Credit Suisse On Trial In Switzerland For Aiding Bulgarian Cocaine Trafficking Ring
Ten years ago, HSBC was fined a then-record fine of nearly $2 billion levied by US regulators over the bank’s work with Mexican drug cartels. The massive fine set banking analysts chattering about how megabanks would need to spend millions if not billions to try and beef up their compliance and KYC efforts. But unsurprisingly, that was just talk; little actually changed within the industry. And as a result, Credit Suisse, Switzerland’s second-largest bank, is now facing a criminal trial in its home country over allegations that it provided banking services to a gang of Bulgarian cocaine traffickers.
In what Reuters described as the first criminal trial of a megabank in Switzerland, Credit Suisse is facing a potential fine of 42.4 million Swiss francs ($45.86 million) for not taking the necessary precautions to stop drug traffickers from laundering money with the bank between 2004 and 2008. Prosecutors have blamed both the bank and former relationship manager.
It’s the latest scandal to shake Credit Suisse after a couple of rocky years for the Swiss banking giant. Just last month, the bank’s chairman was pushed out by the rest of the board after less than a year on the job because he went to Wimbledon in violation of the bank’s COVID rules.
A 500-page indictment details how a convicted drug trafficker and Bulgarian wrestler Evelin Banev, along with several associates, placed “suitcases full of cash” in safe-deposit boxes at the bank. It also described how the unnamed CS banker – who is also facing criminal charges – helped to conceal the illicit origins of the money with seemingly legitimate transactions.
Evelin Banev
After being convicted in absentia in Italy and in his native Bulgaria, Banev was finally apprehended in – where else? – Ukraine, a haven for corruption (just ask Hunter Biden or his father) back in September. Additionally, one member of the drug-smuggling ring was killed when he was shot in the head outside a restaurant in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia.
Prosecutors also explained how the gang used a tactic known as “smurfing” to try and launder the drug proceeds without raising any red flags.
The former Credit Suisse employee brought at least one Bulgarian customer, who was an associate of Banev, with her when she joined Credit Suisse in 2004, prosecutors allege in the indictment.
The customer, who was later shot dead as he left a restaurant with his wife in Sofia, Bulgaria in 2005, had begun placing suitcases full of cash in a safe deposit box at Credit Suisse, the indictment says.
Prosecutors allege the gang used a practice known as smurfing, whereby a large sum of money is broken down into smaller amounts that are below the anti-money laundering alert threshold, to launder money, putting millions of euros in small-value bills into safety deposit boxes and later transferring them into accounts.
The defendants said this was standard practice at the time the deposits were made, although Swiss private banks have since adopted much tougher anti-money laundering know-your-client checks after international pressure.
Credit Suisse’s lawyers maintain that their client reported suspicious transactions to Swiss prosecutors back in 2007, but was told not to freeze the customers’ accounts to avoid tipping them off.
In June 2007, the prosecutors asked Credit Suisse for information on accounts held by Banev and his associates in response to a request from Bulgaria, the source added.
Noticing a series of withdrawals, the bank’s compliance department asked prosecutors whether to freeze the accounts, but was told not to in order to avoid tipping the clients off, according to the source.
By the time prosecutors gave Credit Suisse the go-ahead, much of the money had been withdrawn.
The prosecutors’ office declined to comment on Friday, saying the matter was in the hands of the court.
Fellow Swiss bank Julius Baer was mentioned in the indictment, but wasn’t charged, although one of its former bankers was ensnared in the same indictment against Credit Suisse.
Switzerland overhauled its bank secrecy laws years ago amid pressure from the American IRS. But across the continent – and especially within the EU (of which Switzerland isn’t a member) KYC and anit-money laundering controls are still seriously lacking. How many more billions in fines might it take for that to change?
Credit Suisse On Trial In Switzerland For Aiding Bulgarian Cocaine Trafficking Ring
Ten years ago, HSBC was fined a then-record fine of nearly $2 billion levied by US regulators over the bank’s work with Mexican drug cartels. The massive fine set banking analysts chattering about how megabanks would need to spend millions if not billions to try and beef up their compliance and KYC efforts. But unsurprisingly, that was just talk; little actually changed within the industry. And as a result, Credit Suisse, Switzerland’s second-largest bank, is now facing a criminal trial in its home country over allegations that it provided banking services to a gang of Bulgarian cocaine traffickers.
In what Reuters described as the first criminal trial of a megabank in Switzerland, Credit Suisse is facing a potential fine of 42.4 million Swiss francs ($45.86 million) for not taking the necessary precautions to stop drug traffickers from laundering money with the bank between 2004 and 2008. Prosecutors have blamed both the bank and former relationship manager.
It’s the latest scandal to shake Credit Suisse after a couple of rocky years for the Swiss banking giant. Just last month, the bank’s chairman was pushed out by the rest of the board after less than a year on the job because he went to Wimbledon in violation of the bank’s COVID rules.
A 500-page indictment details how a convicted drug trafficker and Bulgarian wrestler Evelin Banev, along with several associates, placed “suitcases full of cash” in safe-deposit boxes at the bank. It also described how the unnamed CS banker – who is also facing criminal charges – helped to conceal the illicit origins of the money with seemingly legitimate transactions.
Evelin Banev
After being convicted in absentia in Italy and in his native Bulgaria, Banev was finally apprehended in – where else? – Ukraine, a haven for corruption (just ask Hunter Biden or his father) back in September. Additionally, one member of the drug-smuggling ring was killed when he was shot in the head outside a restaurant in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia.
Prosecutors also explained how the gang used a tactic known as “smurfing” to try and launder the drug proceeds without raising any red flags.
The former Credit Suisse employee brought at least one Bulgarian customer, who was an associate of Banev, with her when she joined Credit Suisse in 2004, prosecutors allege in the indictment.
The customer, who was later shot dead as he left a restaurant with his wife in Sofia, Bulgaria in 2005, had begun placing suitcases full of cash in a safe deposit box at Credit Suisse, the indictment says.
Prosecutors allege the gang used a practice known as smurfing, whereby a large sum of money is broken down into smaller amounts that are below the anti-money laundering alert threshold, to launder money, putting millions of euros in small-value bills into safety deposit boxes and later transferring them into accounts.
The defendants said this was standard practice at the time the deposits were made, although Swiss private banks have since adopted much tougher anti-money laundering know-your-client checks after international pressure.
Credit Suisse’s lawyers maintain that their client reported suspicious transactions to Swiss prosecutors back in 2007, but was told not to freeze the customers’ accounts to avoid tipping them off.
In June 2007, the prosecutors asked Credit Suisse for information on accounts held by Banev and his associates in response to a request from Bulgaria, the source added.
Noticing a series of withdrawals, the bank’s compliance department asked prosecutors whether to freeze the accounts, but was told not to in order to avoid tipping the clients off, according to the source.
By the time prosecutors gave Credit Suisse the go-ahead, much of the money had been withdrawn.
The prosecutors’ office declined to comment on Friday, saying the matter was in the hands of the court.
Fellow Swiss bank Julius Baer was mentioned in the indictment, but wasn’t charged, although one of its former bankers was ensnared in the same indictment against Credit Suisse.
Switzerland overhauled its bank secrecy laws years ago amid pressure from the American IRS. But across the continent – and especially within the EU (of which Switzerland isn’t a member) KYC and anit-money laundering controls are still seriously lacking. How many more billions in fines might it take for that to change?
French presidential candidate Eric Zemmour, who wants a complete halt on immigration, said he was “not the Santa Claus of humankind” when pressed on how many refugees France should take in, adding that he was “here to save the French people and France…not here to save the world.”
The firebrand intellectual made the comments during a debate aired by French broadcaster BMF-TV.
The host of the debate asked Zemmour what the criteria would be for migrants and refugees to be able to obtain asylum in France.
Zemmour responded by saying the migrant should make the appeal in his own country and that if he came to France before doing so, he should be arrested and deported.
He was then asked what type of person France should accept as an asylum seeker.
“Originally, the right of asylum is for freedom fighters like Victor Hugo, Solzhenitsyn, etc.,” he responded.
The candidate then pointed to the example of Japan, which only accepts a relatively miniscule number of refugees on a year by year basis.
Zemmour said he would go back to 1950’s numbers, when France accepted only around 300 refugees a year.
The host then asked if Zemmour would take in persecuted Afghan women fleeing the Taliban.
“Afghan women are not freedom fighters, I do not accept them,” he responded, adding, “I am not the Santa Claus of humankind.”
“Individuals belong to peoples, they have histories, cultures, I am neither here to give moral lessons to 7 billion men, nor to welcome all the misery and all the misfortunes of the world – I close, it’s over,” said Zemmour.
The hosts then tried to trip up Zemmour by asking if he would allow a migrant who had saved a child from a burning building to stay in France, but the intellectual wasn’t having any of it.
-Would you have naturalize this man?
-No.
-So this man saves a child,
-Very good.
-and you send him back to Bamako by plane?
-Absolutely. pic.twitter.com/BN6vi9YkXr
“I have a duty of humanity to the French people, I have no duty of humanity towards the whole world,” said Zemmour.
“I am here to save the French people and France, I’m not here to save the world,” he added, warning that mass immigration was “changing the face of France” and that migrants were “colonizing” the country.
As we previously highlighted, in a bid to raise native birth rates, Zemmour said he wants to give parents in rural areas of the country 10,000 euros for each new child they have.
According to Zemmour, the goal is to “take back the countryside.”
Back in 2020, the intellectual said the illegal migration problem had become so chronic in some areas of France that it was time for the country’s notorious no-go zones to be “re-conquered by force.”
Zemmour’s political opponents, such as right-wing populist Marine Le Pen, have tried to smear him as an extremist. However, his sentiments are shared by a significant proportion of the French population.
A recent poll by Harris revealed that the majority of French people are concerned about “European, white and Christian populations being threatened with extinction” as a result of “Muslim immigration.”
One of the primary drivers for the native population’s resentment towards the political class is that they were never consulted on the topic of mass migration.
On January 24, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit issued an injunction to block Alabama’s new electoral maps. The court found that Alabama should have created a second majority-minority district. Alabama appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, and sought a stay of the injunction. On Monday, the Supreme Court issued an order in Merrill v. Milligan and Merrill v. Caster. The application for a stay was treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment. The Court granted that petition. The Court also stayed the injunction while it resolves the appeal. Presumably the case will be set for argument next Term.
The Court split 5-4. Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett supported the Court’s order. Chief Justice Roberts dissented from the grant of the application for stays. But he agreed to grant certiorari before judgment, and would set the case for arguments next Term. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, dissented. They would not have granted the stay, nor would they have granted certiorari. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Alito, that responded to Justice Kagan’s dissent. The other members of the majority did not explain their reasoning.
I see this case as the most important shadow docket entry since John Does 1-3 v. Mills. In that vaccine mandate case, Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh explained why they were hesitant to grant injunctions in unargued cases. At the time, I wrote that Barrett and Kavanaugh cut the fuse on the shadow docket. On January 27, Barrett–but not Kavanaugh–declined to grant a stay of an injunction in a capital case. Yet in the Alabama cases, Barrett granted a stay, without explaining her reasoning. How do we reconcile these votes? I think the simplistic answer is that Barrett prefers maintaining the status quo. Or, stated differently, she does not want the Court to enter emergency relief that would alter the status quo. In the vaccine mandate case, the District Court did not grant an injunction, so the status quo remained that the mandate would go into effect. In the capital case, the district court granted a stay of execution, so the status quo remained that the inmate would not be executed. And in the Alabama cases, the district court ordered the state to draw new maps. Granting a stay preserved the old maps, which would continue to remain in effect for the 2022 elections.
Still, Justice Kagan’s dissent called out Justice Barrett:
The question whether to accept Alabama’s position demands serious and sustained consideration—the kind of consideration impossible to give “on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument.” Does v. Mills, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 1) (BARRETT, J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief ).
Barrett was not persuaded.
And what about Justice Kavanaugh? I get the distinct sense that he is annoyed at the incessant carping about the shadow docket. Same here. Kavanaugh throws shade on Kagan’s shadow docket lamentation:
The principal dissent’s catchy but worn-out rhetoric about the “shadow docket” is similarly off target.
The remainder of Kavanaugh’s concurrence–which Barrett does not join–provides some more guidance on when he will grant emergency relief for election cases.
First, Kavanaugh repeats over and over and over again that a stay does not resolve the case. Rather, a stay maintains the status quo while the Court resolves the case.
The stay will allow this Court to decide the merits in an orderly fashion—after full briefing, oral argument, and our usual extensive internal deliberations—and ensure that we do not have to decide the merits on the emergency docket. To reiterate: The Court’s stay order is not a decision on the merits.
Without question, the old maps will remain in place for the 2022 primaries and general election. But, in theory at least, different maps would apply after 2022.
Second, Kavanaugh explains that the traditional four-factor test for seeking certiorari before judgment does not apply in election cases. Rather, Purcell governs:
As the Court has often indicated, however, that traditional test for a stay does not apply (at least not in the same way) in election cases when a lower court has issued an in-junction of a state’s election law in the period close to an election. See Purcell, 549 U. S. 1. This Court has repeatedly stated that federal courts ordinarily should not enjoin a state’s election laws in the period close to an election, and this Court in turn has often stayed lower federal court in-junctions that contravened that principle.
Third, Kavanaugh would extend the Purcell principle to primary elections, at least in this case. We are quite far from the general election in November, but early voting for primaries start sooner.
The District Court’s order would require heroic efforts by those state and local authorities in the next few weeks—and even heroic efforts likely would not be enough to avoid chaos and confusion.
I’m not exactly sure how Kavanaugh counts a “few weeks.” Early voting for the primaries begins on March 30–about six weeks from now, and more than two months from the District Court’s order. Then again, remember when Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the CDC eviction moratorium would wind down “in a few weeks.” At the time, 31 days remained on the calendar. Times moves funny in the Kavanaugh chambers.
On the topic of the timing, Justice Kagan included this powerful sentence:
Alabama is not entitled to keep violating Black Alabamians’ voting rights just because the court’s order came down in the first month of an election year.
I immediately thought of the McConnell rule–Justice Scalia died in the second month of an election year, but close enough. I suspect the thought crossed Justice Kagan’s mind as well.
Fourth, in a footnote, Kavanaugh provides some guidance on when Purcell kicks in:
How close to an election is too close may depend in part on the nature of the election law at issue, and how easily the State could make the change without undue collateral effects. Changes that require complex or disruptive implementation must be ordered earlier than changes that are easy to implement.
Fifth, Kavanaugh provides a framework to explain how the Plaintiffs can rebut the Purcell presumption:
I would think that the Purcell principle thus might be overcome even with respect to an injunction issued close to an election if a plaintiff establishes at least the following: (i) the underlying merits are entirely clearcut in favor of the plaintiff; (ii) the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction; (iii) the plaintiff has not unduly delayed bringing the com-plaint to court; and (iv) the changes in question are at least feasible before the election without significant cost, confusion, or hardship.
All four of these elements must be satisfied. The Purcell presumption will be very tough to rebut.
Sixth, Kavanaugh recognizes that the District Court did a really thorough job here, but so what. Conscientious rulings are not insulated from appellate review.
The principal dissent disagrees and emphasizes the thoroughness of the District Court’s opinion. But if careful District Court consideration sufficed for an appellate court to deny a stay, then appellate courts could usually end the stay inquiry right there. That is not how stay analysis works. Contrary to the dissent’s implication, the fact that the District Court here issued a lengthy opinion after considering a substantial record is the starting point, not the ending point, for our analysis of whether to grant a stay.
This point is significant. In many cases, the Supreme Court has put a lot of weight on the District Court’s factual findings. For example, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Justice Breyer spent page-after-page recounting the District Court’s finding. Indeed, those findings served as the basis for the constitutional ruling. I think Justice Kavanaugh is now signaling that the labor of the lower courts is appreciated, but is only the “starting point.” As the saying goes, Okay, we’ll take it from here, goodbye.
(We don’t talk about Nino, no no.)
Finally, Kavanaugh repeats his claim that Kagan’s rhetoric was “mistaken,” and adds a curious aside:
Contrary to the dissent’s mistaken rhetoric, I take no position at this time on the ultimate mer-its of the parties’ underlying legal dispute. And I need not do so until the Court receives full briefing, holds oral argument, and engages in our usual extensive internal deliberations.
I can’t recall any opinion where a Justice references “internal deliberations.” And not just any internal deliberations–“extensive international deliberations.” What is Kavanaugh getting at here? After the case is argued, the Justices will discuss the case at conference, assign a majority opinion, and if necessary, a dissent. Of course, we all know that deliberations do not conclude at the conference. Opinions go through revisions, and in some cases, votes flip. When Kavanaugh writes “extensive international deliberations,” is he referring to the conference on Friday afternoon? Or the long, slogging process by which a majority is shaped and formed and reformed? Why is this passage here? What is Kavanaugh saying? That he is open to being persuaded on the matter through extensive internal deliberations–with Justice Kagan? Indeed, he hints that he is open to persuasion on the merits in Footnote 2:
Even under the ordinary stay standard outside the election context, the State has at least a fair prospect of success on appeal—as do the plaintiffs, for that matter.
Perhaps I am making too much of three words, but after an otherwise meticulous concurrence, this parting thought jumped out at me.
On January 24, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit issued an injunction to block Alabama’s new electoral maps. The court found that Alabama should have created a second majority-minority district. Alabama appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, and sought a stay of the injunction. On Monday, the Supreme Court issued an order in Merrill v. Milligan and Merrill v. Caster. The application for a stay was treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment. The Court granted that petition. The Court also stayed the injunction while it resolves the appeal. Presumably the case will be set for argument next Term.
The Court split 5-4. Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett supported the Court’s order. Chief Justice Roberts dissented from the grant of the application for stays. But he agreed to grant certiorari before judgment, and would set the case for arguments next Term. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, dissented. They would not have granted the stay, nor would they have granted certiorari. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Alito, that responded to Justice Kagan’s dissent. The other members of the majority did not explain their reasoning.
I see this case as the most important shadow docket entry since John Does 1-3 v. Mills. In that vaccine mandate case, Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh explained why they were hesitant to grant injunctions in unargued cases. At the time, I wrote that Barrett and Kavanaugh cut the fuse on the shadow docket. On January 27, Barrett–but not Kavanaugh–declined to grant a stay of an injunction in a capital case. Yet in the Alabama cases, Barrett granted a stay, without explaining her reasoning. How do we reconcile these votes? I think the simplistic answer is that Barrett prefers maintaining the status quo. Or, stated differently, she does not want the Court to enter emergency relief that would alter the status quo. In the vaccine mandate case, the District Court did not grant an injunction, so the status quo remained that the mandate would go into effect. In the capital case, the district court granted a stay of execution, so the status quo remained that the inmate would not be executed. And in the Alabama cases, the district court ordered the state to draw new maps. Granting a stay preserved the old maps, which would continue to remain in effect for the 2022 elections.
Still, Justice Kagan’s dissent called out Justice Barrett:
The question whether to accept Alabama’s position demands serious and sustained consideration—the kind of consideration impossible to give “on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument.” Does v. Mills, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 1) (BARRETT, J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief ).
Barrett was not persuaded.
And what about Justice Kavanaugh? I get the distinct sense that he is annoyed at the incessant carping about the shadow docket. Same here. Kavanaugh throws shade on Kagan’s shadow docket lamentation:
The principal dissent’s catchy but worn-out rhetoric about the “shadow docket” is similarly off target.
The remainder of Kavanaugh’s concurrence–which Barrett does not join–provides some more guidance on when he will grant emergency relief for election cases.
First, Kavanaugh repeats over and over and over again that a stay does not resolve the case. Rather, a stay maintains the status quo while the Court resolves the case.
The stay will allow this Court to decide the merits in an orderly fashion—after full briefing, oral argument, and our usual extensive internal deliberations—and ensure that we do not have to decide the merits on the emergency docket. To reiterate: The Court’s stay order is not a decision on the merits.
Without question, the old maps will remain in place for the 2022 primaries and general election. But, in theory at least, different maps would apply after 2022.
Second, Kavanaugh explains that the traditional four-factor test for seeking certiorari before judgment does not apply in election cases. Rather, Purcell governs:
As the Court has often indicated, however, that traditional test for a stay does not apply (at least not in the same way) in election cases when a lower court has issued an in-junction of a state’s election law in the period close to an election. See Purcell, 549 U. S. 1. This Court has repeatedly stated that federal courts ordinarily should not enjoin a state’s election laws in the period close to an election, and this Court in turn has often stayed lower federal court in-junctions that contravened that principle.
Third, Kavanaugh would extend the Purcell principle to primary elections, at least in this case. We are quite far from the general election in November, but early voting for primaries start sooner.
The District Court’s order would require heroic efforts by those state and local authorities in the next few weeks—and even heroic efforts likely would not be enough to avoid chaos and confusion.
I’m not exactly sure how Kavanaugh counts a “few weeks.” Early voting for the primaries begins on March 30–about six weeks from now, and more than two months from the District Court’s order. Then again, remember when Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the CDC eviction moratorium would wind down “in a few weeks.” At the time, 31 days remained on the calendar. Times moves funny in the Kavanaugh chambers.
On the topic of the timing, Justice Kagan included this powerful sentence:
Alabama is not entitled to keep violating Black Alabamians’ voting rights just because the court’s order came down in the first month of an election year.
I immediately thought of the McConnell rule–Justice Scalia died in the second month of an election year, but close enough. I suspect the thought crossed Justice Kagan’s mind as well.
Fourth, in a footnote, Kavanaugh provides some guidance on when Purcell kicks in:
How close to an election is too close may depend in part on the nature of the election law at issue, and how easily the State could make the change without undue collateral effects. Changes that require complex or disruptive implementation must be ordered earlier than changes that are easy to implement.
Fifth, Kavanaugh provides a framework to explain how the Plaintiffs can rebut the Purcell presumption:
I would think that the Purcell principle thus might be overcome even with respect to an injunction issued close to an election if a plaintiff establishes at least the following: (i) the underlying merits are entirely clearcut in favor of the plaintiff; (ii) the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction; (iii) the plaintiff has not unduly delayed bringing the com-plaint to court; and (iv) the changes in question are at least feasible before the election without significant cost, confusion, or hardship.
All four of these elements must be satisfied. The Purcell presumption will be very tough to rebut.
Sixth, Kavanaugh recognizes that the District Court did a really thorough job here, but so what. Conscientious rulings are not insulated from appellate review.
The principal dissent disagrees and emphasizes the thoroughness of the District Court’s opinion. But if careful District Court consideration sufficed for an appellate court to deny a stay, then appellate courts could usually end the stay inquiry right there. That is not how stay analysis works. Contrary to the dissent’s implication, the fact that the District Court here issued a lengthy opinion after considering a substantial record is the starting point, not the ending point, for our analysis of whether to grant a stay.
This point is significant. In many cases, the Supreme Court has put a lot of weight on the District Court’s factual findings. For example, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Justice Breyer spent page-after-page recounting the District Court’s finding. Indeed, those findings served as the basis for the constitutional ruling. I think Justice Kavanaugh is now signaling that the labor of the lower courts is appreciated, but is only the “starting point.” As the saying goes, Okay, we’ll take it from here, goodbye.
(We don’t talk about Nino, no no.)
Finally, Kavanaugh repeats his claim that Kagan’s rhetoric was “mistaken,” and adds a curious aside:
Contrary to the dissent’s mistaken rhetoric, I take no position at this time on the ultimate mer-its of the parties’ underlying legal dispute. And I need not do so until the Court receives full briefing, holds oral argument, and engages in our usual extensive internal deliberations.
I can’t recall any opinion where a Justice references “internal deliberations.” And not just any internal deliberations–“extensive international deliberations.” What is Kavanaugh getting at here? After the case is argued, the Justices will discuss the case at conference, assign a majority opinion, and if necessary, a dissent. Of course, we all know that deliberations do not conclude at the conference. Opinions go through revisions, and in some cases, votes flip. When Kavanaugh writes “extensive international deliberations,” is he referring to the conference on Friday afternoon? Or the long, slogging process by which a majority is shaped and formed and reformed? Why is this passage here? What is Kavanaugh saying? That he is open to being persuaded on the matter through extensive internal deliberations–with Justice Kagan? Indeed, he hints that he is open to persuasion on the merits in Footnote 2:
Even under the ordinary stay standard outside the election context, the State has at least a fair prospect of success on appeal—as do the plaintiffs, for that matter.
Perhaps I am making too much of three words, but after an otherwise meticulous concurrence, this parting thought jumped out at me.
I think what is happening overall is brinkmanship by a number of parties, which is not uncommon in geopolitics, and it is unlikely anything significant happens.
But lets discuss the interests of different parties in each state:
Ukrainian interests
There are interest groups in Ukraine that want Nord Stream 2 sanctioned as it going live in June 2022 would end $3bn of transit revenues that the Ukraine government gets.
The oligarchs in the Ukraine owe a lot of their wealth to milking the state budgets.
Then there are Neo-Nazi militias that were folded into the military without much ‘re-education’ who dream of taking Donbass region back and like to wear WWII Galician division insignia.
So we had a Ukraine forces build up last Feb/ March then a climb down (NS2 was supposed to go live last summer but a German court said the legal structure was not compliant and needed to be changed and then re-approved) now is the last gamble before it goes live.
They also crossed the ceasefire line and attacked two small villages with an armoured column. There are daily ceasefire violations of 100-1000 events that the OSCE record in a daily report published on the OSCE website.
Here is a video of a Ukraine journalist firing a howitzer towards the area. They generally try and shell utilities to make the area as unlivable as possible but also routinely injure and kill civilians.
Meanwhile the BBC Kiev correspondent notes little frontline expectation of an invasion:
President Zelensky is a former slap stick comedian who was pushed forwards to power by an Oligarch. He won on a reform mandate with pro-western alignment, but has failed to challenge the oligarchs who can easily bribe officials, so has become dependent on the support of the nationalists. He has not implemented the Minsky agreement.
TheMinsk agreementis a treaty that Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France negotiated. It would deliver a federal Ukraine and MPs from Donbass would go to Kiev. But the nationalists want to defeat the Donbass fighters and don’t want pro-Russian MPs in Kiev. So it has never been implemented.
Russia
So Russia responded to the events in Oct by increasing their troops near the border from circa 90k to 120-130k. Also there was evidence of more equipment rail way shipped into Donbass. So they were definitely trying to menace Ukraine into stopping the heavy weapons attacks with the implicit threat of a bigger conflict. But they only did the build up after Ukraine provocations.
Then the western media reports the Russian activities and is encouraged to conclude that Putin is about to invade.
Russia has repeatedly called for the Minsky treaty to be implemented. If it is not implemented this year there are calls in the Russian parliament for the Donbass region to have a referendum on joining Russia. Most of the residents have Russian citizenship now.
Russia recently seems to have decided to push back and use the reporting of their invasion threat in the western media to try and push for long term extra-territorial security guarantees, which the US/ UK have blown off, but there seems to be a serious discussion starting with France and Italy and by inference the EU in general.
A low probability event is a conflagration happens/ is engineered and Putin then annexes the sea front from Mariupol to Crimea and possibly the area around the Dnieper river/ canal to secure the fresh water supply.
That operation might take a week or so, it is flat land and his tanks would literally just roll across it. Our understanding is that Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov and other centrists in Moscow see the sanctions fall out from that as not worth it, but there are hardliners who dream of doing this.
An invasion would also give the hardliners in the Washington ample excuse to impose much tougher sanctions and trade embargoes on Russia. We don’t see a broader invasion of western Ukraine as likely.
In the last few weeks various Russian officials have alluded to what they see is little more than a UK/ US intelligence operation aimed at misleading their respective political leaders and bouncing said leaders into further anti-Russian sanctions.
America and the UK are unlikely to agree to any Russian security guarantees and are more likely to try and periodically antagonise Putin and his security people, as part of the old ‘great game’. Although this week it seems France and Italy are willing to negotiate security with Russia.
Apparently, an MI6 dossier, no doubt drawing on Ukrainian sources, has been rubber stamped by the CIA/ State Dept and is the basis for the UK/ US claiming that Putin ‘could/ almost certainly will’ invade. Ie the deep state is bouncing the politicians to try and get more sanctions imposed on Putin and Russia. The Russians are aware of this and have alluded to it several times.
By claiming Putin might invade imminently they justify sending more arms (Germany would block a NATO MAP) and can provide NATO training to an Army that has neo-Nazi elements within it
Then when Putin does not invade they will be able to claim diplomatic victory and claim that they stared down the Russian threat.
But it is almost certainly built on a series of false narratives and manipulated analysis and conclusions.
Later this year/ Resolution
Once NS2 is up and running in June and Ukraine has lost the >$3bn in transit revenues, it will be easier for Germany to pressure them to implement the Minsk agreement to make Ukraine a federal state as Ukraine will still want a closer EU relationship. If Kiev refuses to implement Minsk, which is quite likely, then perhaps Donbass would then join Russia, and having the Russian military directly in the disputed areas would necessarily end the low intensity conflict.
German industry don’t want high gas prices or their investments in Russia to be affected, hence the US has given up on the idea of disconnecting Russia from Swift.
So for now, there are multiple groups within each country that have competing agendas and some brinkmanship has suited a lot of them.
It is possible that there is a sizable ‘border incident’ but we think it would likely be contained quickly.
Then a permanent resolution is likely to be pushed for in H2 this year.
Biden’s Top Science Advisor Forced Out Over Harsh Treatment Of Subordinates
President Joe Biden’s top advisor on science and technology policy – two areas that have become extremely important to the White House over the past two years – has just been fired for demeaning and mistreating his subordinates following an internal White House probe.
Recordings and documents obtained by Politico exposed how Eric Lander bullied his former general counsel, and how he spoke to White House Office of Science and Technology Policy staff in “a disrespectful or demeaning way,” which he acknowledged in his apology.
“I am devastated that I caused hurt to past and present colleagues by the way in which I have spoken to them,” Lander wrote in a resignation letter to his boss. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday night that the president had accepted Lander’s resignation from his cabinet-level position (which technically put him in the line of succession)
This could create serious problems for the president as he tries to shift the public’s attention to his cancer moonshot. Biden appeared alongside Dr. Lander during an event last week where the White House re-launched an initiative to cut the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years. The president said Dr. Lander would take a lead role in implementing the initiative. Dr. Lander had already recused himself from all COVID vaccine-related issues, but he has still played an important role in shaping the White House’s response to the pandemic.
Dr. Lander
Biden now finds himself in a difficult spot: he has repeatedly promised to fire anybody in his administration who “talks down to someone…on the spot”.
One former subordinate of Dr. Lander’s complained that his behavior was downright “shocking”.
Rachel Wallace, a career civil servant who works at OSTP, filed a complaint about Dr. Lander’s behavior to the White House, according to people familiar with the matter. A person who has spoken to OSTP staff said other people who worked in the office had similar concerns about Dr. Lander’s behavior.
“Dr. Lander’s behavior is shocking, to say the least, and I’m concerned that this kind of misconduct may adversely affect science policy,” said David Seide, senior counsel at the Government Accountability Project, which is representing Ms. Wallace.
However, Lander’s transgressions are much bigger than all that. While his behavior offered a convenient excuse for the White House to get rid of him, Lander has an employment record fraught with potential controversies. For one: before joining the White House, he was the founding director of the Broad Institute, a biotech outfit whose genomics work has touched upon eugenics – specifically the role that genetics plays in same-sex attraction, the development of PTSD and other issues, according to a report from the Organic Consumers Association.
Lander also helped cover up evidence showing that “gain-of-function” research financed in part by the US had helped a team of Chinese scientists create the highly infectious SARS-CoV-2, before the virus escaped from the lab and set off the global pandemic
In January 2020, when scientists examined the genome of SARS-CoV-2 it was immediately clear that the unique feature that made it “100 to 1,000 times” more infectious than the first SARS was something that couldn’t have been achieved through natural recombination. In fact, the virus’s genetic code bore a tell-tale sign that it had been engineered in the lab. This was obvious to every scientist who looked at the virus, even those who later published articles claiming the virus wasn’t engineered.
The US government engaged in a coordinated cover-up that has been revealed in emails obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, but one aspect of the cover-up hasn’t been explored before now: A January 2020 analysis conducted by Eric Lander’s Broad Institute for the Director of National Intelligence that falsely claimed that the virus wasn’t genetically engineered.
Fortunately for Lander, he doesn’t even need this job: He is already among the richest members of President Biden’s cabinet, with a personal net worth of $45 million.
The top Democrat and Republican on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee demanded that the White House turn over its report on Landers’ behavior – for which he issued a formal apology to staffers on Friday – as soon as possible.
A Republican-sponsored bill prohibiting males from playing on Arizona female school sports teams passed by a majority vote of the state’s Senate on Feb. 2 and now goes to the state House for review and vote.
The Senate voted 16-13 to pass the bill, with all Democrats voting against it.
Trinity junior Mack Beggs, a transgender athlete, wrestles Katy Morton Ranch junior Chelsea Sanchez in the final round of the 6A Girls 110 Weight Class match during the Texas Wrestling State Tournament at Berry Center in Cypress, Texas, on Feb. 25, 2017. (Leslie Plaza Johnson/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
Sen. Juan Mendez (D) was not present for the vote as he is currently away on paternity leave, a staffer said Feb. 4.
The bill, SB1165, acknowledges gender athletic performance differences exist between males and females, and “athletic teams or sports designated for females, women or girls may not be open to students of the male sex.”
It states violation of the law by any school, institution, or government authority, would be cause for civil action.
“Each interscholastic or intramural athletic team or sport that is sponsored by a public school, or a private school whose students or teams compete against a public school, shall be expressly designated as one of the following bases on the biological sex of the students who participate on the team or in the sport”—males, men or boys, females, women or girls, co-ed or mixed, the bill states.
“Any student who is deprived of an athletic opportunity or suffers any direct or indirect harm as a result of a school knowingly violating this section has a private cause of action or injunctive relief, damages, or any other relief available under law against the school,” the bill adds.
Civil action would have to be filed within two years of the alleged offense.
The legislation is based on findings that assert the reality of biological sex, that a person’s physiological gender is determined before birth, and acknowledges physical sex differences in prenatal and early childhood through puberty.
“Having separate sex-specific teams furthers efforts to promote sex equality by providing opportunities for female athletes to demonstrate their skill, strength, and athletic abilities; while also providing them with opportunities to obtain recognition, accolades, college scholarships, and the numerous other long-term benefits that flow from success in athletic endeavors,” according to the bill’s findings.
Among the bill’s 24 Republican sponsors were Sen. Sonny Borrelli, Rep. Shawnna Bolick, Sen. Warren Petersen, Rep. Judy Burges, and Sen. Vince Leach.
Leach, representing Arizona’s District 11, said he supported the bill based on his long-time position that acknowledges performance differences between males and females. For 18 years he was a high school sports and club coach in Wisconsin.
“I can tell you from firsthand observation it’s different” between male and female athletes, Leach told The Epoch Times.
“The game is played differently. Men are much more aggressive, much more using their body strength. If you introduce men’s strength into the [female sports] equation, it just magnifies that.”
Leach said it’s becoming more common to see males wanting to participate in female athletics programs.
“We’re making sure that girls get to play and get to play sports without fear of getting hurt,” he said.
Leach said that males who participate on female athletics teams “doesn’t make the sport any better.”
“It dilutes the sport. It’s presented as an issue of fairness, but who’s fairness is it? We’re taking away from a beautiful experience” in sports.
The legislation will go before the Arizona House where it will be handed over to a committee for review and recommendation to the full House.
Absent any amendments the approved legislation will be presented to Gov. Dough Ducey for signing.
On Feb. 3, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed a bill into law prohibiting transgender girls and women from playing on female sports teams, making South Dakota the 10th state to pass such legislation.
“No National Security Risks”: Trudeau Admin Turns Blind Eye To Chinese Takeover Of Canadian Lithium Miner
According to Justin Trudeau’s liberal administration, the Chinese takeover of a lithium mine located headquartered in Toronto “poses no national security risks whatsoever,” according to a report by True North.
The report comes after Neo Lithium Corp. was purchased by Zijin Mining Group Co. without a national security review. Neo Lithium spokesperson Carlos Vicens said last month that the government had only conducted a brief security screening of the potential purchase, stating: “The law states they have 45 days after announcement to start a review if they believe there is a specific concern. The timeline passed in early December and no review was done.”
Industry minister François-Philippe Champagne told True North: “This transaction was absolutely reviewed to make sure there was no security risk.”
Zijjin Mining acquired the company for $960 million. Neo Lithium “has developed one of the world’s largest overseas lithium brine projects in Argentina,” the report says.
In late January, some experts had warned against takeovers by the Chinese Communist Party, pointing out that they could have impacts on the country’s intellectual property and economic security.
Royal Roads University Professor Dr. Jeffrey B. Kucharski told MPs: “I think, as part of a bigger story, what I’m saying is that there are intellectual property issues, there is management knowledge and there is this company as part of a supply chain, potentially, that we now don’t have any longer to help build our own supply chain here in Canada.”
Senior Fellow of the Centre for International Governance Innovation Dr. Wesley Clark added: “I believe the government addressed the Neo Lithium acquisition using too narrow a framework; misjudged its significance to Canadian national and economic security, now and in the future; failed to translate policy promises into action; and was caught up in a protracted period of political transition while the transaction was being reviewed—all of which, I believe, led to a wrong decision.”
Hong Kong Will Send More COVID Patients To Quarantine Camp Amid Record Surge In Cases
COVID outbreaks may be waning in the US, UK and a number of other countries – including far-flung Australia, where Prime Minister Scott Morrison just unveiled plans to reopen the country to tourists on Monday as that country’s omicron wave has diminished – but in Hong Kong, mainland China, and a handful of other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, case numbers are rising at an alarming rate, much to the consternation of local health officials.
On Monday, Hong Kong reported 614 new COVID cases, the largest daily tally since the start of the pandemic two years ago. The figure was double the number of cases reported the day prior, prompting local health officials to declare that the “fifth wave” of the pandemic has already begun, and that the city would soon be dealing with 1,000 new cases per day, according to Health minister Sophia Chan Siu-chee. 219 of the new cases were deemed asymptomatic or untraceable, and seven imported.
The prospect of exponential growth of the virus has prompted Hong Kong to impose even tougher quarantine restrictions, including sending both close contacts of the infected, and those who tested positive but exhibit mild symptoms, to a quarantine camp similar to the barbed-wire-enclosed camps opened in Australia where some infected people have been forced to sit out their illness (and a trio of persons made headlines around the world when they escaped late last year). The camp is already housing patients who are deemed symptomatic and at high risk of spreading the virus. Authorities will also consider adopting even tougher social distancing restrictions.
This facility is located at the Penny’s Bay facility on Lantau Island.
Officials have laid out plans to start sending more patients who meet the new criteria there on Tuesday, according to the SCMP. Although some infected patients will be allowed to quarantine at home if their digs are deemed “suitable” by the HK government (which, remember, is now under the untrammeled control of Beijing):
Warning that the Omicron-fuelled fifth wave of the pandemic was spiralling out of control, officials laid out plans to begin sending infected people to Penny’s Bay from Tuesday and allow home quarantine for close contacts whose flats were approved as suitable for isolation.
The city’s leader will also meet her top advisers on Tuesday to discuss further tightening social-distancing measures to address the infection surge, partly blamed on Lunar New Year celebratory gatherings. Tougher steps could entail expanding the use of the vaccine pass to cover shopping malls and public transport.
Authorities blamed family gatherings during the Chinese Lunar New Year for fueling the surge in infections. There have been a few notable clusters of cases in the city so far, illustrated below:
As of Monday, COVID patients were occupying 1,146 of the 3,416 units available in the facility on Penny’s Bay. Meanwhile, more contacts of the infected will be required to quarantine at home for 14 days if their homes are deemed “suitable.”
With fewer spaces available, close contacts of patients and the family members of those secondary contacts can isolate at home starting from Tuesday, for 14 days and four days, respectively, provided their living arrangements proved suitable.
“Our colleagues will assess whether the household is suitable for home isolation, such as whether they need to share rooms or facilities with their family members,” said Centre for Health Protection controller Edwin Tsui Lok-kin.
Authorities in Hong Kong have imposed more draconian restrictions as of late, including locking down an entire housing complex after roughly 50 cases were found there. The city has also imposed a requirement for all Hong Kongers to be innoculated. If they aren’t fully vaccinated before Feb. 24, they will not be allowed to enter crowded public places, which will now require proof of inoculation to enter.
