Month: December 2019

UC Employee Accused Of Nazism, Forced To Apologize For “Unfortunate” Numbers Combo

UC Employee Accused Of Nazism, Forced To Apologize For “Unfortunate” Numbers Combo

Authored by Celine Ryan via CampusReform.org,

University of California Santa Cruz employee was recently forced to defend herself after an unfortunate copy-and paste incident that left her facing accusations of pushing Nazi propaganda.

UCSC Graduate Student Adviser Emelye Neff was accused of slipping white supremacist hidden messages into an email to graduate students of UCSC’s Baskin School of Engineering. In November, Neff sent an email to students about an upcoming deadline. The email subject read “[allgrads] 14 of about 88 *PLEASE NOTE THE UPCOMING UNIVERSITY DEADLINE*.”

The numbers 14 and 88 are often referenced by white supremacists and neo-nazis to identify one another, with 14 being a reference to the “14 words” slogan used by white supremacists, and 88 referring to “h” as the 8th letter of the alphabet and thus being an abbreviation for “Heil Hitler.”

After receiving the email, one student took to the university Facebook group proclaiming that “someone sending emails using the BSOE graduate student affairs email account has some explaining to do,” and insisting that the numbers “can’t be a simple coincidence.”

“Someone is trying to throw in Nazi slogans into the email subject line,” insisted the student. 

While some students commenting on the post dismissed the numbers as having a more likely explanation than nazism, others maintained that it should be treated as promotion of nazi ideology by a university employee using university resources.

Later, the student updated his post, saying that Neff had reached out to him directly to apologize, and acknowledging that the appearance of the numbers that startled the student was, in fact, an “unfortunate and very unlikely coincidence of events, which occurred by accident.”

In defense against accusations that she was using university resources to distribute nazi dog whistles, Neff sent a follow-up email offering her “sincere apologies for the numbers accidentally included in the subject line of the announcement.” 

Neff explained that the numbers were a result of searching for and then copying an old email.

“For message continuity, I had searched for previous announcements in our soegrad [sic] inbox with the title “university deadline” and copy-pasted the content of an older email to a new email and inadvertently included the email search count in the subject line,” Neff explained.

“The email search count was located just about the email message in Gmail and was copied along with the subject line of the older email by accident (the email search count is the text circled in blue in the picture attached to this email for your review). In this unfortunate instance, I was unable to catch the error in time to correct it before it was sent out to students.”

“I am so very sorry for any added confusion, anxiety, or inconvenience my error caused you,” Neff concluded before inviting any students with remaining concerns to contact her personally. 


Tyler Durden

Tue, 12/03/2019 – 18:05

Tags
Education

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Lh3xs3 Tyler Durden

“Broke Ass Phone” Wins Right to Have Commercial Sign With Its Name

In Broke Ass Phone v. Boardmap Township Zoning Board of Appeals, released yesterday, the Board denied Broke Ass Phone a permit for a sign that contained the business’s name. Unconstitutional, said the Ohio Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Gene Donofrio, joined by Judge Cheryl L. Waite:

Appellant’s sign is considered commercial speech. Commercial speech is usually defined as speech that simply proposes a commercial transaction. The sign in question here proposes that consumers get their phones repaired at appellant’s place of business…. The United States Supreme Court has “afforded commercial speech a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values, while allowing modes of regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression.” … [Such speech can be restricted if] “seeks to implement a substantial governmental interest,” … “directly advances that interest,” and … “is no more extensive than is necessary to achieve that interest.”

The restriction at issue, Article XII, Section (H)(C)(3), states: “No signs, billboards or advertising device of any kind are permitted which contain statements, words or pictures of obscene, pornographic, immoral character or which contain advertising that is false.”

It seems clear that there is a legitimate governmental interest in preventing the township’s residents from being exposed to obscene, pornographic, or immoral signs and billboards.

The problem arises here with the word “ass.” Does restricting the use of the word “ass” on the Broke Ass Phone sign prevent Boardman’s residents from being exposed to obscene, pornographic, or immoral words or statements?

In this case the word “ass” must be viewed in context. It seems clear that the word “ass” as used in the name “Broke Ass Phone” is not at all pornographic.

Thus, we turn to whether it is obscene or immoral. “Obscene” is defined [citing a dictionary] as “disgusting to the senses: repulsive,” “abhorrent to morality or virtue,” and “containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage.” “Immoral” is defined as “not moral.” And “moral” is defined as “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.”

When we view the word “ass” in context, it is clear that it is neither obscene nor immoral when used on the sign “Broke Ass Phone.” In this context, the word ass is not used to describe part of the body and is not in reference to any type of crude or offensive behavior. Instead, the term “ass” when used in a phrase like “Broke Ass Phone,” has become commonly used as a slang term to say that the phone is “really” or “badly” broken.

In fact Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary contains various similar definitions and uses of the term “ass.” For instance: “used as a postpositive intensive especially with words of derogatory implication [as in] fancy-ass” and “often compounded with a preceding adjective [as in] Don’t be a smart-ass.” Thus, the term “ass” has become somewhat part of an adjective in present-day speech.

Again, the term must be taken in context. Consider if instead of “Broke Ass Phone” the sign referred to the word “ass” as part of the body with some type of lewd or sexual connotation. In this context, the term “ass” could be construed as obscene or immoral. But in the “Broke Ass Phone” context, the sign is simply advertising that the company will fix your “really badly broken phone.”

Public notice was given regarding the issue in this case and not a single objection was lodged at the hearing before the board of zoning appeals. Thus, no Boardman Township resident or business owner was offended enough by the use of the Broke Ass Phone sign to bother to voice an objection at the hearing on the matter. And both the director of zoning and development and the assistant director of zoning and development were present at the hearing. Neither the director nor the assistance director presented any evidence of being offended by the sign.

“The State cannot regulate speech that poses no danger to the asserted state interest[.]” The Broke Ass Phone sign poses no danger to the township’s interest of preventing its residents from being exposed to obscene, pornographic, or immoral signs and billboards. In this case the use of name Broke Ass Phone on a commercial sign is not obscene, pornographic, or immoral. Simply said, the language used on the sign does not fit into the category of language the restriction was meant to prohibit. Because prohibiting the sign would not advance a substantial government interest, it is unconstitutional to restrict its use….

Judge Carol Ann Robb dissented:

Most people would probably agree that the word “ass” is not by itself pornographic. Thus, the issue is whether that word is obscene or of immoral character. Neither obscene nor immoral character are defined in the zoning resolution. Obscene is commonly defined as offensive or disgusting to the senses. https://ift.tt/37Z7NWZ. Immoral character is ordinarily defined as evil or bad character. https://ift.tt/2ONCczS.

Given the definitions stated above, the word “ass” can qualify as obscene. While some people do not find the word offensive, there are many reasonable people within the community that do find the word offensive. The BZA was within in its power to deem the word offensive.

Furthermore, I disagree that we have to view the word in context and when doing so, that indicates the name “Broke Ass Phone” cannot be found as a matter of law to be either obscene or immoral. If context was all that was necessary, then if the company’s name was “Fucked Up Phone” that would be sufficient to require that name to be allowed on a sign as commercial speech. Similar to the phrase “broke ass,” the phrase “fucked up” also means “badly” or “really” broken.

Moreover, Appellant did not meet its burden given the standard of review. It provided no evidence that the word “ass” in its name is not offensive. It was Appellant’s burden to demonstrate the word “ass” as used in its name was not offensive. It could have submitted evidence through affidavits or testimony from residents that it did not find the name offensive. However, no such evidence was offered. Instead, it relied on the absence of objections at the public hearing. The absence of objections does not necessarily mean the name was not offensive….

I think the correct analysis would have been that, even if “Ass” is viewed as offensive (because it’s a mildly vulgar reference to a butt), that would not be a basis for restricting otherwise protected speech, including commercial speech. As the Court held in Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp. (1983) (a case involving contraceptive advertising),

[O]ffensiveness [is] “classically not [a] justificatio[n] validating the suppression of expression protected by the First Amendment. At least where obscenity is not involved, we have consistently held that the fact that protected speech may be offensive to some does not justify its suppression” [citing, among other cases, Cohen v. California, “the Fuck the Draft” case].  We [have] specifically declined to recognize a distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech that would render this interest a sufficient justification for a prohibition of commercial speech.

And if this reminded you of Todd Levitt, Badass Lawyer (though his First Amendment issues were different from this one)—well, you’re not alone.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2r2kPCG
via IFTTT

Japan’s 10Y Yield On Verge Of Turning Positive As Abe Prepares Massive Debt-Busting Stimulus

Japan’s 10Y Yield On Verge Of Turning Positive As Abe Prepares Massive Debt-Busting Stimulus

After the world’s negative yielding debt hit a record $17 trillion at the start of September, mostly as a result of Japanese debt the vast majority of which is trading in negative territory, this number has shrank substantially in recent months, sliding to $11.5 trillion in the past three months.

Well, as of today that number is in danger of becoming far, far smaller in the coming days because the one single bond tranche that represents the biggest component of global negative debt, Japanese 10Y bonds, is on the verge of flipping to positive yield territory, for the first time since April.

In fact, overnight the 10Y JGB yield rose as much as just 0.8bps away from 0 following what was the lowest bid to cover for a 10Y auction since August 2016.

So what gotten Japanese bondholders spooked in recent days? The answer: joining the rest of the world in pushing for  even more debt, Japan – which currently has a debt/GDP of about  250% – is preparing an economic stimulus package worth $120 billion to support fragile growth (i.e., a debt-funded stimulus), according to the Nikkei and Reuters.

While the package would come to around 13 trillion yen ($120 billion), it would rise to as much as 25 trillion yen ($230 billion) when private-sector and other spending are included. A similar stimulus in the four times as large US economy would be roughly $1 trillion.

Some details: the 13 trillion yen includes more than 3 trillion yen from fiscal investment and loan programmes, as the heavily indebted government seeks to take advantage of low borrowing costs under the Bank of Japan’s negative interest rate policy. In other words, the government is hoping to kick start a lite version of MMT, and with everyone else begging Abe to be the world’s MMT guniea pig, it just may work (if only for a bit). Direct government spending is expected to reach around 7-8 trillion yen.

The Nikkei business daily reported on the weekend that the government was considering putting together a large-scale stimulus package with fiscal spending exceeding $92 billion. Since then the number appears to have only grown.

With the BOJ’s stealth taper meaning Kuroda is now monetizing just a tiny fraction of the bonds the BOJ was mandated with buying for the simple reason that it has almost run out of monetizable debt, a fiscal stimulus may be Abe’s only option, even if it means the ultimate collapse will be even bigger.

Meanwhile, Japan’s collapse – ironically enough, a function of its massive debt load – has resumed, and in the third quarter, its economic growth slumped to its weakest in a year as soft global demand and the Sino-U.S. trade war hit exports, stoking fears of a recession. Some analysts also worry that a sales tax hike to 10% in October could cool private consumption which has helped cushion weak exports.

Such spending could strain Japan’s coffers – the industrial world’s heaviest public debt burden, which tops more than twice the size of its $5 trillion economy.

Despite the headline size of the stimulus, actual spending would be smaller in the current fiscal year, and economists are not expecting much of a boost.

Which said otherwise, means don’t think of Japan’s fiscal stimulus so much as an actual fiscal stimulus – those have been tried repeatedly and failed to actually “stimulate” the economy – but as a way for the BOJ to have more debt to monetize. Without it, Kuroda will run out of bonds to purchase as soon as next year.

“We expect this fiscal year’s extra budget to total around 3-4 trillion yen. We should not expect it to substantially push up the GDP growth rate,” said Takuya Hoshino, senior economist at Dai-ichi Life Research Institute.

Amusingly, the Nikkei claimed that the spending package won’t involve deficit-covering bond issuance; which of course, is hilarious because all debt issuance in Japan, where the “helicopter-money” MMT experiment is about to unfold, is deficit covering.


Tyler Durden

Tue, 12/03/2019 – 17:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/360wikY Tyler Durden

“Broke Ass Phone” Wins Right to Have Commercial Sign With Its Name

In Broke Ass Phone v. Boardmap Township Zoning Board of Appeals, released yesterday, the Board denied Broke Ass Phone a permit for a sign that contained the business’s name. Unconstitutional, said the Ohio Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Gene Donofrio, joined by Judge Cheryl L. Waite:

Appellant’s sign is considered commercial speech. Commercial speech is usually defined as speech that simply proposes a commercial transaction. The sign in question here proposes that consumers get their phones repaired at appellant’s place of business…. The United States Supreme Court has “afforded commercial speech a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values, while allowing modes of regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression.” … [Such speech can be restricted if] “seeks to implement a substantial governmental interest,” … “directly advances that interest,” and … “is no more extensive than is necessary to achieve that interest.”

The restriction at issue, Article XII, Section (H)(C)(3), states: “No signs, billboards or advertising device of any kind are permitted which contain statements, words or pictures of obscene, pornographic, immoral character or which contain advertising that is false.”

It seems clear that there is a legitimate governmental interest in preventing the township’s residents from being exposed to obscene, pornographic, or immoral signs and billboards.

The problem arises here with the word “ass.” Does restricting the use of the word “ass” on the Broke Ass Phone sign prevent Boardman’s residents from being exposed to obscene, pornographic, or immoral words or statements?

In this case the word “ass” must be viewed in context. It seems clear that the word “ass” as used in the name “Broke Ass Phone” is not at all pornographic.

Thus, we turn to whether it is obscene or immoral. “Obscene” is defined [citing a dictionary] as “disgusting to the senses: repulsive,” “abhorrent to morality or virtue,” and “containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage.” “Immoral” is defined as “not moral.” And “moral” is defined as “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.”

When we view the word “ass” in context, it is clear that it is neither obscene nor immoral when used on the sign “Broke Ass Phone.” In this context, the word ass is not used to describe part of the body and is not in reference to any type of crude or offensive behavior. Instead, the term “ass” when used in a phrase like “Broke Ass Phone,” has become commonly used as a slang term to say that the phone is “really” or “badly” broken.

In fact Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary contains various similar definitions and uses of the term “ass.” For instance: “used as a postpositive intensive especially with words of derogatory implication [as in] fancy-ass” and “often compounded with a preceding adjective [as in] Don’t be a smart-ass.” Thus, the term “ass” has become somewhat part of an adjective in present-day speech.

Again, the term must be taken in context. Consider if instead of “Broke Ass Phone” the sign referred to the word “ass” as part of the body with some type of lewd or sexual connotation. In this context, the term “ass” could be construed as obscene or immoral. But in the “Broke Ass Phone” context, the sign is simply advertising that the company will fix your “really badly broken phone.”

Public notice was given regarding the issue in this case and not a single objection was lodged at the hearing before the board of zoning appeals. Thus, no Boardman Township resident or business owner was offended enough by the use of the Broke Ass Phone sign to bother to voice an objection at the hearing on the matter. And both the director of zoning and development and the assistant director of zoning and development were present at the hearing. Neither the director nor the assistance director presented any evidence of being offended by the sign.

“The State cannot regulate speech that poses no danger to the asserted state interest[.]” The Broke Ass Phone sign poses no danger to the township’s interest of preventing its residents from being exposed to obscene, pornographic, or immoral signs and billboards. In this case the use of name Broke Ass Phone on a commercial sign is not obscene, pornographic, or immoral. Simply said, the language used on the sign does not fit into the category of language the restriction was meant to prohibit. Because prohibiting the sign would not advance a substantial government interest, it is unconstitutional to restrict its use….

Judge Carol Ann Robb dissented:

Most people would probably agree that the word “ass” is not by itself pornographic. Thus, the issue is whether that word is obscene or of immoral character. Neither obscene nor immoral character are defined in the zoning resolution. Obscene is commonly defined as offensive or disgusting to the senses. https://ift.tt/37Z7NWZ. Immoral character is ordinarily defined as evil or bad character. https://ift.tt/2ONCczS.

Given the definitions stated above, the word “ass” can qualify as obscene. While some people do not find the word offensive, there are many reasonable people within the community that do find the word offensive. The BZA was within in its power to deem the word offensive.

Furthermore, I disagree that we have to view the word in context and when doing so, that indicates the name “Broke Ass Phone” cannot be found as a matter of law to be either obscene or immoral. If context was all that was necessary, then if the company’s name was “Fucked Up Phone” that would be sufficient to require that name to be allowed on a sign as commercial speech. Similar to the phrase “broke ass,” the phrase “fucked up” also means “badly” or “really” broken.

Moreover, Appellant did not meet its burden given the standard of review. It provided no evidence that the word “ass” in its name is not offensive. It was Appellant’s burden to demonstrate the word “ass” as used in its name was not offensive. It could have submitted evidence through affidavits or testimony from residents that it did not find the name offensive. However, no such evidence was offered. Instead, it relied on the absence of objections at the public hearing. The absence of objections does not necessarily mean the name was not offensive….

I think the correct analysis would have been that, even if “Ass” is viewed as offensive (because it’s a mildly vulgar reference to a butt), that would not be a basis for restricting otherwise protected speech, including commercial speech. As the Court held in Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp. (1983) (a case involving contraceptive advertising),

[O]ffensiveness [is] “classically not [a] justificatio[n] validating the suppression of expression protected by the First Amendment. At least where obscenity is not involved, we have consistently held that the fact that protected speech may be offensive to some does not justify its suppression” [citing, among other cases, Cohen v. California, “the Fuck the Draft” case].  We [have] specifically declined to recognize a distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech that would render this interest a sufficient justification for a prohibition of commercial speech.

And if this reminded you of Todd Levitt, Badass Lawyer (though his First Amendment issues were different from this one)—well, you’re not alone.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2r2kPCG
via IFTTT

The Key?

The Key?

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

After weeks of rallying on low volume on virtually no 2 way price discovery and relentless volatility compression the inevitable has happened: $VIX has busted out of its latest compression phase for another big spike very similar to what we saw this summer.

In process most of the November gains were wiped out in 3 days. What does this mean for the rally? Let’s have a look at a few key charts.

Firstly, like this summer, the $VIX burst targeted an open gap above, the 17/17.5 gap left open following the Fed’s QE announcement:

And like this summer $VIX has become short term overbought and like this summer $SPX broke its up trend in the process.

Hence on the surface this is all a very similar looking replay of structures.

But there is a difference. Since the massive liquidity injections by the Fed began $SPX managed to break above the megaphone and rallied until it hit trend line resistance last week:

Oh yes, markets can be this simple, trend lines matter:

And so the rejection of $SPX makes perfect technical sense.

In the summer I had pointed out that a breakout above the megaphone trend line that gets successfully retested would be bullish, likewise a retest that fails would be bearish.

Today $SPX is engaged in that retest process and it’s key that bulls defend this trend line:

A couple comments:

One: During the recent rally the RSI became the most overbought in 2019.

Two: In October $SPX broke above resistance (yellow line), and has now reverted and is retesting this line as support. If a bounce can hold and make new highs from here it’s bullish. If it can’t hold support or a bounce fails to make new highs this would suggest a potential move to the lower trend line 3000-3030 support. If that breaks watch out, things could get very shaky in markets.

Three: $VIX broke out of its most recent compression pattern and filled its open gap of 17/17.5 today. Hence resistance and reversal intra-day now along with $SPX are support conducive for a bounce/rally.

But should support fail on $SPX, $VIX has risk higher. There are 3 trend lines above that suggest resistance on any $VIX spikes. Above the first line the secondary line suggests 21/23, the next larger line, if the previous doesn’t hold, suggests a move toward 27/28.

Of note: Despite successive marginal new highs on $SPX $VIX has maintained a general trend of higher lows. Hence if $VIX were to break above all of these trend lines we may see a revisit of the 30-50 range.

Unfathomable? Not really if you look at $NYAD:

Here too we can observe a very repetitive structure, in this case a large channel that is now sitting at key support.

When the 2018 channel broke it led to a very ugly period for markets marked by a period of very high volatility with lots of long and short trading opportunities. Indeed the chart above suggests key trend line support below on $SPX should this $NYAD channel break to the downside.

If it does and $SPX experiences a more sizable correction than currently, bulls are faced with a larger issue: That the megaphone breakout was false and did not sustain. As I outlined in Game Over? $VTI is sending a different message altogether.

So yes, defending these support zones here is key for bulls. Falling below the megaphone trend line would risk that markets are repeating the pattern that we’ve seen over the past 2 years: That new highs are not sustained. The September 2018 highs petered out 3.5% above the January 2018 highs. The July 2019 highs petered out 3% above the September 2018 highs. In all of these previous cases we saw sizable corrections off of new highs. These highs here have so far ended at 4% above the July 2019 highs.

And now bulls need to prove that they can sustain new highs. It is key for how the rest of 2019 plays out.

*  *  *

For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.


Tyler Durden

Tue, 12/03/2019 – 17:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38cKA3U Tyler Durden

Google Co-Founders Brin, Page Step Down, Pichai Takes Over

Google Co-Founders Brin, Page Step Down, Pichai Takes Over

Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the Stanford students who founded Google 21 years ago as a research project before transforming it into one of the world’s most valuable companies, are stepping back from their day-to-day roles at tech holding company Alphabet, ending what is arguably the most successful management double-act in history. Sundar Pichai, who in 2015 became the CEO of Google, will also become the CEO of Alphabet.

In a public letter announcing the change, Mr Page and Mr Brin did not give specific reasons for stepping away from the company, instead painting it as a natural progression for Alphabet as it becomes a more mature company.

“Today, in 2019, if the company was a person, it would be a young adult of 21 and it would be time to leave the roost. While it has been a tremendous privilege to be deeply involved in the day-to-day management of the company for so long, we believe it’s time to assume the role of proud parents—offering advice and love, but not daily nagging!”

* * *

“While it has been a tremendous privilege to be deeply involved in the day-to-day management of the company for so long, we believe it’s time to assume the role of proud parents — offering advice and love, but not daily nagging!” they wrote.

In 2015, when Google reorganized into the Alphabet holding company, Page and Brin first stepped back by naming Pichai CEO of Google, which became one of several businesses owned by Alphabet.

Both Page and Brin, who between them control more than 51% of the votes in Alphabet through a special class stock, will remain on the company board.

“We are deeply committed to Google and Alphabet for the long term, and will remain actively involved as board members, shareholders and co-founders,” Page and Brin wrote. “In addition, we plan to continue talking with Sundar regularly, especially on topics we’re passionate about!”

The shake-up sees Sundar Pichai, who took over management of the Google internet business four years ago, also take on the CEO at Alphabet. As head of the search business, he already had authority over operations that accounted for more than 99% of Alphabet’s revenues. Now, as head of Alphabet, Pichai will also take over the running of the company’s “other bets” — a collection of “moon shot” technology projects that include the Waymo driverless car unit and Calico, a healthcare company set up to tackle illnesses that are the most common cause of death.

According to Bloomberg, Page has been criticized for not engaging more as Google’s growing power has sparked scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers. Promoting Pichai to lead Alphabet may address some of these concerns.  Page and Brin retain majority ownership of Alphabet through special voting stock. They do not plan to sell more company stock, beyond their previously disclosed plans, a spokeswoman said.

Alphabet shares rose 1% in afterhours trading on Tuesday. The stock closed at $1,294.74 in New York, leaving it up about 24% so far this year.


Tyler Durden

Tue, 12/03/2019 – 17:17

Tags
Business Finance
Technology Internet

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OK0NWw Tyler Durden

Impeachment Report: Democrats Accuse Trump of Soliciting Ukraine to ‘Benefit His Reelection’

House Democrats on Tuesday released their impeachment report, which directly accuses President Donald Trump of inappropriately pressuring Ukraine into helping to advance his 2020 reelection efforts.

“President Trump and his senior officials may see nothing wrong with using the power of the Office of the President to pressure a foreign country to help the President’s reelection campaign. Indeed, President Trump continues to encourage Ukraine and other foreign countries to engage in the same kind of election interference today,” the Democrats write. “However, the Founding Fathers prescribed a remedy for a chief executive who places his personal interests above those of the country: impeachment.”

They note that impeachment charges are not criminal charges, but instead charge the president with violating the trust of the American people. And while the report does not draft actual articles of impeachment, it lays the groundwork for them, should the Democrats choose to proceed. 

Trump is the subject of an impeachment inquiry over allegations that he withheld a White House meeting and $391 million in congressionally authorized military aid from Ukraine in exchange for President Volodymyr Zelenskiy publicly announcing a probe into Burisma Holdings, which counted Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, on its board, and into a theory that Ukraine was behind widespread U.S. election interference meant to help 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

The report further accuses Trump of obstructing the impeachment inquiry by blocking witnesses in his close circle from testifying and by refusing to give the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed documents.

“No other President has flouted the Constitution and power of Congress to conduct oversight to this extent. No President has claimed for himself the right to deny the House’s authority to conduct an impeachment proceeding, control the scope of a power exclusively vested in the House, and forbid any and all cooperation from the Executive Branch,” the report says. “Even President Richard Nixon—who obstructed Congress by refusing to turn over key evidence—accepted the authority of Congress to conduct an impeachment inquiry and permitted his aides and advisors to produce documents and testify to Congressional committees.” 

Trump has forbidden Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton, White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and others from appearing before the House Intelligence Committee. Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified that he wanted to obtain documentation that would help him explain the chain of events, but that the State Department would not turn over the materials. Trump has also prohibited the White House budget office and the Department of Defense from releasing the requested documents.

Using witness testimony collected in November, the 300-page report outlines the step-by-step moves that Trump allegedly made in seeking to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically. Of particular interest is the removal of former U.S. ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who lost her post amid a smear campaign led by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer. The Republican impeachment report maintains that Trump pushed for the investigations out of a desire to curb corruption. Yet according to the Democratic impeachment report, Yovanovitch was known “for aggressively advocating for anti-corruption reforms.”

The Democratic report also outlines efforts made by Giuliani, Sondland, and former special envoy Kurt Volker to push for the investigations on Trump’s behalf, culminating in the July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy when Trump requested that he “do us a favor.” That call occurred after Trump reportedly asked Sondland if the Ukrainian leader “was going to do the investigation.”

The Republicans have noted on several occasions that the investigations in question never took place. The Democratic report counters that argument, writing that Zelenskiy was poised to announce the investigations on CNN in September. That announcement was derailed, the Democrats explain, after the whistleblower complaint made its way to Congress and investigators began to ask questions of the Trump administration.

The Democrats also focus on key admissions from Mulvaney and Sondland. The former told reporters during an October 17 press conference that the security assistance was partially held up to strong arm Zelenskiy into investigating “corruption related to the DNC server,” which was related to the desired Ukrainian election interference investigation. “I have news for everybody: get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy,” Mulvaney said.

“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?'”Sondland said during his testimony on November 20. “With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

“Perhaps even more corrosive to our democratic system of governance,” the Democratic report adds, “the President and his allies are making a comprehensive attack on the very idea of fact and truth. How can a democracy survive without acceptance of a common set of experiences?”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2r9Bzrq
via IFTTT

Impeachment Report: Democrats Accuse Trump of Soliciting Ukraine to ‘Benefit His Reelection’

House Democrats on Tuesday released their impeachment report, which directly accuses President Donald Trump of inappropriately pressuring Ukraine into helping to advance his 2020 reelection efforts.

“President Trump and his senior officials may see nothing wrong with using the power of the Office of the President to pressure a foreign country to help the President’s reelection campaign. Indeed, President Trump continues to encourage Ukraine and other foreign countries to engage in the same kind of election interference today,” the Democrats write. “However, the Founding Fathers prescribed a remedy for a chief executive who places his personal interests above those of the country: impeachment.” They note that impeachment charges are not criminal charges, but instead charge the president with violating the trust of the American people.

While the report does not draft actual articles of impeachment, it lays the groundwork for them, should the Democrats choose to proceed. 

Trump is the subject of an impeachment inquiry over allegations that he withheld a White House meeting and $391 million in congressionally authorized military aid from Ukraine in exchange for President Volodymyr Zelenskiy publicly announcing a probe into Burisma Holdings, which counted Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, on its board, and into a theory that Ukraine was behind widespread U.S. election interference meant to help 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

The report further accuses Trump of obstructing the impeachment inquiry by blocking witnesses in his close circle from testifying and by refusing to give the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed documents.

“No other President has flouted the Constitution and power of Congress to conduct oversight to this extent. No President has claimed for himself the right to deny the House’s authority to conduct an impeachment proceeding, control the scope of a power exclusively vested in the House, and forbid any and all cooperation from the Executive Branch,” the report says. “Even President Richard Nixon—who obstructed Congress by refusing to turn over key evidence—accepted the authority of Congress to conduct an impeachment inquiry and permitted his aides and advisors to produce documents and testify to Congressional committees.” 

Trump has forbidden Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton, White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and others from appearing before the House Intelligence Committee. Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified that he wanted to obtain documentation that would help him explain the chain of events, but that the State Department would not turn over the materials. Trump has also prohibited the White House budget office and the Department of Defense from releasing the requested documents.

Using witness testimony collected in November, the 300-page report outlines the step-by-step moves that Trump allegedly made in seeking to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically. Of particular interest is the removal of former U.S. ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who lost her post amid a smear campaign led by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer. The Republican impeachment report maintains that Trump pushed for the investigations out of a desire to curb corruption. Yet according to the Democratic impeachment report, Yovanovitch was known “for aggressively advocating for anti-corruption reforms.”

The Democratic report also outlines efforts made by Giuliani, Sondland, and former special envoy Kurt Volker to push for the investigations on Trump’s behalf, culminating in the July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy when Trump requested that he “do us a favor.” That call occurred after Trump reportedly asked Sondland if the Ukrainian leader “was going to do the investigation.”

The Republicans have noted on several occasions that the investigations in question never took place. The Democratic report counters that argument, writing that Zelenskiy was poised to announce the investigations on CNN in September. That announcement was derailed, the Democrats explain, after the whistleblower complaint made its way to Congress and investigators began to ask questions of the Trump administration.

The Democrats also focus on key admissions from Mulvaney and Sondland. The former told reporters during an October 17 press conference that the security assistance was partially held up to strong arm Zelenskiy into investigating “corruption related to the DNC server,” which was related to the desired Ukrainian election interference investigation. “I have news for everybody: get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy,” Mulvaney said.

“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?'”Sondland said during his testimony on November 20. “With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

“Perhaps even more corrosive to our democratic system of governance,” the Democratic report adds, “the President and his allies are making a comprehensive attack on the very idea of fact and truth. How can a democracy survive without acceptance of a common set of experiences?”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2r9Bzrq
via IFTTT

“Inherently Unstable” US Pension System Will Require Federal Bailout, Former Illinois Pension Chief Says

“Inherently Unstable” US Pension System Will Require Federal Bailout, Former Illinois Pension Chief Says

Like Ray Dalio advised during a recent appearance with Paul Tudor Jones, it’s not the growing national debt that Americans need to worry about, so much as the liabilities that don’t appear in the federal budget.

And a lot of those liabilities are centered around America’s crumbling pension system. According to some data providers, American public pensions are suffering from a trillion-dollar gap between their liabilities and assets.

Some pension managers have tried to combat this by firing expensive managers and allocating more money to low-cost passive strategies. Marc Levine, the former chairman of the Illinois Board of Investment, is known in the industry for firing hedge funds and other expensive active managers who were “destroying value” with their enormous fees. Levine said he still stands by the strategy that he embraced during his four years of running the Illinois Pension. Levine said he found soon after taking over that the state pension fund’s benchmarks for its hedge fund investments was a joke – it was an average of hedge fund performance. This prompted Levine to change it up and compare the actively managed hedge funds to index funds, and soon discovered that the hedge funds were extremely overpriced.

After offering viewers a handful of suggestions for passive funds that he would recommend for trying to track the broader US market.

Levine warned his audience that market timing rarely works, and if investors are saving for the long-term, they shouldn’t hesitate to invest now, before transitioning into a discussion of the endemic problems of state public-employee pensions funds.

Once you get these defined-benefit pensions rolling, Levine said, they’re “inherently unstable” and they end up hoovering up taxpayer money with their generous benefits.

“I think the federal government is going to have to do something about this because, basically, the potholes need to get fixed the traffic lights need to work. I think ultimately there will be some kind of grand bargain where they freeze benefits in exchange for federal money in some kind of grand bargain. Is that going to happen in the next couple of years, no, but in the next decade? I suspect it will.”

“Like a bailout?” asked MarketBrief’s Caroline Woods.

“Exactly,” Levine replied. “But I don’t worry the most about that because those are very rich benefits. Those beneficiaries are making more in retirement than they made while they worked.”

The real retirement crisis, Levine said, is the lack of retirement savings for all Americans (something that’s only going to get worse as time moves on).

The discussion of America’s pension crisis starts at around the 5-minute mark:


Tyler Durden

Tue, 12/03/2019 – 17:05

Tags
Social Issues
Labor
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Riej5w Tyler Durden

The Madcap Scheme to Take Syria’s Oil

A retired Army intelligence officer, a successful Kurdish-American businessman, a former Syrian diplomat, and an eccentric entrepreneur from New Jersey met in January over food and drinks to discuss a vexing problem: what to do with Syria’s oil.

U.S. troops were guarding the largest oil field in eastern Syria, and in February 2018 they had fought a bloody battle with Russian mercenaries to keep it. But under U.S. sanctions law, no American could invest in or trade Syrian oil, leaving the black gold either untapped or in the hands of smugglers. Mordechai “Moti” Kahana, an Israeli-American rental car tycoon turned philanthropic adventurer, had a plan: He could get a green light from the Trump administration to trade Syria’s oil for humanitarian aid.

Everyone involved disputes what happens next, but it is clear that Kahana took the people around him on a bizarre adventure. By the time it was over, it had led everywhere from a Kurdish president’s motorcade to a Syrian interrogation room.

In July, fragmentary details of the scheme leaked out to the Arabic press, fuelling anti-American conspiracy theories at a delicate time for U.S.–Kurdish relations. And in November, as President Donald Trump talked about taking Syria’s oil, Kahana tried to pitch his scheme again, threatening another public relations catastrophe.

“We are leaving soldiers [in Syria] to secure the oil. And we may have to fight for the oil,” Trump said on October 27. He added that he wants a deal for “an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly.”

Kahana’s saga is now over, but the absurd American policies that led to it are still in place. While Washington deploys possibly hundreds of troops on an indefinite mission to protect Syrian oil, the long arm of the U.S. Treasury continues to slap down attempts to attract investors and buyers who could do something useful with it.

On November 25, fire rained down from the sky on three different towns in a Turkish-controlled part of Syria. The next morning, rescue workers recovered charred bodies from a handful of burned-out oil smuggling facilities. Syrian officials took credit for the airstrike, claiming that it was aimed at a smuggling operation led by “some Kurdish organizations.”

“Strict measures will be taken against any smuggling of stolen oil from Syrian territory outside Syria,” warned the state-run news agency.

America is risking blood—for no oil.

‘The Right to Explore and Develop Oil’

The bulk of Syria’s oil is buried under the Arab-majority province of Deir ez-Zor. ISIS once controlled this oil, smuggling it out to the tune of $1.5 million per day, according to Rear Admiral William D. Byrne Jr. Most of it was processed in dangerously primitive amateur refineries, according to a 2016 report by the Dutch charity PAX.

The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) began to seize these oil fields in October 2017 as they moved to crush the remnants of ISIS. The SDF was aligned with the U.S. But the pipelines from Deir ez-Zor ran through territory controlled by Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Brett McGurk was former special presidential envoy in charge of the anti-ISIS coalition at the time. He says that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson actually floated the idea of working with Assad’s Russian backers to sell the oil and put the revenues in escrow for future reconstruction. Russia wasn’t interested.

Indeed, the Russians tried to take the oil by force themselves in a four-hour battle that killed possibly hundreds of Russian private military contractors and Syrian militia fighters. No Americans were harmed in the battle.

So the SDF and the U.S. were left guarding the same hazardous backyard processing operations and small-scale smuggling networks as before. (Soon after the SDF entered Deir ez-Zor, residents of a border town under SDF control protested against the toxic fumes generated by oil smugglers.) A million and a half dollars per day may be a lot for a group like ISIS, but it’s a drop in the bucket for the international oil industry.

“If you look at how that oil market functioned back when ISIS controlled some of the oil fields and was selling it to Turkey and Iraq, it was all really small-scale stuff,” says Peter Harrell, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “The only way you make money is to develop and export the oil at scale.”

Companies from countries that recognized Assad as a legitimate leader couldn’t buy oil from the SDF. Harrell explains the dilemma for oil companies in China: “Your government still recognizes Assad. Is the government of Syria going to try to sue you and take title to this oil, because Assad never got paid for it?”

U.S. companies couldn’t do anything either, because an August 2011 executive order made it illegal to deal with or invest in Syrian oil without permission from the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) at the U.S. Treasury.

Harrell is skeptical that any large oil company would want to deal with the “insurmountable practical challenges” around Syrian oil fields. But the lengthy OFAC application process deterred them from even trying.

U.S. policy was left with an absurd contradiction. While the U.S. government was pursuing a policy of “maximum pressure” against Assad, smugglers continued to sell oil from SDF-controlled oil fields to the Assad regime, under the protection of U.S. forces.

Kahana, who had previously been involved in controversial “freelance” rescue missions to Syria, saw an opportunity.

He says “the Israelis” had asked him to get the SDF to stop selling oil to the Iranian-backed Assad government, so he came up with a plan to partner with private military contractors and send Syrian oil to the Palestinian Territories in exchange for humanitarian supplies.

Kahana sprang into action in December 2018, when Trump declared that “it’s time for our troops to come back home” from Syria. American officials soon walked back the president’s statement, leaving about a thousand U.S. troops in northeast Syria without a clear plan for the future.

Îlham Ahmed—executive president of the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), the political wing of the SDF—was visiting the United States in the aftermath of Trump’s first withdrawal announcement, and Kahana somehow scored an audience with her to push his oil scheme. Both of them admit to meeting in January, but they tell different stories about what happened next.

Ahmed admits to hearing out Kahana’s ideas but denied approving any further relationship with him. According to WhatsApp messages provided by Kahana, they discussed meeting again, but they never agreed on a time and place.

Kahana, on the other hand, says he obtained an English-language letter directly from the SDC giving him “the right to explore and develop oil that is located in areas that we govern.” The letter, which Kahana showed to Reason, was signed (or appears to have been signed) on January 21 by Jihad Omar, listed as the SDC’s “puplic [sic] relations officer.”

“I did not sign any document. I don’t know this individual,” Omar subsequently said to Reason, speaking Arabic by phone from Syria. “My work is political work. It is not [economic] development work. I do not have authorization to do development work.”

Omar did not appear to speak any English.

“It’s true I do not know or spoke to [sic] Omar,” Kahana then admitted via WhatsApp, but he insists that the letter was directly from Syria.

Kahana also provided a letter he sent to OFAC on February 6, outlining a plan to truck Syrian oil into Iraqi Kurdistan and trade it for Israeli agricultural technology—with Jihad Omar and SDF leader Mazloum Abdi as his Syrian contacts.

“I amended my application yesterday,” Kahana wrote to Reason on November 21, forwarding another letter he had purportedly sent to OFAC. The letter, which does not mention Omar or Mazloum, was also dated February 6.

A spokesperson for the Treasury refused to confirm or deny that Kahana had made an OFAC application, citing the agency’s policy on trade secrets. Robert Seiden, Kahana’s attorney, confirmed that Kahana had filed an OFAC application. Seiden did not respond to follow-up questions.

“Filing was undertaken by major law firm which certainly would not file a false document,” Kahana wrote to Reason in a series of WhatsApp messages. “Again I will NOT LIE TO USA GOVERNMENT.”

‘All This Mess’

Whatever Kahana was told in January, he began to claim he had the SDF’s permission to sell Syrian oil—and to pitch an oil-trading scheme to various well-connected figures.

President Barack Obama’s sanctions order had carved out a “favorable licensing policy” for “petroleum or petroleum products of Syrian origin for the benefit of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces or its supporters.” Or as Harrell summarizes the policy: “if you want to go in and buy some oil from the U.S.-backed opposition in Syria, and you’re willing to do due diligence…come in and have a conversation.”

Kahana knew plenty of opposition-connected Syrian-Americans, including former Syrian diplomat Bassam Barabandi, who had helped more than 100 dissidents escape the country before defecting to America himself in 2013. Barabandi then served as political advisor to the High Negotiations Committee that represents the National Coalition abroad.

Today, the National Coalition is a paper tiger. While the High Negotiations Committee grinds away in molasses-paced peace talks, the National Coalition’s armed wing has mostly been absorbed into a Turkish-backed rebel army fighting the SDF in northeast Syria. But under U.S. law, it is still the sole representative of the Syrian opposition, at least when it comes to oil sanctions.

“The Kurds were never really included under the umbrella of that statement of licensing policy, which is sort of a historical fluke,” Harrell explains. “That was set up very early in the civil war, before all the lines became clear.”

Kahana tried to bring together his Syrian opposition contacts with the Kurds and the SDF.

Barabandi, who has family connections to Deir ez-Zor, had given a former U.S. Army officer named Luke Calhoun a recommendation allowing him to get into eastern Syria for humanitarian work. (Both Barabandi and Calhoun confirm this, though Barabandi insists that it happened “long before all this mess.”) Calhoun introduced Kahana to Kurdish-American businessman Hoger Dizayee, as both Kahana and Dizayee confirm.

And then all four of them had a meal together: Kahana, Barabandi, Calhoun, and Dizayee.

“They told me that they have an agreement with the Syrian Democratic Council, that they gave them permission to market their oil,” Dizayee claims. “I told them that, OK, I’m interested, but before this, because it is a sensitive thing…I have to look at the legality side of it.”

“It was a dinner…attended by many people. They were discussing many different issues: historical, personal,” Barabandi says. “They just touched upon that [oil] issue. I didn’t follow up.”

Barabandi admits that he had sent Dizayee’s contact information to the SDC, hoping that an alternative buyer would provide a chance for the SDF to sell oil to someone other than Assad.

Kahana and Barabandi “were friends somehow,” says Dizayee. “I don’t know how they got associated together.”

Barabandi did not explain to Reason how he knew Kahana. Asked by text message, Kahana called Reason by phone to offer some “friendly advice.”

“Everyone trying to be the king. Everyone trying to sell the oil. Everyone trying to be the next prime minister. Everyone kvetching about someone else. My advice? Stay out of it,” he said. “Let me tell you about Bassam. I’m not going [unintelligible] into detail. There was an incident when the Israelis came to me [unintelligible] and tell me, ‘Why are you helping Mouaz Moustafa?’ You know who is Mouaz Moustafa?”

Mouaz Moustafa is executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, which brought the late Sen. John McCain (R–Az.) to rebel-held parts of Syria in May 2013. Kahana claims to have funded Moustafa’s travels with McCain.

Kahana “was definitely in touch with Mouaz throughout the whole trip,” says Elizabeth O’Bagy, a former Syrian Emergency Task Force member who later joined McCain’s staff. “Mouaz kind of tolerated [Kahana] and was always very gracious, because [Kahana] was contributing money, which we can always use to help support refugees.”

“Moti played no role in the planning of the McCain trip to Syria,” Moustafa says. “He funded hotel rooms when he could, but not projects of” the Syrian Emergency Task Force.

Moustafa had worked with Barabandi in their pre-2013 effort to rescue Syrian dissidents.

At the same time that they were talking to Kahana about oil, Calhoun and Dizayee were in discussions with Ahed Al Hendi—a Syrian-American activist who had been imprisoned by the Assad regime—about working together on post-ISIS reconstruction projects.

Calhoun and Dizayee traveled to the Middle East on February 17 to meet Al Hendi. They were planning to enter northeast Syria through Iraqi Kurdistan. On February 24, Kahana asked Calhoun on WhatsApp for his ID in order to “make sure someone will be [expecting] you all.”

Calhoun sent back a photo of his passport, but added that Al Hendi was inviting him to join Ahmed’s presidential convoy: “if so we may be able to cancel the SDF escort.”

What happened after the group arrived in Syria is shrouded in mystery.

“I found from the officials there, from the SDC, that they [Barabandi and Kahana] are not welcome there,” Dizayee says cryptically.

According to Al Hendi and Calhoun, this is because the SDF detained and interrogated the group.

“[T]hey asked us to bar Moti from crossing the border from the [Iraqi] Kurdistan side,” Calhoun says, because Kahana “fabricated documents and was lying about the nature of his relationship with the SDC.”

“I met Moti in 2013,” Al Hendi says. “It took me [some time] until I knew that he is not a serious man.”

Kahana offered his own version of the story, claiming that Dizayee and Calhoun had needed Kahana’s contacts to get into Syria.

“They decided, fuck Moti, we can do it ourselves,” Kahana claims. “Ahed Al Hendi also wanted to do the oil. Maybe that’s why he’s trashing me.”

“We started our charity while we were [in Syria],” Calhoun says. “Although oil was definitely a component, the reason was that oil sales would generate roughly half a million dollars a day for reconstruction, filling the gaps that the international community weren’t filling.”

Dizayee and Al Hendi deny that their current reconstruction projects, which are funded by the United States Agency for International Development, involve oil.

“I got advice from my lawyer that before we start anything [with oil], we have to obtain an approval from the Treasury Department,” Dizayee says. “After [traveling to Syria] I stopped communication with [Kahana].”

Al Hendi claims that the SDC—which he has worked with since January 2018—rejected many legitimate businessmen’s proposals for the oil due to OFAC licensing problems, “especially when the mandate of the U.S. forces was to fight [ISIS], not to secure the oil.”

“The U.S should modify the [OFAC guidelines] on Syria and provide the SDC with exemption,” he adds.

‘A Very Troubled Region Full of Paranoid Actors’

Whatever the SDF had told Kahana in January and February, they were clearly tired of him by March.

Ahmed sent Kahana an image of the alleged letter from Omar via WhatsApp on March 1, along with a warning: “I ask that you stop using this document.”

“Good morning. I am confused. I obtained it a week ago. I don’t understand. Can I or can’t I buy the fuel? Sorry, I really don’t understand,” Kahana wrote back in Arabic.

Ahmed did not respond.

“Stop spreading [the letter] around….That’s how I took it,” Kahana says, explaining that he had shown the letter to potential investors. He also claims that he cannot read or write Arabic and was messaging Ahmed with the assistance of Google Translate.

In July, word of Kahana’s plan resurfaced in an unlikely place. Al-Akhbar, a Lebanese newspaper with anti-Israel views, published an alleged letter from Ahmed to Kahana, nearly identical to the one Kahana provided Reason.

Iranian state-run media jumped on the letter as proof that the “Washington-backed SDF” was conspiring with “enemies of Syria” to steal the country’s oil. At the time, SDC and SDF officials were concerned that the U.S. “maximum pressure” campaign could drag the Syrian Kurds into a war with Iran.

When the story broke, Kahana denied being involved in oil sales to Israel but took the opportunity to pitch Israeli media his plans for keeping the oil out of Iran and Assad’s hands.

Then, on October 8, Trump gave Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the green light to send troops across the U.S.–controlled border of Syria and attack the SDF. The SDF turned to Assad for protection.

Facing domestic backlash, Trump decided to keep several hundred U.S. troops—along with a fresh new deployment of Bradley Fighting Vehicles—in the “oil region” of Syria. They would not stop Turkey, but they would keep the oil in U.S. hands.

Pentagon officials insisted to the media that the benefits from the oil would be “going to the SDF,” but they were short on details.

Kahana took the opportunity to pitch his scheme one last time. He showed his alleged letter from the SDC to the Los Angeles Times, which mentioned it in a November 4 story. Kahana then planned to hold a press conference in Israel on November 13 unveiling a partnership with the SDC.

“Due to the confusion that is being caused by Kahana’s rumor, the Syrian Democratic Council is committing effort to dispeling [sic] these false assertions,” Syrian Kurdish diplomat Sinam Mohamad wrote on November 11, adding that “there will be no relationship with Kahana in the future.”

The Jerusalem Press Club cancelled Kahana’s conference on November 12, citing the security situation in Israel.

“Just finished a meeting in ISRAEL few like the idea of cheaper oil for Gaza and west bank it will help their economy as I said win win and Iran and Assad lost ????,” Kahana wrote to Reason the next day.

“I understand [the SDC decided] to partner with Assad Iran and Russia,” Kahana said in a WhatsApp message a few days later, insisting that his relationship with the SDC was over. “Your dreams come crushing [sic] down when you tow the wrong path.”

“His allegations harmed the Kurds and SDC. Pro-Iran media portrayed the allegation as a real Israeli-Kurdish plot,” Al Hendi says. “The Kurds and SDC live in a very troubled region full of paranoid actors. Erdoğan, Assad, and even Putin take [the rumors about Kahana] seriously.”

Kahana himself acknowledges that “it’s not helping to show that [Ahmed] is talking to an Israeli” while the SDC negotiates with Assad and Russia.

For now, the feud between the SDC and Kahana appears to be over. But the Trump administration continues its own bizarre crusade for Syrian oil. American troops are risking their lives to keep Assad and Russia away from the oil fields, as the fighting between Turkey and the SDF rages on around them.

McGurk calls it a “Fort Apache scenario.” Syrian Kurdish officials insist that the deployment is unhelpful. And no one seems to know where the oil will go—only that the U.S. controls it.

“The oil is secure,” Trump said during a November 13 meeting with Erdoğan. “We left troops behind only for the oil.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2rNuP2H
via IFTTT