Putin in autocratic style, has already instructed his spokesman to decry the trial as a “plot” against Turkey, while slamming “the scandalous verdict of a scandalous case.”

Then there is the question of Iran. In all likelihood, Tehran probably gave little thought to the Atilla verdict, given its ongoing domestic turmoil. The people are calling for better economic conditions, and a foreign policy that doesn’t squander Iran’s wealth on adventurism outside the country’s borders. One can only guess that would include complex sanctions busting schemes to enable an illicit nuclear program.

And now that Zarrab has finally clarified a few things about the Iranian role in his scheme, one troubling question lingers: Why did the U.S. government continue to negotiate the nuclear deal with Iran in 2013 and 2014 while Treasury was warning Halkbank about enormous sanctions violations? We may never know. Then again, from the documents I viewed, I wouldn’t be surprised to see other sanctions busters come in the DOJ crosshairs—creating new and uncomfortable challenges for our existing alliances and diplomatic agreements. Perhaps other future indictments will tell us more.