Monday, June 5, 2017

Trump's Over $ One billion In Saudi Gifts,Jerad Kudner Yemen War Crimes

Trump's Over $ One billion In Saudi Gifts,Jerad Kudner Yemen War Crimes




http://www.newsweek.com/could-jared-kushner-be-tried-war-crimes-613472


Discussing the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen, Human Rights Watch’s Kristine Beckerle wroteearlier this month of “the twenty-third time Human Rights Watch had identified remnants of U.S.-supplied weapons at the site of an apparently unlawful coalition attack.”
As uncomfortable as it is for me to write this, Kushner may be stepping directly into the zone where US officials can become liable for aiding and abetting Saudi war crimes.
One question this raises is what mitigation measures, including assurances from the Saudis, might the Trump administration pursue to avoid such risks.
This would not be the first time for US officials to consider such questions, according to news reports. Based on internal government documents received through the Freedom of Information Act, Reuters ’ Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay wrote in October of last year:
The Obama administration went ahead with a $1.3 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia last year despite warnings from some officials that the United States could be implicated in war crimes for supporting a Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians.
In a piece entitled, “ Will Arms Sales to the Saudis Invite War Crimes Charges? ” I drew a similar conclusion about the legal risks, and I explained a flaw in the Defense Department’s Military Manual that could unintentionally lead to poor advice to senior officials.

Related: Jared Kushner Intervened to Get the Saudis a Cheaper Missile

The Manual would tell them they are not at risk of aiding and abetting war crimes if they do not desire the Saudis to engage in bad acts. But that conclusion is based on an interpretation of a legal opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel which reached an opposite conclusion.
What’s more, as I explained, other legal positions adopted by the Defense Department support the standard and correct legal view of aiding and abetting war crimes, which does not require US officials to have any desire for the Saudis to violate the laws of war. It would be wholly sufficient for the officials simply to have knowledge of the Saudi’s actions to trigger liability.
05_22_Kushner_Yemen_01Jared Kushner at the Royal Court in Riyadh on May 20, 2017.MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GETTY
And indeed the executive branch has surely built up knowledge of Saudi actions over time, as explained in congressional testimony by Dafna Rand, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of State. Accordingly, earlier support for the Saudi-led operations in Yemen may not have incurred criminal liability, but today’s support might.
In addition, according to Andrew Exum, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East policy, the US has appeared to learn over time that the Saudis do not have the capacity to avoid civilian casualties in their air campaign. And indeed the Obama administration suspended a major arms sale to Saudi Arabia in December out of concern for repeated civilian casualties from Saudi airstrikes in Yemen.
I am not alone in my legal assessment that US officials who play a leading role in providing support to the Saudi operations, especially through arms sales, can run into legal problems due to aiding and abetting liability.
Consider a letter written in October by Congressman Ted Lieu to then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter and then-Secretary of State John Kerry. Rep. Ted Lieu, was also a military lawyer who taught the laws of war and is currently a colonel in the US Air Force Reserve. He wrote :
U.S. personnel are now at legal risk of being investigated and potentially prosecuted for committing war crimes. Under international law, a person can be found guilty of aiding and abetting war crimes. Under U.S. law, a person can be found guilty for conspiring to commit war crimes.
My former colleague at Harvard Law School, Professor Noah Feldman also wrote:
It isn’t a legal stretch to say that refueling a plane that then bombs civilians is aiding and abetting the bombing. No refueling, no bombing. That’s a concern raised by Representative Ted Lieu, a California Democrat who is an Air Force reserve lawyer and knows what he’s talking about.
Tom Malinowski, the top human rights official at the State Department until January 2017 toldJust Security,
There is a strong policy argument for suspending some sales, as President Obama did, until concerns about these kinds of incidents are resolved, and a possibility of legal jeopardy for U.S. officials if sales continue despite continuing evidence of violations of the laws of war.
“Continued arms sales,” Beckerle said, “increasingly put U.S. officials at legal risk for aiding those crimes.” - RYAN GOODMAN



COULD JARED KUSHNER BE TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES?


John Oliver: Ivanka Trump And Jared Kushner
Jared Kushner played a leading role in orchestrating a $100 billion arms deal with the Saudi government, according to the New York Times.
At the same time the Saudi air force has allegedly engaged in repeated war crimes in Yemen, including attacks on schools, hospitals and a funeral home, on many of these occasions reportedly with the use of US weaponry.
Discussing the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen, Human Rights Watch’s Kristine Beckerle wroteearlier this month of “the twenty-third time Human Rights Watch had identified remnants of U.S.-supplied weapons at the site of an apparently unlawful coalition attack.”
As uncomfortable as it is for me to write this, Kushner may be stepping directly into the zone where US officials can become liable for aiding and abetting Saudi war crimes.
One question this raises is what mitigation measures, including assurances from the Saudis, might the Trump administration pursue to avoid such risks.
This would not be the first time for US officials to consider such questions, according to news reports. Based on internal government documents received through the Freedom of Information Act, Reuters ’ Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay wrote in October of last year:
The Obama administration went ahead with a $1.3 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia last year despite warnings from some officials that the United States could be implicated in war crimes for supporting a Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians.
In a piece entitled, “ Will Arms Sales to the Saudis Invite War Crimes Charges? ” I drew a similar conclusion about the legal risks, and I explained a flaw in the Defense Department’s Military Manual that could unintentionally lead to poor advice to senior officials.

Related: Jared Kushner Intervened to Get the Saudis a Cheaper Missile

The Manual would tell them they are not at risk of aiding and abetting war crimes if they do not desire the Saudis to engage in bad acts. But that conclusion is based on an interpretation of a legal opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel which reached an opposite conclusion.
What’s more, as I explained, other legal positions adopted by the Defense Department support the standard and correct legal view of aiding and abetting war crimes, which does not require US officials to have any desire for the Saudis to violate the laws of war. It would be wholly sufficient for the officials simply to have knowledge of the Saudi’s actions to trigger liability.
05_22_Kushner_Yemen_01Jared Kushner at the Royal Court in Riyadh on May 20, 2017.MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GETTY
And indeed the executive branch has surely built up knowledge of Saudi actions over time, as explained in congressional testimony by Dafna Rand, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of State. Accordingly, earlier support for the Saudi-led operations in Yemen may not have incurred criminal liability, but today’s support might.
In addition, according to Andrew Exum, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East policy, the US has appeared to learn over time that the Saudis do not have the capacity to avoid civilian casualties in their air campaign. And indeed the Obama administration suspended a major arms sale to Saudi Arabia in December out of concern for repeated civilian casualties from Saudi airstrikes in Yemen.
I am not alone in my legal assessment that US officials who play a leading role in providing support to the Saudi operations, especially through arms sales, can run into legal problems due to aiding and abetting liability.
Consider a letter written in October by Congressman Ted Lieu to then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter and then-Secretary of State John Kerry. Rep. Ted Lieu, was also a military lawyer who taught the laws of war and is currently a colonel in the US Air Force Reserve. He wrote :
U.S. personnel are now at legal risk of being investigated and potentially prosecuted for committing war crimes. Under international law, a person can be found guilty of aiding and abetting war crimes. Under U.S. law, a person can be found guilty for conspiring to commit war crimes.
My former colleague at Harvard Law School, Professor Noah Feldman also wrote:
It isn’t a legal stretch to say that refueling a plane that then bombs civilians is aiding and abetting the bombing. No refueling, no bombing. That’s a concern raised by Representative Ted Lieu, a California Democrat who is an Air Force reserve lawyer and knows what he’s talking about.
Tom Malinowski, the top human rights official at the State Department until January 2017 toldJust Security,
There is a strong policy argument for suspending some sales, as President Obama did, until concerns about these kinds of incidents are resolved, and a possibility of legal jeopardy for U.S. officials if sales continue despite continuing evidence of violations of the laws of war.
“Continued arms sales,” Beckerle said, “increasingly put U.S. officials at legal risk for aiding those crimes.”
What could the Trump administration do to avoid these legal risks? First, the type of weapons systems might matter. These assessments of legal exposure may not apply to the sale of defensive weapons and radar systems which are part of Kushner’s negotiated package.
Second, perhaps in recognition of the legal risks involved, the Trump administration has reportedly sought new assurances from the Saudis to minimize civilian casualties. That is, in principle, the right approach—if pursued in a genuine and effective fashion.
As I initially wrote back in September, the Office of Legal Counsel opinion describes mitigation measures that US officials could include to assure that US support will not contribute to international law violations.
However, as I also wrote last month, Exum’s descriptions of flaws in the Saudi military systems may suggest they are incapable of reforming their targeting practices anytime soon.
Finally, the same New York Times story that described Kushner’s role and “personal touch” in the arms deal, also noted that President Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia will studiously avoid discussion of human rights concerns:
Mr. Trump is not expected to raise human rights concerns with the Saudis, in keeping with his approach to strongmen in Turkey, Egypt, China and the Philippines. The president, his aides said, does not believe the United States gets results by lecturing other countries.

Related: Trump Is Inadvertently Arming Al Qaeda in Yemen

It would be good to know how the president’s aides could explain then how he does expect to get results. Also we can’t tell whether the Times ’s reference to human rights includes humanitarian concerns raised by US-supported Saudi operations in Yemen.
The president’s failure to raise specific concerns in that respect could put his own officials at legal risk, his son-in-law included.
Ryan Goodman is co-editor-in-chief of Just Security and the Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law. He served as Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense (2015-16).




ults (0.56 seconds) 

Utah's Jewish Mormon Jason Chaffetz's Nu Skin An Illegal Pump And Dump Pyramid Scheme,Trump,Russia


Utah's Jewish Mormon Jason Chaffetz's Nu Skin An Illegal Pump And Dump Pyramid Scheme, Trump,Russia


Jason Chaffetz's largest donor is an illegal pyramid scheme that does ...

www.palmerreport.com › News
Mar 28, 2017 - Is this why Chaffetz has been blocking Trump-Russia probe on his committee? ...SHARES ... It's long been documented that Nu Skin Enterprises has been ... U.S. for corrupt business practices in China (source:Reverb Press).


http://www.palmerreport.com/news/jason-chaffetzs-largest-donor-is-an-illegal-pyramid-scheme-that-does-business-in-russia/2010/#comments

Jason Chaffetz’s largest donor is an illegal pyramid scheme that does business in Russia


It’s long been documented that Nu Skin Enterprises has been funding the election and reelection campaigns of Jason Chaffetz so thoroughly and for so long that the company all but officially owns him (source: Open Secrets). On the surface it makes logical sense: Nu Skin is a Utah based company, and Chaffetz is a Utah based politician. But it turns out there’s much more to it. Although you may have heard of the Nu Skin brand, the company itself is little more than a pyramid scheme. In fact it’s been busted by the federal government for being a pyramid scheme, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in penalties. But that’s just the beginning of the problem.
Not only is Nu Skin a pyramid scheme, it’s an international one. For instance, in addition to being busted the the U.S. government for being a stateside pyramid scheme, it’s also been busted by the U.S. for corrupt business practices in China (source:Reverb Press). But here’s the kicker: Palmer Report has discovered that Nu Skin also runs its pyramid scheme in Russia and Ukraine.

We know this because Nu Skin has a verified Facebook page (note the blue check mark) which is titled “Nu Skin Russia and Ukraine” and is specifically dedicated to expanding into those two nations. If Jason Chaffetz were to use his House Oversight Chair position to dig into Donald Trump’s illicit financial ties to Russia, could it end up exposing Nu Skin’s own attempt at expanding its illegal pyramid scheme into Russia? Is this the reason Chaffetz is refusing to allow any form of Trump-Russia investigation, even as so many of his Republican colleagues in Congress have moved forward with it? After all, Nu Skin essentially owns Chaffetz.

..................

[PDF]The Sean Reyes Criminal Cases - Lying For The Lord

lyingforthelord.com/.../44._Reyes_Criminal_Probe_Story_F_Comp_PDFd_March_31...
Mar 31, 2017 - stick— through the manufacturing process in China and then to market. Patey remains ... Among direct sales Reyes donors are Nu Skin (Rep.

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Trump Loans,Deutsche Bank,Russia = Mirror Trading Money Laundering?

Trump Loans,Deutsche Bank,Russia = Mirror Trading Money Laundering?


http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/getting-warmer-dems-congress-ask-deutsche-bank-info-loan-trump-and-russian-mirror



Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) authored a letter with four other Democrats asking Frankfurt-based lender Deutsche Bank for documents regarding the 2011 Russian mirror trading scandal, as well as personal accounts of the Trump family. 
"What is troubling is that the Bank, to our knowledge, has thus far refused to disclose or publicly comment on the results of either of its internal reviews," read the letter to John Cryan, Chief Executive Officer of Deutsche Bank, AG. "As a result, there is no transparency regarding who participated in, or benefited from, the Russian mirror trading scheme that allowed $10 billion to flow out of Russia."
"Likewise, Congress remains in the dark on whether loans Deutsche Bank made to President Trump were guaranteed by the Russian government, or were in any way connected to Russia," the committee added. 
According to disclosures, Deutsch has lent upwards of $300 million to finance Trump properties, including the Doral golf club in Florida, and hotels in Washington, D.C., and Chicago. The Democrats also noted the controversy surrounding the bank's $6 billion compliance failure and its continued fallout even after a $7.2 deal made with the U.S. Department of Justice last year over toxic mortgages. 
"We're hearing from them that they want to know how to perhaps cooperate with us," Waters told CNBC on Thursday. "Because we're saying—we're making claims about the fact that Deutsche Bank has some involvement with Mr. Trump in guaranteeing loans, they... are dealing with him when no other banks will deal with him because he has filed bankruptcy, he has all this debt..."
Watch:
Alexandra Rosenmann is an AlterNet associate editor. Follow her @alexpreditor.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-deutsche-bank-trump-idUSKBN18V11Q


Deutsche Bank ignores U.S. Trump/Russia query: Democratic staffer

    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/getting-warmer-dems-congress-ask-deutsche-bank-info-loan-trump-and-russian-mirror

Several Democrats on the U.S. House Financial Services Committee sent a letter last month to John Cryan, Chief Executive Officer of Deutsche Bank, seeking details that might show if Trump's loans for his real estate business were backed by the Russian government.
The letter asked for details of internal reviews of Trump's transactions and gave the prominent German bank until Friday to respond. The bank's response did not address any of the numerous questions posed in the letter and its Frankfurt headquarters declined to comment, as it has in the past.
"Deutsche Bank’s outside counsel has confirmed receipt of our May 23, 2017, letter but did not provide substantive responses to our requests," a Democratic member of the staff told Reuters in an email on condition of anonymity.
The congressional inquiry is also seeking information about a Russian "mirror trading" scheme that allowed $10 billion to flow out of Russia.
"Congress remains in the dark on whether loans Deutsche Bank made to President Trump were guaranteed by the Russian government, or were in any way connected to Russia," the Democrats wrote in their request to Deutsche Bank.
"It is critical that you provide this committee with the information necessary to assess the scope, findings and conclusions of your internal reviews," they said.
The Democrats cannot compel Deutsche Bank to hand over the information. The House committee has the power to subpoena the documents, but Republican committee members - who make up the majority of the panel - would have to cooperate.
No Republicans have signed the document request.
Citing media reports, the Democrats had called for the bank to hand over any documents tied to internal reviews of Trump’s personal accounts at the bank. They also said the bank should state publicly that it had reviewed both the "mirror trading" scheme and Trump’s accounts.
Mirror trading involved buying stocks, for example, in Moscow in rubles, with related parties selling the same stocks shortly thereafter through a bank's London branch.
The House panel request to Deutsche Bank came as Trump was mired in controversy over FBI and congressional probes into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign.
Moscow has denied the allegations, and Trump has denied any collusion.
(Reporting by Tom Sims; Editing by Tom Heneghan)




Getting Warmer: Dems in Congress Ask Deutsche Bank for Info on Loan to Trump and Russian 'Mirror Trading' Scandal

Democrats want to know who benefited from "the Russian mirror trading scheme that allowed $10 billion to flow out of Russia."

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Late Classic Insdustrial Era:Antartic Larsen C Melting - iCE SHELF SLIP SLIDING AWAY - WORLD SEA LEVEL Rising.Human Habitat Threatened



Late Classic Insdustrial Era:Antartic Larsen C Melting - iCE SHELF SLIP SLIDING AWAY - WORLD SEA LEVEL Rising.Human Habitat Threatened


http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/01/world/iceberg-antarctic-larsen-c/


Large ice sheet 'very close' to breaking away from Antarctica



(CNN)A rift in an Antarctic ice shelf will soon create one of the largest icebergs ever recorded, according to scientists.
In the last six days, the rift in the Larsen C Ice Shelf has grown by 17 kilometers (10.5 miles). It is now 13 kilometers (8 miles) from the edge of the ice.
Until recently, the rift was running parallel to the edge of the ice shelf, but its direction has now changed.
"The rift tip appears to have turned significantly towards the ice front, indicating that the time of calving (breaking away) is probably very close," said Adrian Luckman, lead researcher in UK-based research team Project MIDAS, which has been monitoring the ice shelf since 2014, in a statement.
A 70 mile rift in the Larsen C is seen on November 10, 2016.
"There appears to be very little to prevent the iceberg from breaking away completely," he said.
At around 5,000 square kilometers (1,930 square miles) -- roughly the size of the state of Delaware -- the iceberg will be one of the largest ever recorded.
"When it calves, the Larsen C Ice Shelf will lose more than 10% of its area," wrote Luckman on the Project MIDAS website in January. "This event will fundamentally change the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula."
Poul Christoffersen of the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge, said he is concerned that the rift's change of direction and the sheer size of the iceberg being produced could cause the whole ice shelf to disintegrate.
"The ice shelf can and probably will undergo a rapid collapse," he told CNN. "And this isn't a slow process -- it can happen in a day or two."
The calving of this iceberg "could be the precursor event to something really dramatic," he said.
When ice shelves disintegrate, ice from the glaciers that feed them can flow faster from the land to the ocean, contributing to sea level rise.
This was demonstrated when Larsen B, a neighboring ice shelf to Larsen C, broke off from its parent in 2002, shattering into millions of pieces.
NASA's MODIS satellite sensor recorded the Larsen B ice shelf collapse in 2002.
As a result, "its feeding glaciers accelerated, and are still flowing faster than before some 15 years later," wrote the Project MIDAS team in a blog post in February.
Before it collapsed, Larsen B demonstrated similar behavior to that being currently observed with Larsen C. Seven years earlier, another ice shelf, Larsen A, also broke off from the same ice mass.
"The ice shelves that are collapsing are getting bigger and bigger," said Christoffersen, who added that he's concerned about what could happen if huge sheets of ice such as Ross Ice Shelf -- which is the size of France -- start breaking up too.
Although calving is a natural phenomenon, he said climate change is contributing to the process. As the atmosphere warms up, more water accumulates on the surface of the ice, Christoffersen explained. Ice shelves are also becoming thinner as the oceans around Antarctica absorb heat from the atmosphere.
NASA photographed the rift on August 22, 2016.
These factors can speed up the development of rifts and make it less likely that ice lost in the formation of icebergs will regrow, he said.
"We need to make sure that we curtail our emissions of carbon dioxide so that we don't destabilize the big ice shelves," Christoffersen said. "If we go on with business as usual, we are playing with potential changes in sea levels that will affect millions and millions of people."
CNN's Kara Fox contributed to this article.