A veteran Houston narcotics officer’s handwritten responses to questions from internal investigators document the unraveling of the story he concocted to obtain the warrant for a no-knock drug raid that killed a middle-aged couple last January. “I screw[ed] up,” Gerald Goines, who was shot in the face during the raid, wrote as he lay in a hospital bed, “because I made a buy without the correct man power there.”
Inadequate manpower was the least of the problems with Goines’ investigation of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas, which the Justice Department says was based on a false tip from a neighbor. Goines, who faces state murder charges and federal civil rights charges as a result of the deadly raid, claimed in his search warrant affidavit that a confidential informant had bought heroin from a middle-aged “white male, whose name is unknown,” at the house on Harding Street where Tuttle and Nicholas lived. After the raid, which found no evidence of drug dealing, Goines could not identify an informant who would confirm that story.
In the handwritten notes, which were obtained by KPRC, the NBC station in Houston, Goines finally fesses up, sort of. “What is the name of your C.I. [confidential informant] that you used for 7815 Harding?” the investigators ask. “Gerald Goines,” he replies. “There was no confidential informant….I made the purchase myself. I was looking to buy from a female. I bought from the male. I had info regarding people at the residence. I’m not sure if the guy I bought from was the male listed in info.”
That “info,” according to a federal indictment unsealed last month, was fabricated by Patricia Garcia, who lived across the street and described Tuttle and Nicholas as armed and dangerous drug dealers in telephone conversations with police on January 8. Although Goines supposedly investigated that tip for two weeks, he does not seem to have known the names of the purported drug dealers and, by his own account, did not know what Tuttle looked like. But that did not really matter, because the heroin purchase he said he made never happened, according to the indictment.
Goines also admitted to investigators that Steven Bryant, the narcotics officer he claimed had confirmed that the “brown powder substance” supposedly purchased at 7815 Harding Street was black-tar heroin, never saw the alleged contraband. “Officer Bryant never observe[d] the narcotic which was purchase[d] from the residence,” Goines wrote. “I placed that statement in the [affidavit].” Bryant, who like Goines retired after the raid, faces state and federal charges for backing up Goines’ fictional narrative.
In his written responses, Goines said he bought “two small baggies” of a “powdery substance” from the unidentified white male on the evening before the raid, and he was sure the man “would still be in possession” when police searched the home. But the only drugs that police found in the house were personal-use quantities of marijuana and cocaine. In his affidavit, Goines also claimed that his informant had seen “a semi-auto hand gun of a 9mm caliber” in the house; no such weapon was recovered.
All of this makes you wonder what Goines’ plan was. Had he not been shot during the raid he engineered, would he have planted the heroin and the gun he had described in his affidavit? Goines’ expectation that his fabrications would go undetected does not reflect well on the alertness and integrity of his colleagues and supervisors. As it turned out, Bryant did cover for Goines, confirming his own role in the transaction that Goines invented.
If the raid had not ended so disastrously, Goines might very well have succeeded in framing Tuttle and Nicholas. He had a history of mishandling evidence and making dubious statements under oath. Over 12 years, The Houston Chroniclefound, Goines obtained nearly 100 no-knock warrants like the one used in this case, almost always claiming that informants had seen firearms in the homes he wanted to search. But he reported recovering guns only once, a pattern no one seems to have noticed.
That track record, combined with the loose supervision that allowed this operation to unfold as it did, suggests that imposing limits on no-knock raids and finally requiring narcotics officers to wear body cameras when they execute search warrants—two reforms that Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo instituted in response to this scandal—do not go far enough to root out the problems in the Narcotics Division. “How do you reassure the public something like this isn’t going to happen again?” a reporter asked Acevedo on the day the federal indictment was unsealed. His response was revealing:
Police officers have been engaged in misconduct since the advent of time. Human beings have been sinning since…the days of Adam and Eve, right? I mean, we’re imperfect beings. I can’t guarantee that nothing will ever happen again….What I can guarantee is that, number one, we will continue to be vigilant in our processes and our systems and our audits….We will always ask the tough questions when we take a life. What I can tell you is that the chances of this being systemic are not going to happen because of the processes in the systems that we have in time. But at the end of the day, there is an element of trust when you have employees….No matter what systems or processes are in place, there is no such thing as 100-percent fail-proof process.
Acevedo says “we will continue to be vigilant in our processes and our systems and our audits,” which implies that the Houston Police Department already was vigilant about potential abuses by narcotics officers. Yet the Chronicle found that the Narcotics Division had gone two decades without an audit. It also found that, despite an expert consensus that undercover officers should be frequently rotated to other assignments, 71 officers have served a decade or more in the Narcotics Division. Michael Doyle, a lawyer hired by Nicholas’ family, says supervisors let the raid go forward even though they knew Goines had not properly documented his contact with the informant he described. Goines’ belief that he could get away with inventing a drug purchase by a nonexistent informant does not speak well of the HPD’s “processes.”
Acevedo puts “the chances of this being systemic” at zero, even as he concedes that something like this is bound to happen again. In the face of a scandal that should make all Houstonians worry about the security of their constitutional rights, Acevedo’s observations about the fallen nature of humanity are hardly reassuring.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34aehiV
via IFTTT
A Texas deputy was arrested over the weekend for allegedly conducting unlawful strip searches on at least six women.
Floyd Berry, who has spent 18 years with the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO), is accused of conducting unlawful strip searches on at least six women between November 24 and December 4 this year. The BCSO and the Federal Bureau of Investigation began an investigation after five women, ranging in age from 26 to 52, reported Berry’s behavior. A sixth woman came forward after the investigation began.
In one of the incidents, a woman says she and a male friend encountered Berry during a traffic stop. She was placed in the back of his patrol car, taken to a secluded area, and was told to remove her clothing for a search. In a similar incident, a woman was separated from her husband, told to lift her bra and shake until her nipples were exposed.
A third woman said Berry was visibly aroused and made flirtatious comments during the search. Berry documented none of the searches in his department reports.
Berry was arrested over the weekend on three misdemeanor counts of official oppression, the BCSO confirmed. The office also said that Berry was placed on administrative leave and was “served a proposed termination” following the arrest.
Following years of debate, Bexar County commissioners last week approved funding for a body camera program. Patrol deputies will begin using the cameras over the next year.
BSCO is currently searching for more victims. Anyone with additional information about the case is encouraged to contact BSCO’s Public Integrity Unit at 210-335-5110 or BCSOTIPS@bexar.org.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Pyeff8
via IFTTT
A Texas deputy was arrested over the weekend for allegedly conducting unlawful strip searches on at least six women.
Floyd Berry, who has spent 18 years with the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO), is accused of conducting unlawful strip searches on at least six women between November 24 and December 4 this year. The BCSO and the Federal Bureau of Investigation began an investigation after five women, ranging in age from 26 to 52, reported Berry’s behavior. A sixth woman came forward after the investigation began.
In one of the incidents, a woman says she and a male friend encountered Berry during a traffic stop. She was placed in the back of his patrol car, taken to a secluded area, and was told to remove her clothing for a search. In a similar incident, a woman was separated from her husband, told to lift her bra and shake until her nipples were exposed.
A third woman said Berry was visibly aroused and made flirtatious comments during the search. Berry documented none of the searches in his department reports.
Berry was arrested over the weekend on three misdemeanor counts of official oppression, the BCSO confirmed. The office also said that Berry was placed on administrative leave and was “served a proposed termination” following the arrest.
Following years of debate, Bexar County commissioners last week approved funding for a body camera program. Patrol deputies will begin using the cameras over the next year.
BSCO is currently searching for more victims. Anyone with additional information about the case is encouraged to contact BSCO’s Public Integrity Unit at 210-335-5110 or BCSOTIPS@bexar.org.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Pyeff8
via IFTTT
Fighting for its very life, the Resistance rolls out a last-ditch flanking maneuver today in its three-year war against reality as Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Intel Committee presents findings to Rep. Nadler’s Judiciary Committee for crimes as yet unspecified against Mr. Trump, possibly as grave as treason.
Buyer beware. The Resistance always accuses its enemy of the very acts it commits – for instance, colluding with Russia, the primal deed that the guiding spirit of the Resistance, Mrs. Clinton, perpetrated in hiring Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS outfit and its star front-man, Christopher Steele, to consort with Russian disinformation agents injecting some helpful fantasy into the 2016 election.
Therefore, you can be serenely confident that any charges of actual treason will eventually stick to members of Resistance in government service who did indeed plot a coup to overthrow the occupant of the White House. That process of discovery begins today in another part of the battlefield, when the DOJ Inspector General, Mr. Horowitz, rolls out his report on FISA court shenanigans. His inquiry, of course, was limited to current members of the DOJ and FBI, which leaves out many of the principal actors in that scheme: Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Stzrok, Lisa Page, Michael Atkinson — all either discharged or moved onto other thickets in the reeking wetland of Washington DC. Anyway, the coup ranged far beyond the bounds of Mr. Horowitz’s scope on FISA abuse.
Among those many others, the IG was not authorized to interrogate former CIA chief John Brennan, the Lone Ranger of RussiaGate, or James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Brennan’s faithful Tonto in the scam. Mr. Horowitz’s report will be necessarily incomplete. At most, it might provide a preview of the comprehensive legal review being carried out by the attorney general, Mr. Barr, and his deputy, the Connecticut federal prosecutor, John Durham. I suspect that Mr. Barr has instructed Mr. Horowitz to be careful with his conclusions, since any further attempts to obfuscate the facts and excuse official misconduct on squishy grounds such as intent will tend to worsen the already gross institutional damage done to federal law enforcement.
One character who has not been heard from lo these many months is former deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr, who was not fired, but transferred to some harmless backwater of the Justice Department to answer agency parking violations, or something equally harmless. I suspect Mr. Ohr may have played a decisive role in the IG inquiry, and possibly flipped on his colleagues, since Mr. Ohr was in the uniquely uncomfortable position of having a wife, Nellie Ohr, in the direct employ of Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton’s oppo research contractor. Mr. Ohr additionally consorted with Fusion’s front man, Mr. Steele, after Steele was officially fired as a paid FBI source. Mr. Ohr will surely play a role on the Durham side of things.
Rep Adam Schiff will be conspicuously absent in today’s hearings, a tactic that enables him to avoid being questioned about his methods, actions, and associations around the UkraineGate chapter of the coup — for instance, his pre-whistle trysts with CIA agent and alleged “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella. Some minority member of the Nadler committee might ask Mr. Schiff, for instance, if he can cite any federal statute that provides Ciaramella with eternal anonymity (hint: there is none). Instead, Mr. Schiff’s findings will be presented by Lawfare attorneys Daniel Sachs Goldman (yes, his actual name), and Barry Berke, renowned for getting Wall Street grifters off the hook for selling janky securities.
The New York Times is the Resistance’s obverse measuring device for divining reality — whatever they report is likely to be the opposite of the facts. So, naturally, the Monday morning edition is playing-up the supposedly nefarious doings of Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine. In fact, Mr. Giuliani has managed to depose (and record on video) two Ukrainian chief prosecutors, Viktor Shokin and Yuriy Lutsenko who are deeply familiar with the machinations around the inquiries into Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian gas company that put coke-head Hunter Biden on its board of directors while dad Joe Biden was directing on-the-ground US policy there — and bribed the Ukraine government to back off its investigations. (Shokin video here and Lutsenko video here).
The essence of this colossal radioactive hairball of an historic scandal pulsates in the malicious prosecution of General Michael Flynn. Weeks ago, his new attorney, Sidney Powell, filed requests for DOJ documents containing exculpatory information in the case. The prosecutors, put in by Robert Mueller, stalled on the request, so Ms. Powell asked for an official pause until the Horowitz report is issued, possibly containing information pertinent to the general’s case. Be alert to developments on that front.
So, you see, we have two narratives at war in America:
the Resistance story aimed at shoving Mr. Trump out of the White House by any means necessary, including a siege engine of untruth based on bad faith;
and Mr. Trump’s story that he has been unfairly and unjustly subject to seditious mutiny by several federal agencies, dedicated to crippling his executive function at least and levering him out of office at most.
The two stories can be reconciled in courts of law and the court of public opinion. There’s polling evidence that the Resistance is losing in the latter, as it over-estimated the public’s appetite for official dishonesty. The courts of law await further down the road.
Pentagon Shifts Focus Ahead Of Next War, Wants To Relocate Troops To Indo-Pacific Region
Very little headlines come out of the Middle East these days about the two-decade war the US has been fighting against terrorism. But what you hear on an increasing frequency are headlines outlining how Russia and China are the new enemies. The shift happened several years ago when the US military figured out that a great power competition was underway.
Instead of fighting unconventional enemies in the deserts of the Middle East, the Pentagon is preparing for major conflicts against Russia and China.
To do this, President Trump ramped up military spending to record amounts to prepare forces for future conflict.
Hundreds of billions of dollars are being plowed into hypersonics, fifth-generation fighters and bombers, directed energy, space, cyber, quantum science, artificial intelligence, and automation.
The realignment of the Pentagon’s crosshairs was recently confirmed by Indo-Pacific Command, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who said over the weekend that US forces need to be deployed in more significant numbers to the Asia-Pacific region, to confront a rising China, reported Bloomberg.
“What I want to do is reallocate forces,” Esper said Saturday at the Reagan National Defense Forum when asked about slashing troop numbers in Afghanistan.
“That’s my priority theater,” Esper said. “I’m not just looking at Afghanistan,” but “all these places where I can free up troops” to bring them home or “compete with the Chinese, to reassure our allies and to conduct exercises and training.”
The Trump administration published the 2018 National Defence Strategy that outlines after two decades of fighting terrorists in the Middle East — the military must address Russia and China in a great power competition.
“Our war-fighting advantages over strategic competitors are being challenged,” Esper said. “China and Russia, today’s revisionist powers, are modernizing their militaries while seeking veto power over the economic and security decisions of other nations.”
What’s evident is that the US is falling into Thucydides’s Trap. It’s when one great power threatens to displace another, and war is always inevitable on a long enough timeline.
The Pentagon’s realignment of the enemy has unleashed an economic war on Russia and China. Washington is sanctioning Russia, while on another front, launched a trade war with China to halt its economic and military ascension.
These economic wars between the US and China and Russia have also kicked off a technology war that has morphed into an artificial intelligence arms race, which is setting the stage for heightened geopolitical uncertainties through the 2020s as the world inches closer to a shooting war.
Altria Slides As Tiger Global Slashes Juul’s Valuation In Half
The Wall Street Journal published a story around noon detailing how Tiger Global Management, one of the lead investors behind e-cigarette startup Juul Labs Inc., cut the company’s valuation to $19 billion, a far cry from $24 billion in October and $38 billion last December.
The massive write-down has been nothing more than headaches for Marlboro-maker Altria Group Inc., who bought a 35% stake in the e-cigarette startup at a $38 billion valuation.
Shares in Altria slid around noon when the report crossed the wires.
Juul CFO Guy Cartwright told employees via an email Sunday night that the company had just experienced a massive drop in valuation.
“A lot has changed in the market in the past year… We’re still a very young company.” Cartwright said, “Achieving a $24 billion valuation less than three years into our journey is an incredible feat.”
He added that the decision for the government to pull all of its flavors except for tobacco and menthol was the main driver in the valuation drop.
Juul has been at the center of controversy surrounding the government’s crackdown on underage vaping.
The Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission have also launched probes into the company.
Juul’s 50% collapse in valuation in less than one year has forced the company to cut 16% of its total workforce.
It seems that Silicon Valley’s precious unicorns are dropping like flies.
As Of Midnight Tomorrow The WTO Effectively Ceases To Function
Submitted by Michael Every of Rabobank
Bananas for International Settlements
Friday’s US payrolls were strong, albeit boosted by the return of GM workers after a labor dispute. The 266K report and 41K two-month upwards revisions, 3.5% unemployment rate, and 3.1% y/y average earnings growth (albeit on a 1-tick miss in the m/m print at just 0.2%)–to say nothing of the stronger-than-expected Michigan sentiment and consumer credit surveys–all combined to provide a warm seasonal glow to optimists. Quite the contrast with appalling Canadian jobs numbers, the equivalent of a –612K US payrolls print, which would have turned Justin Trudeau’s face whiter than it was when he realized that video of him laughing at Trump at the NATO summit had leaked online, and with more weak German industrial production, -1.7% m/m, which was enough to put a chill in their mulled wine.
However, we then got a US banana skin too. Larry Kudlow hit all the wrong notes when trying to tell us ‘a trade deal is comin’ to town’: in his own words “the final strokes are not there” due to China’s unwillingness to agree on the scale of agri purchases and “there are no arbitrary deadlines on any of this.” Hence there is no guarantee that there will an agreement reached before Saturday, when the next set of US tariffs kick in on Chinese exports. That means five trading sessions to position correctly for either a phase one deal, or a can-kicking, or a further escalation of trade tensions. When deciding consider:
Another banana skin. Chinese trade data out showed shipments to the US -23% y/y, which is quite incredible, and what you call a trade-war impact in a US economy sucking in goods from everywhere else.
The headline data also showed China’s total exports -1.1% y/y in USD terms vs. a slight 0.8% gain expected, while imports were up 0.3% y/y vs. an expected -1.4%, whittling down its huge trade surplus. Yet for those looking at the rise in imports and thinking “See? China can be a source of global demand beyond commodities and very high-end tech!”, on an underlying basis stripping out things like oil and iron ore, the surplus is still at a record level; Beijing is reportedly forcing the removal of all foreign computers and software to boost the domestic tech supply chain; and in Taiwan it is paying double and triple the going salary for chip engineers to lure them from firms which no longer want to sell to them (3,000 have been won-over recently). So opening up or doubling down in this vital week?
And a huge banana split on global trade. As of midnight tomorrow the WTO effectively ceases to function unless the US allows appointments of new appellate judges to the final appeals forum, the Appellate Body, after the terms of two of the last three sitting judges expire – at which point, ironically, only China’s representative will remain. After that, if you want to appeal a WTO ruling there will be nobody to hear it, and even cases already under consideration will grind to a halt. In effect, the referee leaves the field of play just as we move from playing games to playing The Great Game. Some more from the WSJ:
A stalemate between the U.S. and other members of the World Trade Organization, including the European Union and China, stands to cripple the organization’s top court, threatening the global body’s survival.
On Wednesday the court, called the Appellate Body, will no longer have enough judges to rule on big trade disputes between countries.
At stake are international rules negotiated over five decades by the U.S. and Europe to boost global trade. The WTO, established in 1995, is the most significant outcome of that effort, helping to head off damaging cycles of tariffs and retaliation between countries. Now it’s stuck.
Efforts to modernize WTO rules for challenges such as China’s market-distorting state capitalism have repeatedly failed. Talks among its 164 members to regulate e-commerce and other new arenas have stalled for years. And a trans-Atlantic dispute over operations of its top court has sparked the split now threatening the organization’s core.
“The WTO is in crisis,” said Cecilia Malmstrom, who last month ended her term as EU trade commissioner. “If nothing happens, it will become irrelevant.”
On which, Pentagon Indo-Pacific Command Defence Secretary Esper wants to shift US troops from the Middle East, where there are few bananas, to further east, where there are lots, in order to “compete with the Chinese, to reassure our allies and to conduct exercise and training.” A new US military base, coming soon to a location near China near you! Obviously 100% compatible with a real trade deal. Meanwhile, looking a bit of a nana himself, just as the US drops its focus on the war on terrorism and looks east, France’s Macron thinks he is being visionary in pushing for a European/NATO war on terrorism.
Wherein today’s must-see is a video clip of Nancy Pelosi explaining to a journalist why she chose not to impeach President George W Bush (that adorable guy who shared candy with the Obamas, who themselves just bought a USD12m property in Martha’s Vineyard). Pelosi states as a member of the top-level intelligence committee she *knew* there were no Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and that the US was being led/lied into a war that cost thousands of Americans’ lives; killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; destabilised the Middle East; empowered Iran; allowed the creation of the Islamic State; cost trillions of USD; and moved its strategic focus away from Asia at a crucial moment in history. But this was not impeachable in her opinion, because the American people seems happy to go along with it. Oy vey.
Which is something one also wants to say when reading the latest BIS reports on the US repo crisis and the FX markets. The BIS say US repo problems are a structural issue linked to big banks’ big holdings of Treasuries – and aren’t going away even as the Fed throws money at it, as central banks always do under pressure.
Art is perhaps imitating life here given at Art Basel, Miami this weekend artist Maurizio Cattelan taped a banana to a wall and it was suddenly valued at USD120,000 and sold to French collectors. Then another artist, David Datuna, took the banana off the wall and ate it as a piece of ‘performance art’ called “Hungry Artist”. Value: zero. As another artist cried with zero sense of irony as he did so, “Are you kidding? This is so stupid. This is so stupid.” Not to worry though: there is a surviving edition involving another banana valued at USD150,000. See? Central banking does work! Perhaps with a bit more NOT-QE we can get a USD1,000,000 banana?
Meanwhile, the BIS warning is that investors and dealers have innovated their way to spreading their FX capital more thinly than before, fragmenting market liquidity across multiple platforms…and when that liquidity dries up during the next phase of global turmoil, volatility will surge. In other words, “during periods of stress, FX dealers might ration and favour clients with whom they have a strong relationship, such as those using their single-bank platform. Customers who spread execution across venues could face a sharp evaporation of liquidity.” Or in other words, split your banana too many ways and its going to be inedible just when you need it the most.
So, we have the US warning that a trade deal may not be close just as we head towards more tariffs; the WTO about to grind to a halt; the Pentagon warning on US troops moving east; the BIS warning neither the US repo market nor the global FX markets are as safe as they look; and renewed friction with North Korea over nukes too. And that’s before we get to the UK election on Thursday – which is nuts
“There Is A Lot Of Frustration” – Victims’ Families Demand Answers From FBI About Pensacola Navy Base Shooting
US domestic military bases remained on high alert Monday following a string of attacks last week by lone gunmen rattled bases in Hawaii and Florida. On Friday, a Saudi national opened fire during a training exercise, killing three people an wounding another eight at a Navy base in Pensacola.
Now, the FBI is facing tremendous pressure to get to the bottom of what happened and, crucially, whether the shooter had any help from his fellow Saudis, according to Reuters.
Lieutenant Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani
During a Sunday press conference, Fla. Gov. Ron DeSantis said he believed the shooting resembled an act of terrorism, and that it never would have happened if the US did a better job vetting which foreign nationals are allowed to train with the US military on US soil, just as Royal Saudi Air Force 2nd Lieutenant Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani – the shooter, who was killed in a firefight on Friday – was.
“There is a lot of frustration in our state over this,” DeSantis said. “You have foreign military personnel coming to our base. They should not be doing that if they hate our country.”
The NYT reported over the weekend that six other Saudis were questioned over the shooting, but officials have been tight-lipped about the future of the training program, and whether the remaining trainees would be allowed to stay. Initial reports claimed the other Saudis had no idea the attack was coming, and the FBI currently believes that Alshamrani acted alone.
NYT also reported on Sunday that it had seen an official complaint filed by the shooter back in April against one of his instructors at the base, who had purportedly made derogatory comments about his appearance and race. This seems to be an important detail, but it’s unclear whether it had any connection to the shooting.
Moreover, authorities suspect that Alshamrani made social media posts criticizing the US under a user a handle that’s similar to his name. Federal law enforcement officials are investigating whether he authored the words or just posted them, the AP reports.
The weapon used in the shooting – a Glock 9mm pistol – was legally purchased by Alshamrani somewhere in Florida. DeSantis said he was able to buy the firearm because of a “federal loophole” in gun laws that makes it easy for non-immigrant foreign nationals to purchase weapons in the US.
DeSantis said this detail, in particular, irked him.
“I’m a big supporter of the Second Amendment, but it’s so Americans can keep and bear arms, not Saudi Arabians,” he told reporters.
Alshamrani was in Pensacola as part of a program to ‘bolster ties’ between the US military and its allies (apparently, all those arms we sell to the Saudis isn’t enough?). The other Saudis participating in this exchange program have been ordered to remain on the base until the investigation is over.
Of course, if past terror incidents in the US are any guide, if Alshamrani did have help, the Saudi government has presumably swept that evidence under the rug by now.
We just capped off a spectacular weekend in St. Lucia with members of our Total Access group to explore this country’s Citizenship-by-Investment program.
I’ve written about Citizenship-by-Investment programs before; these are completely legal programs that exist in several countries where foreigners can invest a particular sum of money in a country and become a citizen.
These programs are often called “Economic Citizenship” programs as well. And they’re typically the fastest way to get a second passport.
The investment amounts for Economic Citizenship (or Citizenship-by-Investment) programs vary from country to country.
Long ago there were very only a handful of countries offering this, including (surprisingly) Austria, which would demand a foreigner to invest a hefty seven-figure sum in order to obtain citizenship there.
Then countries in the Caribbean started offering the program. It was cheaper, but it would still be several hundred thousand dollars.
Then more and more countries jumped on the bandwagon. And just like any other product or service, as more countries began offering economic citizenship, the price fell.
Here in St. Lucia the investment can be as little as $100,000. (And I’ve negotiated an arrangement for our Total Access members to receive a healthy discount.)
$100,000 is pretty close to the cheapest in the world, especially for a single applicant.
But not all economic citizenship programs are created equal.
Reputation matters; there are some countries that offer economic citizenship which do a pretty terrible job of weeding out bad applicants.
The economic citizenship programs in Dominica and St. Kitts both have a number of black eyes in this department; a number of their economic citizenships have been issued to known criminals, suspected terrorists, convicted financial fraudsters, etc.
And frankly whenever a country offers citizenship to people like that, it devalues the program for everyone else.
One of the most important characteristics about an Economic Citizenship program is the quality of the passport: how many countries can you travel to, visa free, with that passport?
Most of the Caribbean economic citizenship programs are good quality passports. With a St. Lucian passport, for example, you could travel to 144 countries, including all of Europe, visa-free (or visa-on-arrival).
Our Sovereign Man Passport Ranking analyzes this further, and shows that a passport from Antigua (which has its own economic citizenship program) is slightly better, with visa-free travel to more countries like Russia, Brazil, and South Africa.
The Prime Minister of St. Lucia joined our event over the weekend and addressed our Total Access members about his country’s Economic Citizenship program.
For him, it’s a no-brainer. So far the program has brought in around $30 million for St. Lucia, which is a decent sum of money in such a tiny country with only 180,000 people.
He pointed to nearby Dominica, which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars from its program in recent years.
He knows that money can do a LOT of good in developing new infrastructure, healthcare, pensions, and tax cuts in St. Lucia, and he’s intent on making St. Lucia’s economic citizenship program the most successful and most attractive in the Caribbean.
Specifically, he is pushing to increase the visa-free travel options of a St. Lucian passport, as well as protect the reputation of the program by enforcing strict due diligence procedures and ensuring total transparency in the program.
If they’re able to execute on this vision, St. Lucia could quickly become the best economic citizenship program in the world.
When he and I were speaking privately later, he gave me his unique perspective of these economic citizenship programs.
It’s commonplace for countries all over the world to raise money by selling bonds and going into debt. Japan does it. The United States does it. Canada does it.
These bonds are often referred to as ‘Sovereign Bonds’ because they are issued by the governments of sovereign nations around the world.
Rather than issuing Sovereign Debt, however, the Prime Minister views economic citizenship as way to raise capital through “Sovereign Equity”.
It’s similar to how a private company raises money by selling shares (i.e. ‘equity’) to people that invest in the business.
Investors who contribute capital and buy equity in a company become shareholders.
Economic citizenship is similar; individuals who invest in the country and buy ‘Sovereign Equity’ receive a passport, essentially becoming a stakeholder in the country.
I think that’s an astute way of looking at these programs.
And remember, if you’re not willing or able to write a $100,000 check, there are three other ways you can obtain a second passport:
Ancestry. If you are lucky enough to have ancestors from the right country, you may be eligible for second citizenship by descent. This is traditionally the easiest way to obtain a second passport and one that we recommend everyone look into before pursuing the other options.
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev first met in Geneva in 1985, in a summit specifically designed to allow them to discuss diplomatic relations and the -nuclear- arms race. At the time, the Soviet Union had started to crumble, but it was still very much the Soviet Union. They met again in 1986 in Reykjavik, in a summit set up to continue these talks. There, they came close to an agreement to dismantle both countries’ nuclear arsenals.
They met once again in Washington in 1987. That was the year Reagan made his famous “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech about the Berlin wall. Then they held a next summit in 1988 in Moscow, where they finalized the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) after the US Senate’s ratification of the treaty in May 1988.
Reagan’s successor George H.W. Bush met with Gorbachev first in December 1989 in Malta, and then the two met three times in 1990, among others in Washington where the Chemical Weapons Accord was signed, and in Paris where they signed the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. They met three more times in 1991, with one of their meetings, in Moscow, resulting in the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I).
One of the most interesting things agreed on during the Bush-Gorbachev meetings was that Russia would allow Germany to re-unite after the wall came down, in exchange for the promise that NATO would not try to expand eastward.
I’ve been re-researching this a bit because it feels like it’s high time that people should realize what US foreign policy was like not that long ago. Even as it involved Reagan and Bush sr., not exactly the peace-mongers of their times. The one thing that was clear to all parties involved is that it was crucial to keep meeting and talking. And talk they did. But look at us now. When was the last summit of a US president with Vladimir Putin?
This came to mind again when I read Elizabeth Warren’s piece in the Guardian today, which made me wonder if she’s for real, if she is really as ignorant as she appears to be when it comes to foreign policy, to Russia, to Trump and to NATO. It would seem that she is, and that makes her a hazard. Not that I see her as a serious candidate, mind you, but then again, I do not see any other one either.
In her article, which reads more than anything like some nostalgic longing for the good old times when she was young, just watch her get all warm and fuzzy over the success of NATO:
For seven decades, America’s strength, security and prosperity have been underpinned by our unmatched network of treaty alliances, cemented in shared democratic values and a recognition of our common security. But after three years of Donald Trump’s insults and antics, our alliances are under enormous strain. The damage done by the president’s hostility toward our closest partners was on full display at this week’s gathering of NATO leaders in London, which should have been an unequivocal celebration of the 70th anniversary of the most successful alliance in history.
The success of NATO was not inevitable, easy or obvious. It is a remarkable and hard-won accomplishment, and one based on a recognition that the United States does not become stronger by weakening our allies. But that is just what Trump has done, repeatedly and deliberately. He treats our partners as burdens while embracing autocrats from Moscow to Pyongyang. He has cast doubt on the US commitment to NATO at a moment when a resurgent Russia threatens our institutions and freedoms. He has blindsided our partners on the ground in Syria by ordering a precipitate and uncoordinated withdrawal.
[..] he has wrecked US credibility by unilaterally tearing up our international agreements on arms control, non-proliferation and climate change. This reckless disregard for the benefits of our alliances comes at a perilous moment, when we face common threats from powerful adversaries probing the weaknesses of our institutions and resolve. Longstanding allies in Asia are doubting our reliability and hedging their bets. Russia’s land grab in Ukraine has upended the post-1989 vision of a Europe “whole, free, and at peace”. The chaotic Brexit process has consumed our closest partners, while sluggish growth and rising xenophobia fuel extremist politics and threaten to fracture the European Union.
To start with that last point, no. That “post-1989 vision of a Europe “whole, free, and at peace” was destroyed by NATO’s eastward expansion, executed in spite of US, EU and NATO promises that it wouldn’t. Moreover, you can talk about a resurgent Russia, but the country has hardly recovered economically from the 1980’s and 90’s today, and it has no designs on countries to its west.
Just look at the military budgets of the respective countries, where Russia has maybe 10% of the expenditure of the US, let alone the rest of NATO, and you get the picture. Is Russia getting more bang for its buck, because it doesn’t have to maintain a long running Pentagon-Boeing/Raytheon link? Yes, it does. But a 10 to 1 difference is still way out there. It’s not as if they spend half of what the US does, they spend just 10%.
This is because not only Russia doesn’t have to satisfy the desires and needs of Pentagon-Boeing/Raytheon, it’s also because they have no desire to conquer any territory that is not at present Russian.
Russia “annexed” Crimea through fair elections, and it knew that “we” knew that it would never let go of its only warm water port, Sevastopol. When “We” tried to take it away regardless, it did the only thing it could do. And it did it very intelligently. As for Eastern Ukraine, everyone there is Russian, whether by blood or by passport. And there are a lot of strong ties between them and Russians in Russia proper.
If Putin would have volunteered to let these Donbass Russians be shot to bits by the Ukraine neo-nazis that helped the US and EU in the Maidan coup, he would have had either a civil war in Russia, or an all-out war in the Donbass, with perhaps millions of casualties. Putin did what he could to prevent both. Back to Warren:
A mounting list of global challenges demand US leadership and collective action. As president, I will recommit to our alliances – diplomatically, militarily and economically. I will take immediate action to rebuild our partnerships and renew American strategic and moral leadership, including by rejoining the Paris climate accord, the United Nations compact on migration, and reaffirming our rock-solid commitment to NATO’s Article 5 provisions.
But we must do more than repair what Trump has broken. Instead we need to update our alliances and our international efforts to tackle the great challenges of our age, from climate change and resurgent authoritarianism to dark money flows, a weakening international arms control regime and the worst human displacement crisis in modern history.
Wait, what exactly has Trump broken in the foreign policy field? There have been dozens at the very least who have called for NATO to be disbanded, Ron Paul et al, because its sole purpose was to counter the Soviet Union, which no longer exists. In fact, when Emmanuel Macron labeled NATO “brain-dead” last week, it was Trump who defended the alliance.
And sorry, Elizabeth, but to hold Trump responsible for “the worst human displacement crisis in modern history” is just not right. That started way before he arrived at the scene. Obama and Hillary carry the burden and blame for that, along with Bush jr. and Dick Cheney. They shot the crap out of Iraq, Lybia etc. Trump only dumped a few bombs in a desert. He didn’t invade any country, he didn’t go “We Came, We Saw, He Died”. That was not Trump.
And before we forget, the military aid for Ukraine Trump allegedly held back for a few weeks had been refused by Obama for years. I’ve been wondering for ages now why the Democrats are so eager to make things up while ignoring simple facts, but I think at least it’s time to start pointing out these issues.
This is not to make Trump look better in any sense, but to try and make people understand that he did not start this thing. Though yeah, I know, it’s like talking to a wall by now. The political divide has turned into such a broad and yawning one, you can’t not wonder how it could ever be broached.
But, you know, it might help if people like Elizabeth Warren don’t ONLY talk about Trump like he’s the antichrist, or a Putin tool, if they engage with him in conversation. But sadly, it feels like we’re past that point. Like if she would even try, and I don’t know if she would want to, her party would spit her out just for trying to build a single bridge. Like Tulsi Gabbard seems to have tried; and look at how the DNC treats her.
This means revitalizing our state department and charging our diplomats to develop creative solutions for ever more urgent challenges. It means working with like-minded partners to promote our shared interest in sustained, inclusive global economic growth and an international trade system that protects workers and the environment, not just corporate profits. And it means reducing wasteful defense spending and refocusing on the areas most critical to our security in years to come.
Well, apart from the fact that we’ve seen some of those diplomats in the Schiff hearings, and they seemed like the least likely people to develop anything “creative” -other than their opinions-, and the boondoggle of “sustained, inclusive global economic growth”, it’s probably best to forget about that entire paragraph. It’s nicer to Warren too.
Alliances are not charities, and it’s fair to ask our partners to do their share. I will build on what President Obama started by insisting on increased contributions to NATO operations and common investments in collective military capabilities. But I will also recognize the varied and significant ways that European states contribute to global security – deploying troops to shared missions, receiving refugees, and providing development assistance at some of the highest per capita rates in the world.
The problem appears to be that the partners don’t increase their contributions. Just this March, Germany refused to do just that. And if Berlin refuses, why would other countries spend more?
The next president must tackle our common problems using the lessons of common defense. Together, we can counter terrorism and proliferation. We can make common cause in constructing new norms and rules to govern cyberspace. We can dismantle the corruption, monopolies and inequality that limit opportunity around the world and take on the increasingly grave threats to our environment. We can and will protect ourselves and each other – our countries, our citizens and our democracies.
Now we’re getting into entirely nonsensical territory, with words and sentences designed only to make people feel good about things that have no substance whatsoever. Anyone can go there, anyone can do that.
In the meantime, the neverending investigations into Trump, Russia, Ukraine, taxes, have had one major effect: he hasn’t had a chance to have a summit with Putin. And that, to go back to how I started out this essay, is the worst idea out there. If Reagan and Bush sr. did those summits all the time, then why do we now think such summits are the work of the devil?
And yeah, we get it, we got it again last week from alleged law expert Pamela Karlan in the House, who let ‘er rip on the dangers Putin poses to all of humanity, and of course she would never trust Trump to hold any such summit because he’s Putin’s puppet.
What Pamela, and all the MSM, and the Dems, and the FBI/CIA, appear to refuse to see, though, is that Trump was democratically elected by the American people to be the only one who can have any such conversation. Karlan again talked about how Russia would attempt to attack American soil unless “we” keep them from doing that.
Now I can say that is absolute bollocks, and it is, but how many -potential- Democratic voters will recognize that at this point? They’ve been trained to believe it. That Russia wants one US presidential candidate over another, or one UK one, or fill in your country, and therefore they want to invade the US, UK, etc. In reality, Russia has plenty problems of its own, and it’s slowly trying to solve them.
The two countries need to start talking to each other again, and the sooner the better. That it will happen under Elizabeth Warren, however, is very unlikely. First because she has her mind made up about Russia, and second because the likelihood of her becoming president is very low. What do you think, is that a good thing?
If for some reason -who can tell- she would end up winning 11 months from now, do you think she’s likely to establish a peace treaty with Russia? You know, given what she wrote here? And if not, why would you vote for her? Don’t you want peace? Do you think antagonizing Putin forever is a good idea? While Russia continues to outperform America in arms development, and in just about any field? While Russia only wants peace?
Good questions, ain’t they, as we move into 2020?!
