ReportWire

Tag: corruption

  • Fox News election fraud revelations could take down the network’s embattled chief | CNN Business

    Fox News election fraud revelations could take down the network’s embattled chief | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Who will Rupert Murdoch exile from the Fox kingdom?

    The Fox Corporation chairman is facing an ever-deepening scandal that threatens to cause considerable financial and reputational damage to the crown jewel of his media empire, Fox News, as well as the parent company he leads. The scandal, exposed by Dominion Voting Systems’ blockbuster $1.6 billion lawsuit, has unearthed damning information, revealing the right-wing talk channel, driven by financial interests, was willing to lie to its viewers.

    The stunning levels of misconduct exposed in recent weeks raise questions about the future of Suzanne Scott, the embattled chief executive of Fox News. Will she be Murdoch’s sacrificial lamb? No moves are currently on the immediate horizon, CNN is told. But it’s certainly possible — perhaps even likely — that Murdoch might cancel her in an attempt to save himself and his legacy.

    The Murdochs “are certainly setting Suzanne Scott up to take the fall for this,” Ben Smith, the Semafor editor-in-chief who writes a Sunday night media column, said Wednesday.

    “They’re leaving a trail of crumbs that lead back to her office,” added David Folkenflik, the NPR media correspondent and Murdoch biographer.

    A version of this article first appeared in the “Reliable Sources” newsletter. Sign up for the daily digest chronicling the evolving media landscape here.

    There is no shortage of evidence to support the notion Scott is on the chopping block. Most notably, during his deposition, Murdoch sought to distance himself from decision making at Fox News. Instead, he pointed to Scott: “I appointed Ms. Scott to the job … and I delegate everything to her,” he said. In doing so, Murdoch made the case that Scott is in charge of the network — and if there was wrongdoing, it rests on her shoulders. Of course, astute media observers know that Murdoch is the person actually calling the shots. But it’s not hard to see how the company could advance this narrative.

    This is not the first time that Murdoch has been faced with a serious and embarrassing matter in his media empire. In 2011, his now-defunct News of the World newspaper was ensnared in a phone hacking scandal. In 2016, Fox News founder Roger Ailes was accused in an explosive lawsuit of sexual harassment. And in 2017, star host Bill O’Reilly was caught in his own sexual misconduct scandal.

    In each case, Murdoch made the decision to sever ties with top personnel. As one source who once worked in Murdoch-world said Wednesday, “His pattern has been to throw some money overboard and offer a head or two in the process to make it go away.” And cutting ties with Scott would appear to be one of the easier ousters for Murdoch to execute over the course of his decades at the helm of one of the world’s biggest media empires.

    “Looking back to previous scandals, Murdoch and the companies have tended to try to pay early and quietly to make things go away, or they ignore them thinking they’re so big they can ride things out,” Folkenflik said. “And then when things really come to a head, they try to cauterize the wound at the lowest level possible.”

    “If he threw [Scott] over, he would only do it because he thought he needed to cauterize the wound before it goes higher,” Folkenflik added. “That’s his record. That’s what he does. It can be editors. It can be executives. It can be stars. He’s not throwing himself over the side.”

    Jim Rutenberg, the former media columnist at The New York Times who has an extensive history covering Murdoch, echoed that sentiment.

    “Murdoch has a history of sacrificing loyal lieutenants, but he does it only in the most extreme circumstances,” Rutenberg said. “We know that he hates doing it. We know that he tends to try to fight for his loyalists, even for Ailes, certainly for O’Reilly. But when it’s a necessity to overcome a real threat to his business, he’ll do it.”

    Whether the circumstances have reached a boiling point yet are unclear. The Dominion lawsuit, which has already caused massive reputational damage to the Fox News brand, is still in the pre-trial phase of the case. There’s no telling what could emerge from a weeks-long trial in which prominent executives and hosts such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are called to the stand. And it remains to be seen whether outside forces, such as potential shareholder lawsuits, come into play and exert added pressure on Murdoch to take action.

    Regardless, it’s worth noting that Murdoch himself has signaled that firings could be coming. When asked in his deposition whether Fox News executives who knowingly allowed “lies to be broadcast” should face consequences, Murdoch responded in the affirmative: “They should be reprimanded,” he said. “They should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of.”

    As Folkenflik noted, “If you’re Rupert, you can’t fire Rupert. And you’re not going to fire [Fox CEO] Lachlan [Murdoch] either. So who are you going to chop?”

    “Everyone who takes a senior executive position under Rupert Murdoch knows that is the case, that is the ultimate fall position,” Folkenflik explained. “They understand that’s part of the job. You’re very well paid. It can be a somewhat glamorous life. If you fall out of favor with the sun king, or it is to his benefit, that’s part of the equation.”

    We’ll see what Scott’s fate ultimately looks like. For now, Fox is not offering any public statement of support for her. When I reached out to Fox spokespeople on Wednesday asking for comment, the company declined.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Shock, anger, betrayal: Inside the Qatargate-hit Socialist group

    Shock, anger, betrayal: Inside the Qatargate-hit Socialist group

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s Socialists are warily eyeing their colleagues and assistants, wondering which putative ally might turn out to be a liar as new details emerge in a growing cash-for-favors scandal.

    Long-simmering geographic divisions within the group, Parliament’s second largest, are fueling mistrust and discord. Members are at odds over how forcefully to defend their implicated colleagues. Others are nursing grievances over how the group’s leadership handled months of concerns about their lawmaker, Eva Kaili, who’s now detained pending trial.

    Publicly, the group has shown remarkable solidarity during the so-called Qatargate scandal, which involves allegations that foreign countries bribed EU lawmakers. Socialists and Democrats (S&D) chief Iratxe García has mustered a unified response, producing an ambitious ethics reform proposal and launching an internal investigation without drawing an open challenge to her leadership. Yet as the Parliament’s center left ponders how to win back the public’s trust ahead of next year’s EU election, the trust among the members themselves is fraying.

    “I feel betrayed by these people that are colleagues of our political group,” said Mohammed Chahim, a Dutch S&D MEP. “As far as I am concerned, we are all political victims, and I hope we can get the truth out in the open.”

    S&D MEPs are grappling not only with a sense of personal betrayal but also a fear that the links to corruption could squash otherwise promising electoral prospects. 

    Social democrats were looking forward to running in 2024 on the bread-and-butter issues at the top of minds around the bloc amid persistent inflation, buoyed by Olaf Scholz’s rise in Germany and the Continent-wide popularity of Finland’s Sanna Marin. Now, the group’s appeal to voters’ pocketbooks could be overshadowed by suitcases filled with cash.

    “We were completely unaware of what was going on,” said García, vowing that the group’s internal inquiry will figure out what went wrong. “We have to let the people responsible [for the investigation] work.”

    The ‘darkest plenary’

    Shock, anger and betrayal reverberated through the 145-strong caucus in early December last year when Belgian police began arresting senior S&D figures, chief among them a former Italian MEP Pier Antonio Panzeri and Eva Kaili, a rising star from Greece who had barely completed a year as one of Parliament’s 14 vice presidents.

    “The Qatargate revelations came as a terrible shock to S&D staff and MEPs,” an S&D spokesperson said. “Many felt betrayed, their trust abused and broken. Anyone who has ever become a victim of criminals will understand it takes time to heal from such an experience.”

    When the S&D gathered for a Parliament session in Strasbourg days after the first arrests, few members took it harder than the group’s president, García, who at one point broke down in tears, according to three people present.

    “We are all not just political machines, but also human beings,” said German MEP Gabriele Bischoff, an S&D vice chair in her first term. “To adapt to such a crisis, and to deal with it, it’s not easy.”

    “I mean, also, you trusted some of these people,” she said.

    An Italian court ruled that the daughter of former MEP Pier Antonio Panzeri can be extradited to Belgium | European Union

    In Strasbourg the group showed zero appetite to watch the judicial process play out, backing a move to remove Kaili from her vice presidency role. (She has, through a lawyer, consistently maintained her innocence.) 

    The group’s leadership also pressured MEPs who in any way were connected to the issues or people in the scandal to step back from legislative work, even if they faced no charges.

    “It was of course the darkest plenary we’ve had,” said Andreas Schieder, an Austrian S&D MEP who holds a top role on the committee charged with battling foreign interference post Qatargate. “But we took the right decisions quickly.”

    The S&D hierarchy swiftly suspended Kaili from the group in December and meted out the same treatment to two other MEPs who would later be drawn into the probe.

    But now many S&D MEPs are asking themselves how it was possible that a cluster of people exerted such influence across the Socialist group, how Kaili rose so quickly to the vice presidency and how so much allegedly corrupt behavior went apparently unnoticed for years.

    Like family

    The deep interpersonal connections between those accused and the rest of the group were part of what made it all so searing for the S&D tribe. 

    Belgian authorities’ initial sweep nabbed not only Panzeri and Kaili but also Kaili’s partner, a longtime parliamentary assistant named Francesco Giorgi, who had spent years working for Panzeri. Suddenly every former Panzeri assistant still in Parliament was under suspicion. Panzeri later struck a plea deal, offering to dish on whom he claims to have bribed in exchange for a reduced sentence.

    Maria Arena, who succeeded Panzeri as head of the Parliament’s human rights panel in 2019, also found herself under heavy scrutiny: Her friendship with her predecessor was so close that she’d been spotted as his plus-one at his assistant’s wedding. Alessandra Moretti, another S&D MEP, has also been linked to the probe, according to legal documents seen by POLITICO.

    The appearance of Laura Ballarin, García’s Cabinet chief, raising a glass with Giorgi and vacationing on a Mediterranean sailboat with Kaili, offered a tabloid-friendly illustration of just how enmeshed the accused were with the group’s top brass.

    “I was the first one to feel shocked, hurt and deeply betrayed when the news came out,” Ballarin told POLITICO. “Yet, evidently, my personal relations did never interfere with my professional role.”

    Making matters worse, some three months later, the scandal has largely remained limited to the S&D. Two more of its members have been swallowed up since the initial round of arrests: Italy’s Andrea Cozzolino and Belgium’s Marc Tarabella — a well-liked figure known for handing out Christmas gifts to Parliament staff as part of a St. Nicholas act. Both were excluded, like Kaili, from the S&D group. They maintain their innocence.

    Whiter than white

    That’s putting pressure on García, who is seen in Brussels as an extension of the power of her close ally, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. 

    Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is one of S&D chief Iratxe García most important allies | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images

    However, she has not always been able to leverage that alliance in Brussels. A prime example is the backroom deal the political groups made to appoint the Parliament’s new secretary-general, Alessandro Chiocchetti, who hails from the center-right European People’s Party. García emerged mostly empty-handed from the negotiations, with the EPP maneuvering around her and The Left group securing an entirely new directorate general.

    Kaili, from a tiny two-person Greek Socialist delegation, would also have never gotten the nod to become vice president in 2022 without García and the Spanish Socialists’ backing.

    Yet when it comes to trying to clean house and reclaim the moral high ground, the Socialist chief has brought people together. “She deserves to be trusted to do this correctly,” said René Repasi, a German S&D lawmaker.

    In the new year, the S&D successfully pushed through the affable, progressive Luxembourgish Marc Angel to replace Kaili, fending off efforts by other left-leaning and far-right groups to take one of the S&D’s seats in the Parliament’s rule-making bureau. In another move designed to steady the ship, the Socialists in February drafted Udo Bullmann, an experienced German MEP who previously led the S&D group, as a safe pair of hands to replace Arena on the human rights subcommittee.

    And in a bid to go on the offensive, the Socialists published a 15-point ethics plan (one-upping the center-right Parliament president’s secret 14-point plan). It requires all S&D MEPs — and their assistants — to disclose their meetings online and pushes for whistleblower protections in the Parliament. Where legally possible, the group pledges to hold its own members to these standards — for example by banning MEPs from paid-for foreign trips — even if the rest of the body doesn’t go as far.

    Those results were hard won, group officials recounted. With members from 26 EU countries, the group had to navigate cultural and geographic divisions on how to handle corruption, exposing north-south fault lines.

    “To do an internal inquiry was not supported in the beginning by all, but we debated it,” said Bischoff, describing daily meetings that stretched all the way to Christmas Eve. 

    The idea of recruiting outside players to conduct an internal investigation was also controversial, she added. Yet in the end, the group announced in mid-January that former MEP Richard Corbett and Silvina Bacigalupo, a law professor and board member of Transparency International Spain, would lead a group-backed inquiry, which has now begun.

    The moves appear to have staved off a challenge to García’s leadership, and so far, attacks from the Socialists’ main rival, the EPP, have been limited. But S&D MEPs say there’s still an air of unease, with some concerned the cleanup hasn’t gone deep enough — while others itch to defend the accused.

    Some party activists quietly question if the response was too fast and furious.

    Arena’s political future is in doubt, for example, even though she’s faced no criminal charges. Following mounting pressure about her ties to Panzeri, culminating with a POLITICO report on her undeclared travel to Qatar, Arena formally resigned from the human rights subcommittee. The group is not defending her, even as some activists mourn the downfall of someone they see as a sincere champion for human rights causes.

    Vocal advocacy for Kaili has also fueled controversy: Italian S&D MEPs drew groans from colleagues when they hawked around a letter about the treatment of Kaili and her daughter, which only garnered 10 signatures.

    “I do not believe it was necessary,” García said of the letter. “[If] I worry about the situation in jails, it has to be for everyone, not for a specific MEP.”

    The letter also did nothing to warm relations between the S&D’s Spanish and Italian delegations, which have been frosty since before the scandal. The S&D spokesperson in a statement rejected the notion that there are tensions along geographical lines: “There’s no divide between North and South, nor East and West, and there’s no tension between the Italian and Spanish delegations.”

    In another camp are MEPs who are looking somewhat suspiciously at their colleagues.

    Repasi, the German S&D member, said he is weary of “colleagues that are seemingly lying into your face” — a specific reference to Tarabella, who vocally denied wrongdoing for weeks, only to have allegations surface that he took around €140,000 in bribes from Panzeri, the detained ex-lawmaker.

    Repasi added: “It makes you more and more wonder if there is anyone else betting on the fact that he or she might not be caught.”

    Jakob Hanke Vela, Karl Mathiesen and Aitor Hernández-Morales contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Eddy Wax and Sarah Wheaton

    Source link

  • Rupert Murdoch acknowledged that Fox News hosts endorsed false stolen election claims | CNN Business

    Rupert Murdoch acknowledged that Fox News hosts endorsed false stolen election claims | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of Fox Corporation, acknowledged in a deposition taken by Dominion Voting Systems that some Fox News hosts endorsed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

    Murdoch’s remarks in a deposition were made public in a legal filing as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News.

    “Some of our commentators were endorsing it,” Murdoch said, singling out Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro as Fox hosts who promoted the false stolen election claims on air, according to a transcript of his deposition. Murdoch acknowledged the hosts frequently invited guests who made similar claims.

    But Murdoch pushed back against Dominion’s lawyers who claimed that Fox was endorsing “this false notion of a stolen election?”

    “Not Fox. But maybe Lou Dobbs, maybe Maria, as commentators,” Murdoch said in his deposition.

    In another filing made public earlier this month, a trove of messages and emails from the most prominent stars and highest-ranking executives at Fox News showed they had privately ridiculed claims of election fraud in the 2020 election, despite the right-wing channel promoting lies about the presidential contest on its air.

    The messages showed that Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham brutally mocked lies being pushed by former President Donald Trump’s camp asserting that the election was rigged.

    The court filings have offered the most vivid picture to date of the chaos that transpired behind the scenes at Fox News after Trump lost the election and viewers rebelled against the right-wing channel for accurately calling the contest in Biden’s favor.

    Fox News has not only vigorously denied Dominion’s claims, it has insisted it is “proud” of its 2020 election coverage.

    The network argued that the court filing contained cherry-picked quotes lacking context.

    “There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners, but the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan,” Fox News said in a statement.

    – This is breaking news and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘It’s a major blow’: Dominion has uncovered ‘smoking gun’ evidence in case against Fox News, legal experts say | CNN Business

    ‘It’s a major blow’: Dominion has uncovered ‘smoking gun’ evidence in case against Fox News, legal experts say | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Fox News is in serious hot water.

    That’s what several legal experts told CNN this week following Dominion Voting Systems explosive legal filing against the right-wing talk channel, revealing the network’s executives and hosts privately blasted the election fraud claims being peddled by Donald Trump’s team, despite allowing lies about the 2020 contest to be promoted on its air.

    While the legal experts cautioned that they would like to see Fox News’ formal legal response to the filing, they all indicated in no uncertain terms that the evidence compiled in Dominion’s legal filing represents a serious threat to the channel.

    “It’s a major blow,” attorney Floyd Abrams of Pentagon Papers fame said, adding that the “recent revelations certainly put Fox in a more precarious situation” in defending against the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.

    A version of this article first appeared in the “Reliable Sources” newsletter. Sign up for the daily digest chronicling the evolving media landscape here.

    Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law at Harvard Law School, described Dominion’s evidence as a “very strong” filing that “clearly lays out the difference between what Fox was saying publicly and what top people at Fox were privately admitting.”

    A cache of behind-the-scenes messages included in the legal filing showed Fox Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch called Trump’s claims “really crazy stuff,” and the cable network’s stars — including Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham — brutally mock the lies being pushed by the former president’s camp asserting that the election was rigged.

    It also showed attempts to crack down on fact-checking election lies. On one occasion, Carlson demanded that Fox News White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich be fired after she fact-checked a Trump tweet pushing election fraud claims.

    Tushnet said that in all of her years practicing and teaching law, she had never seen such damning evidence collected in the pre-trial phase of a defamation suit. “I don’t recall anything comparable to this,” Tushnet said. “Donald Trump seems to be very good at generating unprecedented situations.”

    David Korzenik, an attorney who teaches First Amendment law and represents a number of media organizations, said that the filing showed Dominion’s case against Fox News has serious teeth.

    Korzenik stressed that while the law allows for bias and ratings-seeking behavior by media outlets, it does not allow for the publication of material one knows to be false. The filing, Korzenik said, “certainly puts Fox in the actual malice crosshairs and puts them in real jeopardy.”

    RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor and media law scholar at the University of Utah, described the evidence as “pretty voluminous” and said that she too had never seen evidence like it collected in a high-profile defamation case against an outlet as enormous as Fox.

    “This is a pretty staggering brief,” Jones said. “Dominion’s filing here is unique not just as to the volume of the evidence but also as to the directness of the evidence and the timeline of the evidence.”

    “This ‘out of the horse’s mouth’ evidence of knowing falsity is not something we often see,” Jones added. “When coupled with the compelling storyline that Dominion is telling about motivation — the evidence that at least some key players in the organization were actively looking to advance some election denialism in order to win back viewers who had departed — it makes for a strong actual malice storyline.”

    In a statement, Fox News accused Dominion of generating “noise and confusion,” adding, “the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan.”

    “Dominion has mischaracterized the record, cherry-picked quotes stripped of key context, and spilled considerable ink on facts that are irrelevant under black-letter principles of defamation law,” the network said. “Their motion for summary judgment takes an extreme and unsupported view of defamation law and rests on an accounting of the facts that has no basis in the record.”

    But the attorneys said Dominion’s filing showed it had built a powerful case against Fox.

    “The dream for a plaintiff’s attorney is what Dominion claims to have here,” Jones said, “smoking-gun internal statements both acknowledging the lie and deciding to forge ahead with perpetuating it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House January 6 investigator says it’s ‘likely’ 2020 election subversion probes will produce indictments | CNN Politics

    House January 6 investigator says it’s ‘likely’ 2020 election subversion probes will produce indictments | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The top investigator on the House committee that probed the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack said Wednesday it is “likely” that the Georgia and federal investigations into efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election will produce indictments.

    Timothy Heaphy told CNN’s Kate Bolduan on “Erin Burnett OutFront” that “unless there is information inconsistent, which I don’t expect, I think there will likely be indictments both in Georgia and at the federal level.”

    In Georgia, the foreperson of the Atlanta-based grand jury that investigated former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election told CNN on Tuesday that the panel is recommending multiple indictments and suggested “the big name” may be on the list.

    The grand jury met for about seven months in Atlanta and heard testimony from 75 witnesses, including some of Trump’s closest advisers from his final weeks in the White House.

    Now that the grand jury is finished, it’s up to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to review the recommendations and make charging decisions. Willis’ decisions in this case will reverberate in the 2024 presidential campaign and beyond.

    Trump, who has launched his 2024 campaign for the White House, denies any criminal wrongdoing.

    At the federal level, special counsel Jack Smith is overseeing parts of the criminal investigation into the Capitol attack and has subpoenaed members of Trump’s inner circle. On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that Smith had subpoenaed the former president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner for testimony.

    “I think it could be very important,” Heaphy said of the pair’s potential testimony.

    “They were present for really significant events. The special counsel will want to hear about the president’s understanding of the election results and also what happened on January 6. And they both had direct communications with him about the events preceding the riot at the Capitol,” he said.

    The special counsel has a massive amount of evidence already in-hand that it now needs to comb through, including evidence recently turned over by the House January 6 committee, subpoena documents provided by local officials in key states and discovery collected from lawyers for Trump allies late last year in a flurry of activity, at least some of which had not been reviewed as of early January, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN at the time.

    “He will not stop because of a family relationship, because of purported executive privilege,” Heaphy said of Smith. “He believes that the law entitles him to all of that information, and he’s determined to get it.”

    Ivanka Trump and Kushner previously testified to the House select committee, which expired in January after Republicans took control of the House. The panel had referred the former president to the Justice Department on four criminal charges in December, and while largely symbolic in nature, committee members stressed those referrals served as a way to document their views given that Congress cannot bring charges.

    This story has been updated with additional information Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The strengths and weaknesses of Volodymyr Zelenskyy

    The strengths and weaknesses of Volodymyr Zelenskyy

    [ad_1]

    Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe. 

    In the weeks leading up to Russia’s invasion, senior Ukraine opposition politicians and former ministers were brimming with frustration. They’d been imploring President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to meet with them — something he’d not done since his landslide election nearly two years before.

    They’d also been urging him to boost funding for the country’s armed forces for months, clamoring for Ukraine’s reservists to be called up as America’s warnings of an invasion intensified — an invasion Zelenskyy still thought unlikely. They wanted intensive war-planning, including the drafting and publication of civil defense orders, so people would know what to do when the guns roared.

    “Ukraine is trapped with a national leader who does not think strategically,” Lesia Vasylenko, a lawmaker and member of the liberal and pro-European political Holos party, had told me five days before the invasion.

    “I think that’s the thing he will be blamed for later. It’s not about knowing everything. It’s about refusing to have in your entourage experts who know what questions to ask, and having advisers who can contradict and challenge you, and we may pay a price for that,” she’d fumed.

    Of course, Zelenskyy’s missteps — as Vasylenko and many other opposition lawmakers see them — have since been forgiven, but they have not been forgotten. And these missteps form the basis of their worries for post-war Ukraine. They see a pattern that will become even more troubling when the guns fall silent, arguing that the president’s strengths as a lionhearted wartime leader are ill-suited for peacetime.

    War hasn’t done anything to temper Zelenskyy’s impatience with governing complexities or with institutions that don’t move as fast as he would like or fall in line fast enough. He prefers the big picture, ignores details and likes to rely on an inner circle of trusted friends.

    But while the comedian-turned-president is being lauded now — even hero-worshipped — by a starstruck West for his inspirational wartime rhetoric, spellbinding oratory and skill at capturing the hearts of audiences from Washington to London and Brussels to Warsaw, Zelenskyy floundered as president before Russia invaded. Few gave him much chance of being reelected in 2024, as his poll numbers were plummeting — his favorability rating was at 31 percent by the end of 2021.

    He had promised a lot — probably too much — but achieved little.

    “Ukraine has two main problems: the war in the Donbas and the fear of people investing in the country,” Zelenskyy had said shortly after his election win. But his anti-corruption efforts stalled and were unhurried, while his promise to solve the problem of the Donbas went nowhere. And in his early eagerness to clinch a peace deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who declined a sit-down, some criticized Zelenskyy for thinking too much of his powers of persuasion and charisma.

    “He thought peace would be easy to establish because all you needed to do was to ‘look into Putin’s eyes’ and talk to him sincerely,” said lawmaker Mykola Kniazhytskyi.

    “He became president without any political experience, or any experience in managing state structures. He thought running a state is actually quite simple. You make decisions and they have to be implemented,” Kniazhytskyi told me. And when things went wrong, his reaction was always, it’s “the fault of predecessors, who need to be imprisoned,” Kniazhytskyi said.

    But while the comedian-turned-president is being lauded now, he floundered as president before Russia invaded | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    Yet, Zelenskyy’s transformation from disappointing peacetime leader to, in the hyperbolic words of French public intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy, “a new, young and magnificent founding father” of the free world, has been startling.

    Even his domestic critics doff their caps to him for his strengths as a superb communicator: His daily addresses to Ukrainians have steadied them, given direction and boosted morale, even when spirits understandably flag. And they acknowledge he likely saved the country by declining U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s offer for “a ride” out of Kyiv.

    “He has become a compelling leader,” said Adrian Karatnycky, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of the upcoming “Battleground Ukraine: From Independence to the Russian War.” According to Karatnycky, Zelenskyy’s strengths as a communicator match the times. “He’s good at channeling public opinion, but he’s more effective now because the country is much more united and surer about its identity, interests and objectives. He’s still the same guy he was — an actor and performer — but that makes him an ideal war leader because he’s able to embody the public impulse,” he added.

    But when normal politics are in play and the public isn’t united, Zelenskyy’s an inconsistent leader who switches the script and recasts the story to chase the vagaries and whims of public opinion. “When the public purpose is clear, he has great strength, and in wartime, he has behind him the absolute power of the state. But when the carriage turns into a pumpkin again, he’s going to have to cope with a very different world,” Karatnycky concluded.

    And that world hasn’t really gone away.

    Domestic political criticism is mounting — though little noted by an international media still enraptured by Zelenskyy’s charismatic appeal and enthralled by the simple story of David versus Goliath.

    Meanwhile, in the Verkhovna Rada — the country’s parliament — frustration is building, with lawmakers complaining they’re being overlooked by a government that was already impatient of oversight before the war and now shuns it almost entirely. Zelenskyy has only met with top opposition leaders once since Russia invaded — and that was nearly a year ago.

    “The routine of ministers being questioned by the Rada has been abandoned,” said opposition lawmaker Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, a member of the European Solidarity party and former deputy prime minister in the previous government of former President Petro Poroshenko.

    “Wartime does call for urgent decisions to be taken quickly, and it calls for shortened procedures. And so that’s kind of understandable,” she said. “But we are seeing decisions being increasingly centralized and concentrated in fewer hands, and this is having an impact on the balance of political power, and [it’s] damaging to the system of governance we are trying to develop and the strengthening of our democratic institutions in line with the criteria laid out by the EU for convergence.”

    Klympush-Tsintsadze is worried the recent wave of anti-corruption arrests was more an exercise in smoke and mirrors in the run-up to February’s EU-Ukraine summit — and one that might be used as an opportunity to centralize power even further. “If someone thinks that centralization of power is the answer to our challenges, that someone is wrong,” she added. “I think it is important to watch very closely how anti-corruption cases develop, and whether there will be transparent investigations, and whether the rule of law will be closely observed.”

    According to Kniazhytskyi, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Zelenskyy is a populist politician and shares the personality-focused flaws of this breed. However, what cheers the opposition lawmaker is how Ukrainian civil society has bloomed during the war, how local self-government has been strengthened because of wartime volunteering and mutual assistance and how some state bodies have performed — notably, the railways and the energy sector.

    It is this — along with a strong sense of national belonging forged by the conflict — that will form the foundation of a strong post-war Ukraine, he said.  

    [ad_2]

    Jamie Dettmer

    Source link

  • Ohio ex-speaker ill, corruption trial pauses after big week

    Ohio ex-speaker ill, corruption trial pauses after big week

    [ad_1]

    CINCINNATI — The racketeering trial of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and lobbyist Matt Borges was cancelled due to illness again Friday, giving jurors a long holiday weekend to mull striking new details revealed this week by players directly involved in an alleged $60 million bribery scheme.

    It marked the third time since the largest corruption trial in state history began Jan. 23 that U.S. District Judge Timothy Black in Cincinnati has postponed proceedings. Two previous pauses involved jurors testing positive for COVID-19; on Friday, Householder himself was sick, though apparently not with the coronavirus.

    Testimony is scheduled to resume Tuesday, after the Presidents Day holiday. Before being slowed by illnesses, the trial was expected to last about six weeks.

    The jury must decide whether Householder, 63, and Borges, 50, are guilty of conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise involving bribery and money laundering. Both have pleaded not guilty and maintain innocence. Each faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

    An indictment alleges Householder, Borges, three other people and a dark money group called Generation Now orchestrated an elaborate scheme, secretly funded by Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., to secure Householder’s power, elect his allies, pass legislation containing a $1 billion bailout for two aging nuclear power plants, and then vex a ballot effort to overturn the bill with a dirty tricks campaign. The arrests happened in July 2020.

    Juan Cespedes, a former lobbyist who has pleaded guilty in the case, provided the most gripping testimony of the week, if not the entire trial.

    It amounted to the first time Cespedes had spoken publicly since the arrests. Jeff Longstreth, a longtime Householder associate who was also arrested and charged, has pleaded guilty and is expected to testify soon. The third man arrested along with Householder and Borges, long-powerful Statehouse lobbyist Neil Clark, pleaded not guilty before dying by suicide in March 2021.

    “I’m here to tell the truth and be accountable for it,” Cespedes said as his testimony began.

    He said he worked for FirstEnergy Solutions and coordinated tens of millions in donations steered to Generation Now, which he described as controlled by Householder and Longstreth.

    Cespedes testified Monday to directing a client to give Householder, through Generation Now, a $500,000 campaign contribution in exchange for legislation bailing out two aging nuclear plants owned by his company, which the Ohio House would eventually pass under Householder’s watch.

    He said that at an Oct. 10, 2018, meeting, another Columbus lobbyist, Robert Klaffky, slid a $400,000 check across to Householder while emphasizing the importance of the legislation.

    “Our client cares very much about this issue,” Klaffky said.

    Householder looked into the envelope containing the check, made out from FirstEnergy to Generation Now, and said, “Well yes, they do.” Klaffky told cleveland.com he does not recall saying those things.

    The remaining $100,000 was given to Longstreth to give to Householder, Cespedes said.

    Householder’s lawyers argued during opening statements that he was not part of any criminal conspiracy but was engaging in politics as usual.

    Cespedes described the contribution as a clear pay-to-play scheme.

    “We were trying to establish the fact that our support was specifically tied to the legislation,” Cespedes said.

    Generation Now has pleaded guilty to its role in the scheme. In a deal to avoid prosecution, Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. has admitted to using dark money groups to fund the bribery scheme and agreed to pay $230 million and other conditions.

    Cespedes testified Tuesday that he and Borges paid $15,000 off the books in 2019 to referendum operative Tyler Fehrman to try to get inside information on a campaign to repeal the nuclear bailout bill, known as House Bill 6.

    The alleged $15,000 bribe is key to the government’s case against Borges, a former chair of the Ohio Republican Party. His attorneys describe the payment as a loan to help a friend.

    Cespedes testified that it was for a spying effort on behalf of FirstEnergy Solutions, a then-subsidiary of FirstEnergy. He said he tried to keep the firm’s executive chair, John Kiani, in the dark because he believed Kiani would apply pressure to go through with the bribe. After Kiani learned of the plan, that came to pass, Cespedes said.

    “(W)hat happened to the black ops,” Kiani asked in an Aug. 31, 2019, text, a reference Cespedes testified was to the plan to get inside information. On Sept. 2, 2019, Cespedes said he told Borges that Kiani “reiterated to do whatever it takes to get this information.”

    Cespedes testified that Kiani had plans to operate the two Ohio nuclear plants for a short period, get a government bailout, then sell them in a deal that could have netted him $100 million. On cross-examination, Borges’ attorneys got Cespedes to concede that he, too, could have gotten rich off the planned sale.

    Jurors also heard hours of tapes this week of the voice of the late Clark, which were gathered by two undercover FBI agents posing as developers who had hired him as their lobbyist.

    Clark took the pair to a dinner at the Aubergine Private Dining Club in suburban Columbus on Sept. 23, 2019, to meet Householder — and advised them to bring a $50,000 check made out to Generation Now. Republican state Rep. Jay Edwards, of Athens County in southeastern Ohio, and a House staffer also attended.

    In the recordings, Clark described himself as Householder’s “proxy” and told the agents that, for getting attention, “a noticeable number is $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000.” He said “it goes into a (c)(4),” referring to Generation Now by the IRS code section — 501(c)(4) — that sets the rules for a category of tax-exempt organizations that can raise and spend unlimited amounts without disclosing their donors.

    “It’s the speaker’s (c)(4). That’s how it works,” he told them.

    ___

    This story was first published on February 17, 2023. It was updated on February 19, 2023 to correct how witness Juan Cespedes reiterated an executive’s desire “to do whatever it takes to get this information” on a referendum effort to defendant Matt Borges. Cespedes testified that he told Borges verbally; it was not contained in a text message.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News executives refused to let Trump on-air when he called in during January 6 attack, Dominion says | CNN Politics

    Fox News executives refused to let Trump on-air when he called in during January 6 attack, Dominion says | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump tried to call into Fox News after his supporters attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, but the network refused to put him on air, according to court filings from Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation case against the company.

    The House select committee that investigated the January 6 attack did not know that Trump had made this call, according to a source familiar with the panel’s work.

    The panel sought to piece together a near minute-by-minute account of Trump’s movements, actions and phone calls on that day. His newly revealed call to Fox News shows some of the gaps in the record that still exist, due to roadblocks the committee faced.

    “The afternoon of January 6, after the Capitol came under attack, then-President Trump dialed into Lou Dobbs’ show attempting to get on air,” Dominion lawyers wrote in their legal brief.

    ‘He could easily destroy us’: See Tucker Carlson’s private text about Trump

    “But Fox executives vetoed that decision,” Dominion’s filing continued. “Why? Not because of a lack of newsworthiness. January 6 was an important event by any measure. President Trump not only was the sitting President, he was the key figure that day.”

    The network rebuffed Trump because “it would be irresponsible to put him on the air” and “could impact a lot of people in a negative way,” according to Fox Business Network President Lauren Petterson, whose testimony was cited by Dominion in the new filing.

    Dobbs’ show on Fox Business – in which he routinely promoted baseless conspiracies about the 2020 election – was canceled a few weeks after the January 6 insurrection.

    Fox News and its parent company have denied all wrongdoing and are aggressively fighting Dominion’s defamation lawsuit. In a previous statement, a Fox spokesperson claimed that Dominion “mischaracterized the record” in its court filing and “cherry-picked quotes” that were “stripped of key context.”

    The most prominent stars and highest-ranking executives at Fox News privately ridiculed claims of election fraud in the 2020 election, despite the right-wing channel allowing lies about the presidential contest to be promoted on its air, damning messages contained in a Thursday court filing revealed.

    General view of Fox Plaza on February 8, 2023 in New York City.

    Haberman describes ‘striking’ claim that stood out to her from court documents

    The messages showed that Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham brutally mocked lies being pushed by Trump’s camp asserting that the election had been rigged.

    In one set of messages revealed in the court filing, Carlson texted Ingraham, saying that Sidney Powell, an attorney who was representing the Trump campaign, was “lying” and that he had “caught her” doing so. Ingraham responded, “Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy [Giuliani].”

    giuliani screengrab

    Court filings show Fox stars ridiculed Giuliani over 2020 election fraud claims

    The messages also revealed that Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of Fox Corporation, did not believe Trump’s election lies and even floated the idea of having Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham appear together in prime time to declare Joe Biden as the rightful winner of the election.

    Such an act, Murdoch said, “Would go a long way to stop the Trump myth that the election stolen.”

    The court filing offered the most vivid picture to date of the chaos that transpired behind the scenes at Fox News after Trump lost the election and viewers rebelled against the channel for accurately calling the contest in Biden’s favor.

    Dominion filed its mammoth lawsuit against Fox News in March 2021, alleging that during the 2020 presidential election the network “recklessly disregarded the truth” and pushed various pro-Trump conspiracy theories about the election technology company because “the lies were good for Fox’s business.”

    Fox News has not only vigorously denied Dominion’s claims, it has insisted it is “proud” of its 2020 election coverage.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Firm fined $1.5 million for illegally hiring children

    Firm fined $1.5 million for illegally hiring children

    [ad_1]

    Firm fined $1.5 million for illegally hiring children – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Packers Sanitation Services paid $1.5 million in fines for violating child labor laws. The Labor Department said it had more than 100 children working at meat processing plants and using dangerous chemicals to clean saws.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • EU to Steve Bannon: You don’t scare us … anymore

    EU to Steve Bannon: You don’t scare us … anymore

    [ad_1]

    BRUSSELS — The EU was “scared” of Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon during the European parliamentary election in 2019 — but those fears are gone ahead of the 2024 ballot, European Commission Vice President Věra Jourová said.

    Referring to Bannon’s attempts to form a “club” to support far-right populists such as the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders and France’s Marine Le Pen in the run-up to the last EU-wide election, Jourová said Brussels was genuinely concerned his ideas would take off.

    “We were scared by Steve Bannon organizing the pan-European campaign comprising Mr. Wilders, Madame Le Pen, and all the rest — finding everywhere useful partners and willing collaborators,” Jourová told journalists at a gathering on Thursday night.

    “It was a combination still of the effect of the migration crisis, of terrorism, and Trump,” Jourová said. “It was also the Cambridge Analytica case” — revelations that the infamous British data analytics firm had illegally accessed people’s social media data to target them in a number of elections and was linked to Trump’s successful 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. “It was also the time of rising disinformation, targeted disinformation campaigns — these were things which were relatively new for us.”

    Bannon, “with his simplified vision of Europe, could easily trigger something, which the others who know Europe could use as a platform. This was my fear,” Jourová said. But, “it didn’t happen. And I believe that now it will be a similar thing.”

    Jourová, who is the European commissioner for values and transparency, said she believed Russia’s war on Ukraine would see Europeans make safe bets in the 2024 election, during which citizens in the EU’s 27 member countries will vote to elect the members of the European Parliament.

    “I don’t think there will be a rise of extremist parties — far right or left,” Jourová said. “Because the people now see, especially in the time of crisis, it’s not the time for experiments.”

    Asked whether the revelations of corruption and influence-buying by countries such as Qatar and Morocco in the European Parliament would drive extremist sentiment in the ballot, Jourová said it was “hard to say,” as the election was still a year away.

    But, she added, “if I take a broader picture, when people see the politicians in jail, there are two kinds of instincts: ‘They are all rotten, they are all bad, we knew it.’ But then when the people see the system works, and when cases of corruption are closed and people are punished, I think that paradoxically, such scandal can even increase the trust of people in democratic institutions.”

    [ad_2]

    Zoya Sheftalovich

    Source link

  • How Qatar used a secret deal to bind itself to the EU Parliament

    How Qatar used a secret deal to bind itself to the EU Parliament

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    In February 2020, Eva Kaili, the European Parliament’s high-flying vice president, was on stage at the five-star Ritz Carlton hotel in Qatar’s capital Doha, moderating a discussion about social media giants and democracy.

    “We see always efforts of political interference among member states, even in Europe,” she said, turning to her co-panelist. Kaili looked down at her notes. “How do you feel in this country and [its] role in the stability of the whole region?” she asked. 

    “The country that is hosting us today has made a great progress during the last years,” came the laudatory reply as former EU commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos answered.

    This snippet of conversation from a two-day conference would have passed unnoticed at the time. But heard today, the praise is laden with irony. Kaili is in jail, swept up in a high-octane corruption scandal gripping the EU establishment in Brussels, in which Qatar — and also Morocco — are accused of paying off EU lawmakers in order to influence Parliament’s work.

    The conference did not come out of the blue. Its seeds had been planted some two years prior, when then-Parliament member Pier Antonio Panzeri, the alleged ringleader of the corruption plot, signed a semi-official cooperation deal with an organization linked to the Qatari government. POLITICO has now obtained the document, after first reporting on its existence last month.

    The pact, which Panzeri inked as head of Parliament’s human rights subcommittee, connected the EU body to Qatar’s own human rights commission. It pledged “closer cooperation” between the two sides, mentioning annual “projects” and the exchange of “experiences and expertise.” The language laid the groundwork for years of collaboration, including conferences and lawmaker trips to Doha, with Qatar covering business class flights and luxury hotel stays.

    Notably, however, the agreement does not officially exist, according to the Parliament. The memo never went through to lawmakers for review — despite Panzeri saying it would — nor did it go through any formal channels of approval. 

    “The European Parliament has no official knowledge of the document you refer to,” a Parliament press services official told POLITICO. 

    Yet the document does exist, illustrating how a foreign country was able to establish substantial links to EU lawmakers and a European Parliament committee without ever triggering formal alarm bells in the institution.

    “This is problematic,” said Monika Hohlmeier, a senior MEP from the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) who leads the budgetary control committee. “It shows that we should be much more aware of what is happening.”

    “This is extraordinary,” marveled someone with knowledge of how the human rights committee (known as DROI) functions.

    Qatar has consistently maintained that it rejects any allegations of undue interference in the EU’s work.

    The signing

    Panzeri signed the deal on April 26, 2018, during a DROI committee meeting in Brussels with Ali bin Samikh Al Marri, who chaired Qatar’s National Human Rights Committee (NHRC). The NHRC says on its website that it enjoys “complete independence” from Qatar’s government.

    Addressing a handful of MEPs in a largely empty room, Al Marri argued the Qatari government had made “tremendous strides” on human rights reforms, albeit also admitting it was not yet sufficient. He slammed Saudi Arabia and other Gulf neighbors for imposing what he called “collective sanctions” amid a diplomatic stand-off that resulted in “human rights violations.”

    At the very end of the hour-long committee meeting, Panzeri made a brief, passing reference to a “consultation and cooperation document that we will sign today and we will provide to the members of the DROI subcommittee.” 

    But they didn’t receive it. 

    “It has never happened,” said Petras Auštrevičius, a Lithuanian liberal MEP who led his group’s work on human rights at the time. Two former MEPs with coordination roles on the committee, Barbara Lochbihler and Marie-Christine Vergiat, also said they had no memory of such an agreement.

    Auštrevičius added that even the decision to invite Al Marri to address the committee that day had not been signed off by fellow MEPs, in line with normal practice. 

    “It seems that the Chair [Panzeri] decided to invite [Al Marri] following a recent private visit to Qatar, which I was not aware of,” Auštrevičius said.

    Indeed, on the day the deal was signed, Panzeri was freshly back in Brussels after a trip to Qatar with his parliamentary assistant, Francesco Giorgi. 

    During the trip, Panzeri met the then-Qatari Prime Minister Abdullah Bin Nasser bin Khalifa Al Thani, his human rights counterpart Al Marri, and praised Qatar’s labor reforms ahead of the football World Cup, according to a media report Panzeri retweeted.

    Al Marri would later become Qatar’s labor minister, as global criticism mounted over Doha’s treatment of the migrant workers building the World Cup stadiums.

    Giorgi, Panzeri’s assistant, would later be detained alongside his boss and Kaili in the authorities’ initial sweep of arrests. All three were charged with corruption, money laundering and participation in a criminal organization.

    The conference did not come out of the blue. Its seeds had been planted some two years prior, when then-Parliament member Pier Antonio Panzeri, the alleged ringleader of the corruption plot, signed a semi-official cooperation deal with an organization linked to the Qatari government | Photo via European Parliament

    Panzeri has now brokered a plea deal with prosecutors, admitting to bribing MEPs in exchange for a reduced sentence. Kaili and Giorgi, who are partners, deny any wrongdoing. Lawyers for Panzeri and Kaili did not respond to a request for comment.

    Nearly five years later, Parliament officials are scratching their heads about how such a deal could have been signed. Even the signing itself is shrouded in mystery.

    According to the Parliament’s press services, the deal was signed in Panzeri’s office. But a photo of the signing shows an EU Parliament staff member present, as well as the official EU and Qatar flags. And a second person familiar with the committee’s work said the signing took place in one of the Parliament’s official protocol rooms, normally used by foreign delegations. 

    The text of the deal itself is vague and jargonistic.

    “It has been decided to continue the bilateral activity through a consultation and cooperation understanding between the two parties,” it reads on a single side of A4 paper. 

    “This understanding,” it adds, “aims at regulating and facilitating the relations between the NHRC and DROI through the promotion of closer cooperation, the exchange of bilateral expertise, information and contacts regarding human rights.”

    Panzeri’s ‘delegation’ in Doha 

    In 2019, one year after “this understanding” was reached, Qatar co-organized its first conference in Doha in partnership with the Parliament, or at least with the Parliament’s logo plastered all over it. The topic: Fighting impunity.

    At the conference, Panzeri praised Qatar as a “reference” point for global human rights standards. An article in the Gulf Times quoted Panzeri as saying the conference was a direct outgrowth of his 2019 deal. Later, “fight impunity” would even become the namesake cause of Panzeri’s NGO.

    Then came the 2020 conference, held in Doha on February 16 and 17 and apparently co-organized with the European Parliament. The new topic: “Social media, challenges and ways to promote freedoms and protect activists.”

    The Parliament press services official denied the event was co-organized, saying “it was not an event of the institution, but we still have to investigate how they could use the logo [of the Parliament].” 

    The 300 attendees had business class flights paid for by the Qataris, plus accommodation in the Ritz Carlton hotel, and a dinner at the national museum of Qatar to end the conference. 

    Kaili is in jail, swept up in a high-octane corruption scandal gripping the EU establishment in Brussels, in which Qatar — and also Morocco — are accused of paying off EU lawmakers in order to influence Parliament’s work | Photo via European Parliament

    Kaili was far from the only top EU politician there. 

    As she wrapped up her moderating duties, Kaili thanked Panzeri for “organizing actually this delegation.”

    Panzeri — who had left Parliament in 2019 — was sitting in the front row next to his now-detained assistant, Giorgi. 

    Also present was Socialist and Democrat (S&D) lawmaker Marc Tarabella, who was arrested last week as police expand their probe. Belgian prosecutors suspect Tarabella took up to €140,000 in cash from Panzeri to influence EU work on Qatar.

    Tarabella’s lawyer, Maxim Töller, denied Panzeri organized the trip: “It’s not Mr. Panzeri. … Well, he was on the trip.”

    Tarabella failed to disclose the subsidized trip until last month, years past Parliament’s deadline. Tarabella made a number of excuses for the late declaration, including that he thought it was no longer possible. More broadly, he has proclaimed his innocence in the corruption probe.

    Two other EU lawmakers present at the event — S&D member Alessandra Moretti and EPP member Cristian-Silviu Bușoi — also failed to declare their subsidized attendance until after the corruption probe came to light. 

    “It was an event sponsored by the European Parliament, so the Parliament was aware of the event and of my participation,” Moretti said. “In the spirit of full transparency, I decided to publish it.” She denied being part of a Panzeri-created delegation.

    Bușoi, who led the Parliament’s unofficial “friendship group” with Qatar, said: “The 2020 event was declared later due to a staff error.” He also denied being part of any Panzeri-orchestrated delegation. 

    After Panzeri left Parliament in 2019, S&D lawmaker Maria Arena replaced him atop the DROI committee. In January, she told POLITICO she had not continued Panzeri’s agreement.

    The conferences, however, did continue. 

    In addition to the 2020 event, Arena later went to Qatar in 2022 on Doha’s dime for an NHRC workshop. She eventually stepped down as committee chair after POLITICO disclosed Arena failed to declare the subsidized trip on time. Arena did not reply to a request for comment for this piece. 

    And for all the confusion around the deal, one thing is clear: For Qatar, it never ceased to exist.

    “The relationship with the European Parliament is of utmost importance to us,” Al Marri wrote in May 2021 to two EU lawmakers, including Arena.

    Its evidence? “the Memorandum of Understanding we signed with the Human Rights Subcommittee.”

    Elena Giordano, Camille Gijs and Nektaria Stamouli contributed reporting. 

    [ad_2]

    Eddy Wax and Ana Fota

    Source link

  • Washington Post: Trump campaign commissioned research that failed to prove 2020 election fraud claims | CNN Politics

    Washington Post: Trump campaign commissioned research that failed to prove 2020 election fraud claims | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A research firm commissioned by former President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign team to prove his electoral fraud claims instead failed to substantiate his theories, the Washington Post reported Saturday.

    The Berkeley Research Group was commissioned to look into voting data from six states, according to the Post, and a source told the publication that the campaign team wanted about a dozen claims tested. People familiar with the matter told the publication that the findings did not match what the team had hoped for, and the findings were never released.

    While some anomalies and “unusual data patterns” were found, the Post reported, they wouldn’t have made a difference to President Joe Biden’s victory.

    The firm’s findings also refuted some of Trump’s voting conspiracies, including the identities of dead people used to vote and Dominion voting systems used to manipulate the outcome, the paper reported.

    The research was conducted in the last weeks of 2020 and before the January 6 US Capitol attack, according to the Post. Two sources told CNN that the House January 6 committee looking into the role Trump played in inciting the insurrection did not know about the firm’s work.
    Trump has continued to repeat his election lies as he focuses on his 2024 White House bid.

    CNN previously reported that following two years of advice from allies and advisers to stop exhaustively relitigating the 2020 election, his first rally late last month showed an attempted forward-driven message of what he would aim to accomplish with a second term.

    The former president has often pushed back on that advice, arguing that his message is strong enough as it is, and one source close to him told CNN his proclivity for focusing on the 2020 election will be tough to break because he still regularly hears from members of his base who believe so-called election integrity is an important talking point as he seeks reelection.

    Another adviser said that despite the defeat of several Trump-backed midterm candidates who denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election, Trump has said he does not believe their losses were tied to their election lies.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Top Arizona election official requests investigation of Kari Lake for potential campaign violation | CNN Politics

    Top Arizona election official requests investigation of Kari Lake for potential campaign violation | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The top election official in Arizona has asked the state’s attorney general to investigate Republican Kari Lake, who lost her 2022 gubernatorial bid, for potentially violating state law by publishing voter signatures on her Twitter account.

    The request by Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat elected to the office last November, comes after Lake posted a tweet on January 23 that made an unfounded claim that 40,000 ballots didn’t match voter signatures that the state has on record. Lake posted a graphic that showed 16 voter signatures, alleging that they didn’t match with what Arizona has on file.

    In a letter to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, Fontes requested “appropriate enforcement action against Kari Lake” for publishing those 16 voter signatures. Fontes cites a state law that prohibits reproducing voter signatures other than the voter or a legally authorized person. Fontes’ letter states that violation of that law is a felony.

    The office for Mayes, a Democrat who also was elected in 2022, confirmed receiving the letter but did not comment any further.

    Lake’s spokespeople did not reply to CNN’s request for comment.

    Lake lost the race for governor to Democrat Katie Hobbs last November by more than 17,000 votes. Since losing, Lake has continued to spout election lies on right-wing media and pursue legal remedy in the courts, legal efforts that have continued to fail.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ukraine wants to join EU within two years, PM says

    Ukraine wants to join EU within two years, PM says

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal has a tight two-year timetable for securing EU membership that is bound to dominate discussions at this week’s historic EU-Ukraine summit, the first to take place on Ukrainian soil.

    The problem? No one within the EU thinks this is realistic.

    When EU commissioners travel to Kyiv later this week ahead of Friday’s summit with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the heads of the European Commission and Council, their main task is likely to involve managing expectations.

    Shmyhal himself is imposing a tough deadline. “We have a very ambitious plan to join the European Union within the next two years,” he told POLITICO. “So we expect that this year, in 2023, we can already have this pre-entry stage of negotiations,” he said.

    This throws down a gauntlet to the EU establishment, which is trying to keep Ukrainian membership as a far more remote concept.

    French President Emmanuel Macron said last year it could be “decades” before Ukraine joins. Even EU leaders, who backed granting Ukraine candidate status at their summit last June, privately admit that the prospect of the country actually joining is quite some years away (and may be one reason they backed the idea in the first place.) After all, candidate countries like Serbia, Turkey and Montenegro have been waiting for many years, since 1999 in Ankara’s case.

    Ukraine is a conundrum for the EU. Many argue that Brussels has a particular responsibility to Kyiv. It was, after all, Ukrainians’ fury at the decision of President Viktor Yanukovych to pull out of a political and economic association agreement with the EU at Russia’s behest that triggered the Maidan uprising of 2014 and set the stage for war. As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen put it: Ukraine is “the only country where people got shot because they wrapped themselves in a European flag.”

    Ukraine’s close allies in the EU such as Poland and the Baltic countries strongly support Kyiv’s membership push, seeing it as a democracy resisting an aggressor. Many of the EU old guard are far more wary, however, as Ukraine — a global agricultural superpower — could dilute their own powers and perks. Ukraine and Poland — with a combined population of 80 million — could team up to rival Germany as a political force in the European Council and some argue Kyiv would be an excessive drain on the EU budget.  

    Short-term deliverables

    Friday’s summit in Kyiv — the first EU meeting of its kind to take place in an active war zone — will be about striking the right balance.

    Though EU national leaders will not be in attendance, European Council officials have been busy liaising with EU member states about the final communiqué.

    Some countries are insisting the statement should not stray far from the language used at the June European Council — emphasizing that while the future of Ukraine lies within the European Union, aspirant countries need to meet specific criteria. “Expectation is quite high in Kyiv, but there is a need to fulfill all the conditions that the Commission has set out. It’s a merit-based process,” said one senior EU official.

    Ukraine is a conundrum for the EU. Many argue that Brussels has a particular responsibility to Kyiv | Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images

    Still, progress is expected when Zelenskyy meets with von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel.

    Shmyhal told POLITICO he hopes Ukraine can achieve a “substantial leap forward” on Friday, particularly in specific areas — an agreement on a visa-free regime for industrial goods; the suspension of customs duties on Ukrainian exports for another year; and “active progress” on joining the SEPA (Single Euro Payments Area) payments scheme and the inclusion of Ukraine into the EU’s mobile roaming area.  

    “We expect progress and acceleration on our path towards signing these agreements,” he said.

    Anti-corruption campaign

    The hot topic — and one of the central question marks over Ukraine’s EU accession — will be Ukraine’s struggle against corruption. The deputy infrastructure minister was fired and deputy foreign minister stepped down this month over scandals related to war profiteering in public contracts.

    “We need a reformed Ukraine,” said one senior EU official centrally involved in preparations for the summit. “We cannot have the same Ukraine as before the war.”

    Shmyhal insisted that the Zelenskyy government is taking corruption seriously. “We have a zero-tolerance approach to corruption,” he said, pointing to the “lightning speed” with which officials were removed this month. “Unfortunately, corruption was not born yesterday, but we are certain that we will uproot corruption,” he said, openly saying that it’s key to the country’s EU accession path.

    He also said the government was poised to revise its recent legislation on the country’s Constitutional Court to meet the demands of both the European Commission and the Venice Commission, an advisory body of the Council of Europe. Changes could come as early as this week, ahead of the summit, Shmyhal said.

    Though Ukraine has announced a reform of the Constitutional Court, particularly on how judges are appointed, the Venice Commission still has concerns about the powers and composition of the advisory group of experts, the body which selects candidates for the court. The goal is to avoid political interference.

    Shmyhal said these questions will be addressed. “We are holding consultations with the European Commission to see that all issued conclusions may be incorporated into the text,” he told POLITICO.

    Nonetheless, the symbolic power of this week’s summit is expected to send a strong message to Moscow about Ukraine’s European aspirations.

    European Council President Michel used his surprise visit to Kyiv this month to reassure Ukraine that EU membership will be a reality for Ukraine, telling the Ukrainian Rada (parliament) that he dreams that one day a Ukrainian will hold his job as president of the European Council.

    “Ukraine is the EU and the EU is Ukraine,” he said. “We must spare no effort to turn this promise into reality as fast as we can.”

    The key question for Ukrainians after Friday’s meeting will be how fast the rhetoric and promises can become a reality.

    [ad_2]

    Suzanne Lynch

    Source link

  • Reporting corruption in a time of war: The Ukrainian journalists’ dilemma

    Reporting corruption in a time of war: The Ukrainian journalists’ dilemma

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    When a major corruption scandal broke in Ukraine last weekend, reporters faced an excruciating dilemma between professional duty and patriotism. The first thought that came to my mind was: “Should I write about this for foreigners? Will it make them stop supporting us?”

    There was no doubting the severity of the cases that were erupting into the public sphere. They cut to the heart of the war economy. In one instance, investigators were examining whether the deputy infrastructure minister had profited from a deal to supply electrical generators at an inflated price, while the defense ministry was being probed over an overpriced contract to supply food and catering services to the troops.

    Huge stories, but in a sign of our life-or-death times in Ukraine, even my colleague Yuriy Nikolov, who got the scoop on the inflated military contract, admitted he had done everything he could not to publish his investigation. He took his findings to public officials hoping that they might be able to resolve the matter, before he finally felt compelled to run it on the ZN.UA website.

    Getting a scoop that shocks your country, forces your government to start investigations and reform military procurement, and triggers the resignation of top officials is ordinarily something that makes other journalists jealous. But I fully understand how Nikolov feels about wanting to hold back when your nation is at war. Russia (and Ukraine’s other critics abroad) are, after all, looking to leap upon any opportunity to undermine trust in our authorities.

    A journalist is meant to stay a little distant from the situation he or she covers. It helps to stay impartial and to stick to the facts, not emotions. But what if staying impartial is impossible as you have to cover the invasion of your own country? Naturally, you have to keep holding your government to account, but you are also painfully aware that the enemy is out there looking to exploit any opportunity to erode faith in the leadership and undermine national security.

    That is exactly what Ukrainian journalists have to deal with every day. In the first six months of the invasion, Ukrainian journalists and watchdogs decided to put their public criticism of the Ukrainian government on pause and focus on documenting Russian war crimes. 

    But that has backfired.  

    “This pause led to a rapid loss of accountability for many Ukrainian officials,” Mykhailo Tkach, one of Ukraine’s top investigative journalists, wrote in a column for Ukrainska Pravda.

    His investigations about Ukrainian officials leaving the country during the war for lavish vacations in Europe led to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy imposing a ban on officials traveling abroad during the war for non-work-related issues. It also sparked the dismissal of the powerful deputy prosecutor general.

    The Ukrainian government was forced to react to corruption and make a major reshuffle almost immediately. Would that happen if Ukrainian journalists decided to sit on their findings until victory? I doubt it.

    President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ended up imposing a ban on officials traveling abroad during the war for non-work-related issues | Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images

    Is it still painful when you have to write about your own government’s officials’ flops when overwhelming enemy forces are trying to erase your nation from the planet, using every opportunity they can get to shake your international partners’ faith? Of course it is.

    But in this case, there was definite room for optimism. Things are changing in Ukraine. The government had to react very quickly, under intense pressure from civil society and the independent press. Memes and social media posts immediately appeared, mocking the government’s pledge to buy eggs at massively inflated prices. Ultimately, the deputy infrastructure minister was fired and the deputy defense minister resigned.

    This speedy response was praised by the European Commission and showed how far we really are from Russia, where authorities hunt down not the officials accused of corruption, but the journalists who report it.

    As Tkach said, many believe that the war with the internal enemy will begin immediately after the victory over the external one.

    However, we can’t really wait that long. It is important to understand that the sooner we win the battle with the internal enemy — high-profile corruption — the sooner we win the war against Russia.

     “Destruction of corruption means getting additional funds for the defense capability of the country. And it means more military and civilian lives saved,” Tkach said.

    [ad_2]

    Veronika Melkozerova

    Source link

  • Trump and lawyer sanctioned almost $1 million for ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

    Trump and lawyer sanctioned almost $1 million for ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Thursday imposed nearly $1 million in sanctions on former President Donald Trump and his lawyer for filing a since-dismissed ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and many others, which had claimed they tried to rig the 2016 presidential election in her favor by smearing Trump.

    “We are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose,” wrote Judge John Middlebrooks in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in his order sanctioning Trump.

    The judge in his order noted that “Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries.”

    “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer,” Middlebrooks wrote.

    “He knew full well the impact of his actions … As such, I find that sanctions should be imposed upon Mr. Trump and his lead counsel, Ms. [Alina] Habba.”

    Under the order, the Republican Trump and Habba, are jointly and severally liable for the total amount of sanctions the judge imposed: $937,989.39.

    “The amount of fees awarded in this case, while reasonable, is substantial,” Middlebrooks noted.

    He called the legal pleadings filed in the case by Habba “abusive litigation tactics,” and said the original lawsuit and a later, 186-page amended complaint “were drafted to advance political narrative; not to address legal harm caused by any Defendant.”

    “The Amended Complaint is a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion,” Middlebrooks wrote.

    “This is a deliberate attempt to harass; to tell a story without regard to facts.”

    Habba did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the order.

    Trump, who is seeking the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, filed his suit in March against Clinton, who was the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.

    The other 30 defendants included the Democratic National Commission, former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, the law firm Perkins Coie, the research firm Fusion GPS, the former FBI officials James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, as well as Christopher Steele, the ex-British intelligence agent who authored the notorious “Trump-Russia dossier” opposition research report before the election.

    The suit, which sought $70 million in damages, accused the defendants of conspiring to “weave a false narrative” during the 2016 election that Trump and his campaign were colluding with Russia in their efforts to win the race.

    The suit claimed that Clinton and other defendants falsified evidence, deceived law-enforcement agencies and engaged in other skulduggery that made “even the events of Watergate pale in comparison.”

    Middlebrooks earlier dismissed the lawsuit against Clinton and all other defendants “with prejudice,” which bars Trump from refiling the complaint.

    MIddlebrooks’ order is the latest in a series of embarrassing legal setbacks for Trump, which have included the criminal conviction last month in New York state court of his Manhattan-based real estate company, The Trump Organization, for a years-long tax avoidance scheme.

    Trump and his company also face a major civil lawsuit by New York’s attorney general for an alleged scheme to misstate the valuation of real estate assets for financial gain, and Trump also is being sued by the writer E. Jean Carroll, who accuses him of raping her in the mid-1990s in New York.

    A state grand jury in Georgia recently completed gathering evidence and hearing testimony as part of an ongoing criminal probe into whether Trump illegally tried to overturn the results of the state’s 2020 election, which he lost.

    And federal prosecutors are investigating Trump for his bid to reverse his loss in the national election to President Joe Biden, and his taking government documents to his Florida residence when he left office.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in ‘Rust’ movie set shooting

    Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in ‘Rust’ movie set shooting

    [ad_1]

    Alec Baldwin will be criminally charged by New Mexico prosecutors for the 2021 fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film “Rust,” authorities said Thursday.

    Baldwin, the Emmy-winning star of “30 Rock” and dozens of films including “The Hunt for Red October,” shot the bullet that killed Hutchins. Baldwin said he “didn’t pull the trigger” in an ABC interview. An FBI forensic report obtained by ABC News uncovered that despite Baldwin’s denial, the gun could not have gone off without the trigger being pulled.

    Baldwin and the movie’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, each will be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. One of the involuntary manslaughter counts is one in which prosecutors will have to prove there is underlying negligence, prosecutors said. This is a fourth-degree felony that carries a sentence of up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine.

    The second involuntary manslaughter charge is one for the commission of a lawful act, a more severe charge which requires proof that there was more than simple negligence involved in a death, prosecutors said. This charge includes a firearm enhancement, which adds a mandatory penalty of five years in jail.

    Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed will be charged under a standard called “charged in the alternative.” If the case ends up going to trial, a jury will determine which of the two charges they’re guilty of.

    “Rust” assistant director David Halls signed a plea deal for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, resulting in a suspended sentence and six months of probation.

    “If any one of these three people — Alec Baldwin, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed or David Halls — had done their job, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today. It’s that simple,” Andrea Reeb, the special prosecutor on the case, said in a statement Thursday. “The evidence clearly shows a pattern of criminal disregard for safety on the ‘Rust’ film set.”

    The prosecutors’ decision is “a terrible miscarriage of justice,” said Luke Nikas, Baldwin’s attorney. “Mr. Baldwin had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun – or anywhere on the movie set. He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds. We will fight these charges, and we will win.”

    Gutierrez-Reed’s attorneys called it a “very flawed investigation” in a statement Thursday.

    “Hannah is, and has always been, very emotional and sad about this tragic accident. But she did not commit involuntary manslaughter,” they said.

    Through lawyers, relatives of Hutchins thanked authorities for pursuing the charges.

    “It is a comfort to the family that, in New Mexico, no one is above the law,” attorney Brian Panish said. “We support the charges, will fully cooperate with this prosecution, and fervently hope the justice system works to protect the public and hold accountable those who break the law.”

    According to documents obtained by the New York Post in September, the office of Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies had been waiting to review evidence from an FBI investigation since October 2021 after the accidental shooting took place. Once the office received the evidence, the DA announced that she intended to pursue charges and filed for $635,500 in emergency funding to hire a specialized team, including a new prosecutor, investigator, and spokesperson, to handle the case. The DA received about half of the requested funds.

    Hutchins was shot and killed on Oct. 21, 2021, during a scene where Baldwin used a gun that was filled with live bullet rounds instead of dummies, which is against Hollywood film standards. Joel Souza, the movie’s director, was injured by the bullet but later recovered.

    Hall, the movie’s assistant director, admitted less than a week after the shooting that he had not properly checked the gun for safety before handing it to the film’s armorer, Gutierrez-Reed, who would pass it along to Baldwin for the scene.

    Hutchins’ death amplified a wave of rallying cries for safer filming protocols on movie sets. Her family ultimately sued Baldwin and the film producers in February 2022 for wrongful death. The lawsuit was settled in October and the movie resumed filming with Matt Hutchins, the widower of Halyna, serving as an executive producer.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ohio House ex-speaker’s trial in $60M bribery probe to begin

    Ohio House ex-speaker’s trial in $60M bribery probe to begin

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder goes on trial next week in the highest-profile reckoning yet to arise from a $60 million federal bribery investigation that federal prosecutors call the largest corruption case in state history.

    The 2 1/2 years since the Republican’s arrest have seen the toppling of a Fortune 500 energy company’s CEO and other executives, the resignation of Ohio’s top utility regulator amid FBI scrutiny, and Householder’s ouster as speaker and his subsequent expulsion as state representative — the first in Ohio in 150 years.

    Emerging details have brought the case ever closer to the office of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine — though without implicating him personally or hurting Ohio Republicans’ electability — and made clear the case’s potential for clarifying federal law on operating a 501(c)4 “dark money” group.

    When it comes to a dark money group, “the two things it’s not supposed to be: Its primary activity’s not supposed to be political, and it’s not supposed to be used to the benefit of a particular individual,” former U.S. Attorney David DeVillers, who initially brought the case, said at a forum Wednesday.

    An indictment alleged Householder, former Ohio Republican Party chair Matt Borges, three other people and a dark money group called Generation Now orchestrated an elaborate scheme, secretly funded by FirstEnergy, to secure Householder’s power, elect his allies, pass legislation containing a $1 billion bailout for two aging nuclear power plants, and then vex a ballot effort to overturn the bill with a dirty tricks campaign.

    Under a deal to avoid prosecution, Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. admitted to using dark money groups to fund the scheme and bribing the utility regulator. It has also fired half a dozen executives and regrouped. Surcharges slated to be tacked onto electricity bills statewide to pay for the bailout were eliminated in a partial repeal of the legislation in 2021 and never charged.

    Two Householder associates and a related nonprofit pleaded guilty to their roles and await sentencing. A third defendant who pleaded not guilty died by suicide.

    A jury to be selected Friday in Cincinnati now must decide whether Householder, 63, and Borges, 50, are guilty of conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise involving bribery and money laundering. They pleaded not guilty and maintain their innocence.

    Each faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. The trial could last six weeks.

    Householder and Borges were arrested along with the other defendants in July 2020.

    During his defiant but unsuccessful campaign to retain his House seat while the case plays out against him, Householder said: “I have not nor have I ever taken a bribe or solicited or been solicited for taking a bribe.” His effort to have the conspiracy charge against him dropped ahead of trial failed, as did efforts to disallow evidence related to the bribe of former Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Chair Sam Randazzo.

    Randazzo isn’t charged and denies wrongdoing. None of the fired FirstEnergy executives, including former CEO Chuck Jones, have been charged, either, despite revelations in court filings appearing to show some seeking and receiving favors.

    Householder and other suspects in the criminal probe simultaneously face a massive list of alleged state-level campaign finance violations, referred to the Ohio Elections Commission by the Republican secretary of state. Those claims are on hold until the criminal case is decided, as are the state’s racketeering lawsuit against FirstEnergy, Householder and others, and four related regulatory inquiries against FirstEnergy at the utilities commission.

    The criminal prosecution began under a U.S. attorney appointed by former President Donald Trump, a Republican, and is proceeding under a successor appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden.

    Borges, a never-Trumper ousted as GOP leader before working to elect Biden in 2020, has painted the government’s prosecution of him as a political attack by a Trump appointee. Borges even launched a website to take up his own defense. Borges also used his state proceeding for campaign finance violations to rail against the government’s claims, arguing that the money he received and spent was all handled legally.

    Campaign finance experts view the case as an opportunity for the federal government to clarify just that: where the line sits between legal and illegal handling of the untraceable “dark” money that has flooded politics in recent years. The nonpartisan research group OpenSecrets estimates that dark money groups have spent $1 billion to influence U.S. elections since the landmark Citizens United v. FEC decision unfettered corporations and unions in 2010 to give unlimited amounts.

    Householder’s attorneys have sought to argue that the scheme described by prosecutors was nothing more than business as usual, a way to advance his leadership aspirations that was not unlike those employed by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican.

    Prosecutors plan to use recorded phone calls, text messages, emails, witness testimony and documentary evidence to prove that Householder entered into what one co-conspirator described as an “unholy alliance” with FirstEnergy that amounted to an illegal racketeering scheme.

    The legislation at the heart of the scandal — the Ohio Clean Air Program bill — included a $1 billion bailout for two nuclear power plants operated at the time by a wholly owned FirstEnergy subsidiary. The criminal complaint said the conspiracy to pass the bill had partial roots on a flight FirstEnergy provided to Householder and his son to Trump’s 2017 inauguration.

    Soon after the trip, $1 million from FirstEnergy began flowing to Generation Now, controlled by Householder, in $250,000 increments. That cash and more were used to elect a slate of Householder-backed candidates in 2018 and win him the speakership for the second time in his career, prosecutors say. Next, the Householder-controlled House passed the energy bill in July 2019. DeWine signed the legislation within hours.

    FirstEnergy subsequently spent around $38 million for a nasty campaign to prevent the new law’s opponents from putting a repeal referendum on the ballot. That included intimidation and payoffs of signature gatherers, among other things, prosecutors say.

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently announced that FirstEnergy agreed to pay a $3.9 million fine for failing to report nearly $94 million in lobbying on the bill to government auditors in 2019 and 2020. The company also told investors it was under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, something the commission would neither confirm nor deny.

    The governor himself has not been implicated, but court filings and news reporting on the case have revealed several members of his administration played roles in allowing it to happen.

    Before becoming DeWine’s legislative director, lobbyist Dan McCarthy — who has since changed jobs — helped set up one of the involved dark money groups. Lt. Gov. Jon Husted helped recruit Randazzo as head utility regulator. And then-Chief of Staff Laurel Dawson ignored warnings from environmentalists and fellow Republicans that Randazzo’s ties to FirstEnergy might present problems.

    DeWine has said tapping Randazzo was his decision alone and defended the move. His spokesperson, Dan Tierney, said this month that, to his knowledge, “none of these individuals have been subpoenaed to date as they have never been interviewed for this criminal case and the criminal case does not involve our office.”

    Politically, the scandal appears to have done no damage to the Republican brand in Ohio.

    A year out from Householder’s arrest, Ohio Democrats hoped the scandal might taint Republican candidates in 2022 midterm elections, but that didn’t happen. DeWine led the GOP’s entire statewide ticket to reelection, and Republicans picked up even stronger supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature.

    Democratic strategist Dale Butland said the outcome shows further erosion of Ohio’s former status as a political bellwether.

    “Back in the day, when we were a competitive state, some indictment like this — with the lobbyists and the former chairman of the Ohio Republican Party — this would have been an earthquake,” he said. “Now, it’s barely a ripple.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Failed state GOP candidate visited 3 Democratic officials’ homes before allegedly targeting them in shootings, police say | CNN

    Failed state GOP candidate visited 3 Democratic officials’ homes before allegedly targeting them in shootings, police say | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A Republican former candidate for New Mexico’s legislature arrested on suspicion of orchestrating four recent shootings at Democratic leaders’ homes had visited at least three of those officials’ homes to discuss election results, Albuquerque Police said.

    Solomon Peña, who lost a 2022 run for state House District 14, is accused of paying and conspiring with four men to shoot at the homes of two state legislators and two county commissioners.

    According to police:

    Bernalillo County Commissioner Adriann Barboa’s home was shot at multiple times on December 4.

    Incoming state House Speaker Javier Martinez’s home was shot at on December 8.

    Former Bernalillo County Commissioner Debbie O’Malley’s home was shot at on December 11.

    State Sen. Linda Lopez’s home was shot at on January 3.

    Peña went to another commissioner’s home to discuss the election, but that commissioner “never reported any shots fired,” Albuquerque police said.

    No one was injured in any of the shootings. Peña is also accused of trying to participate in at least one of the shootings himself, Albuquerque police said. He was arrested by a police SWAT team Monday.

    The investigation found “these shootings were indeed politically motivated,” Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller said. He called Peña “an election denier.”

    After losing the election, Peña approached a state senator and two county commissioners at their homes with paperwork claiming there was fraud involved in the elections, Albuquerque police said.

    Peña was arrested on preliminary charges of felon in possession of a firearm; attempted aggravated battery with a deadly weapon; criminal solicitation; and four counts each of shooting at an occupied dwelling, shooting at or from a motor vehicle, and conspiracy, according to a warrant.

    CNN has reached out to Peña’s campaign website for comment and has been unable to identify his attorney.

    False and unfounded claims about election fraud have exploded nationwide in recent years and fueled anger and threats of violence against elected officials – even in local politics.

    Barboa, the county commissioner whose home was shot at multiple times on December 4, told CNN about an “erratic” encounter with Peña before the shooting.

    “He came to my house after the election and he’s an election denier. He weaponized those dangerous thoughts to threaten me and others, causing serious trauma,” Barboa told “CNN This Morning” on Tuesday.

    “He was saying that the elections were fake … I didn’t feel threatened at the time, but I did feel like he was erratic.”

    Similarly, O’Malley – the former Bernalillo county commissioner – told police Peña was at her home just days before the December 11 shooting there, according to an arrest warrant affidavit obtained from Albuquerque police.

    “Debbie recalled that he was upset that he had not won the election for public office, even though Debbie O’Malley was not a contender,” the affidavit says.

    Ring doorbell camera footage recorded at O’Malley’s previous residence and obtained by CNN shows Peña approaching the door and knocking, holding documents in his hands.

    The current resident speaks to him through the camera’s speaker feature, telling him O’Malley no longer lives at that residence and directing him to her new home.

    While no one was injured in any of the shootings, Peña “intended to (cause) serious injury or cause death to occupants inside their homes,” an arrest warrant affidavit reads.

    “There is probable cause to believe that soon after his unsuccessful (political) campaign, he conspired … to commit these four shootings” at the officials’ homes, the affidavit states.

    Firearm evidence, surveillance footage, witness accounts plus cell phone and electronic records helped officials connect five people to the alleged conspiracy, Albuquerque police Deputy Cmdr. Kyle Hartsock said Monday.

    Peña was first connected to the January 3 shooting at Lopez’s home.

    That day, Lopez “heard loud bangs but dismissed them as fireworks at the time,” she told police.

    But her 10-year-old daughter woke up thinking a spider was crawling on her face and that there was sand in her bed. It turned out to be sheetrock dust that was blown onto the child’s face from a bullet passing through her bedroom, the affidavit says.

    Police later found “12 impacts” at the state senator’s home and shell casings nearby, according to the affidavit.

    About 40 minutes after the shooting, a deputy spotted a silver Nissan Maxima with “an improperly displayed license plate sticker” about four miles from Lopez’s home and made a traffic stop, the affidavit states.

    The Nissan was registered to Peña – but it was driven by another man at the time who had a felony warrant out for his arrest, the affidavit states.

    In the trunk, the deputy found a Glock handgun with a drum magazine and an AR pistol, police said. The handgun matched the shell casings from the lawmaker’s home, police said in a news release.

    Investigators then connected Peña to the shootings at the other officials’ homes. On Monday, detectives served search warrants at Peña’s apartment and the home of two men allegedly paid by Peña, police said.

    Albuquerque police released a photo of a

    “After the election in November, Solomon Peña reached out and contracted someone for an amount of cash money to commit at least two of these shootings. The addresses of the shootings were communicated over phone,” Hartsock said Monday, citing the investigation.

    “Within hours, in one case, the shooting took place at the lawmaker’s home.”

    One of the conspirators initially told shooters “to aim above the windows to avoid striking anyone inside,” the affidavit reads, citing a confidential witness with knowledge of the alleged conspiracy.

    But Peña eventually wanted the shooters to be “more aggressive” and “aim lower and shoot around 8 p.m. because occupants would more likely not be laying down,” the affidavit says, citing the confidential witness.

    In the latest shooting, police found evidence “Peña himself went … and actually pulled the trigger on at least one of the firearms that was used,” Hartsock said. But an AR handgun he tried to use malfunctioned, and more than a dozen rounds were fired by another shooter, a police news release said.

    Authorities are still investigating whether those suspected of carrying out the shootings were “even aware of who these targets were or if they were just conducting shootings,” Hartsock said.

    Peña, who lost the election to Democratic state Rep. Miguel Garcia 26% to 74% – had publicly alleged that the race was rigged, his Twitter account shows.

    “Trump just announced for 2024. I stand with him. I never conceded my HD 14 race. Now researching my options,” Peña tweeted November 15 after losing his race.

    On January 2, in response to someone who asked him if his election was rigged, Peña tweeted: “Si, mine was also rigged. And I will fight it until the day I die.”

    The most recent time Peña tweeted that he did not lose the election was on January 9, when he posted “When we finally defeat the rigged NM elections, oh, the hero I will be! MAGA nation 4ever!”

    Keller, the Democratic mayor of Albuquerque, called Peña a “right-wing radical” and a “dangerous criminal.”

    “This type of radicalism is a threat to our nation and has made its way to our doorstep right here in Albuquerque, New Mexico, but we will continue will push back against hate,” Keller said in a statement.

    “Differences of opinion are fundamental to democracy, but disagreements should never lead to violence.”

    In addition to making unsupported claims about election results, Peña replied to several Twitter users who mentioned his criminal history and time spent in prison.

    During the fall campaign, Peña’s opponent, Garcia, sued to have Peña removed from the ballot, arguing Peña’s status as an ex-felon should prevent him from being able to run for public office in the state, CNN affiliate KOAT reported.

    Peña served almost years in prison after a 2008 conviction for stealing a large volume of goods in a “smash and grab scheme,” the KOAT report said.

    A district court judge ruled Peña was allowed to run in the election, KOAT reported.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Gulf tensions drove Qatar to seek friends in Brussels

    How Gulf tensions drove Qatar to seek friends in Brussels

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    They’re dazzlingly rich, and they expect to be in charge for a long, long time.

    The monarchs leading Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia might seem from the outside like a trio of like-minded Persian Gulf autocrats. Yet their regional rivalry is intense, and Western capitals have become a key venue in a reputational battle royale.

    “All of these governments … really want to have the largest mindspace among Western governments,” said Jon B. Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    As the Gulf states seek to wean themselves off the oil that made them rich, they know they’ll need friends to help transform their economies (and modernize their societies).

    “They think it’s important not to be tarred as mere hydrocarbon producers who are ruining the planet,” Alterman added.

    With an erstwhile vice president of the European Parliament in jail and Belgian prosecutors asking to revoke immunity from more MEPs, allegations of cash kickbacks and undue influence by Qatari interests look likely to ensnare more Brussels power players.

    The Qatari government categorically denies any unlawful behavior, saying it “works through institution-to-institution engagement and operates in full compliance with international laws and regulations.”

    Against the background of regional rivalries, that engagement has become increasingly robust. While tensions with Riyadh have eased over the past few years, Qatar’s mutual antagonism with the United Arab Emirates has been particularly severe.

    Qatar’s survival strategy

    Regional rivalries burst beyond the Middle East in 2017 in a standoff that would reshape regional dynamics.

    Until then, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had been essentially frenemies. As members of the Gulf Coordination Council, they’d been working toward building a common market and currency in the region — not so different from the European Union.

    But different responses to the Arab Spring frayed relations to a breaking point.

    The Qatar-based Al Jazeera news network gave a platform to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist party that rode a wave of unrest into power in Egypt and challenged governments throughout the Arab world. And Doha didn’t just offer a bullhorn — it gave the Muslim Brotherhood direct financial backing.

    Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, meanwhile, considered the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist group.

    Along with Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the UAE severed diplomatic ties with Doha in June 2017, barring Qatar’s access to airspace and sea routes; Saudi Arabia closed its border, blocking Qatar’s only land crossing.

    Among the demands: close Al Jazeera, end military coordination with Turkey and step away from Iran. Qatar refused — even though it was crunch time for building infrastructure ahead of the 2022 World Cup and 40 percent of Qatar’s food supplies came through Saudi Arabia.

    Fighting what it called an illegal “blockade” became an existential mission for Doha.

    “The only thing Qatar could do was make sure everyone knew Qatar exists and is a nice place,” said MEP Hannah Neumann, chair of the Parliament’s delegation for relations with the Arab Peninsula (DARP).

    “They really stepped up the diplomatic efforts all around the world to also show, ‘We are the good ones,’” said Neumann, of the German Greens.

    Qatar needed Brussels because it had already lost an even bigger ally: Washington. Not only did then-President Donald Trump take the side of Qatar’s rivals in the fight; he also appeared to take credit for the idea of isolating Qatar — even though the U.S.’s largest military base in the region is just southwest of Doha.

    Elsewhere, Qatar had already been working with the London-headquartered consultancy Portland Communications since at least 2014 — as its World Cup hosting coup was becoming a PR nightmare, with stories emerging over bribed FIFA officials and exploited migrant workers.

    Exploding onto the EU scene

    In Brussels, Doha leaned on the head of its EU Mission, Abdulrahman Mohammed Al-Khulaifi, who had moved to Belgium in 2017 from Germany, to step up European relations.

    Within days of the fissure, Al-Khulaifi appeared in meetings at NATO, and within months opened a think tank called the Middle East Dialogue Center to hone Doha’s image as an open promoter of debate (in contrast, it contended, to its neighbors) and pressure the EU to intervene in the Mideast.

    By the next year, he was speaking on panels about combating violent extremism — alongside Dutch and Belgian federal police. By late 2019, Al-Khulaifi hosted the first meeting of embassy’s Qatar-EU friendship group with a “working dinner.”

    “The situation following the blockade has pushed Qatar to establish closer relations outside the context of the regional crisis with, for example, the European Union,” Pier Antonio Panzeri, then chair of the Parliament’s human rights subcommittee, told Euractiv in 2018.

    The following year, Panzeri would attend the Qatari-hosted “International Conference on National, Regional and International Mechanisms to Combat Impunity and Ensure Accountability under International Law,” and heap praise on the country’s human rights record.

    Panzeri is now in a Belgian prison, facing corruption charges; his NGO, Fight Impunity, is under intense scrutiny for being a possible front.

    Neumann said that Qatar’s survival strategy has paid off. “Absolutely, it worked,” she said. “I think it’s fair enough, if they didn’t do it with illegal means.”

    Directly or indirectly, Qatar clocked several big victories during this period, including multiple resolutions in Parliament on human rights in Saudi Arabia and a call to end arms exports to Riyadh in the wake of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Doha also inked a cooperation arrangement with the EU in March 2018, setting the stage for closer ties.

    Frenemies once again

    Since Saudi Arabia and Qatar signed a deal to end the crisis two years ago, Riyadh-Doha relations have generally thawed. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, 37, traveled to Qatar in November for the World Cup and embraced Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, 42, while wearing a scarf in the host’s colors.

    However, relations between Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — led by Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, 61 — remain chilly.  

    As the Gulf transforms, the United Arab Emirates “has come to see that role as being a status quo power,” said Alterman. On the part of its neighbor, “Qatar has come to see that role as aligning with forces of change in the region, and that’s created a certain amount of mutual resentment.”

    Qatar’s smaller scale contributes to Doha’s sense of internal security, fueling its openness to engaging with groups that others see as an existential threat.

    Qataris see themselves as “champions of the Davids against the Goliath,” said Andreas Krieg, an assistant professor at King’s College London who has worked in the past as a consultant for the Qatari armed forces. Civil society organizations founded by “a range of different opposition figures, Saudi opposition figures in the West, have been supported financially by Qatar as well,” Krieg added. (Khashoggi, one of the era’s most prominent Saudi opposition figures, had connections to the state-backed Qatar Foundation.) “Hence why Qatar was always seen as sort of a thorn in the side of its neighbors.”

    And while the €1.5 million cash haul confiscated by Belgian federal police looks like an eye-popping sum, it certainly pales in comparison to the amount the Gulf states spend on legal lobbying in Brussels. And that sum, in turn, pales in comparison to what those countries spend in Washington.

    “Brussels isn’t that important,” Krieg said. “If you look at the money that these Gulf countries spend in Washington, these are tens of millions of dollars every year on think tanks, academics … creating their own media outlets, investing strategically into Fox News, investing into massive PR operations.”

    Nonetheless, the EU remains a key target. Abu Dhabi is strengthening its “long-standing partnership” with Brussels on economic and regional security matters “through deep, strategic cooperation with EU institutions and Member States,” said a UAE official, in a statement. 

    “Brussels was always a hub to create a narrative,” said Krieg.

    And right now, each of the region’s power players is deeply motivated to change that narrative.

    Alterman invoked a broad impression of the Gulf countries as “people who have more money than God who want to take the world back to the 7th Century.”

    But that’s wrong, he said. “This is all about shaping the future with remarkably high stakes, profound discomfort about how the world will relate to them over the next 30 to 50 years — and frankly, a series of rulers who see themselves being in power for the next 30 to 50 years.”

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Wheaton

    Source link