Tuesday, May 8, 2018

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed joins Representative Adam Schiff and other left-wing Democrats in opposing Gina Haspel’s CIA nomination…The man who masterminded the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is backing the Senate intelligence panel’s Democrats to oppose the confirmation  of the longtime CIA agent to lead the CIA

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is backing the Senate intelligence panel’s Democrats prior to Wednesday’s hearing on whether to confirm the longtime CIA agent to lead the organization.

According to the New York Times and other news outlets, Mohammed asked a military judge at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba to share six paragraphs he had written about Ms. Haspel with the Senate panel.

Ms. Haspel oversaw a black-site prison in Thailand where two al-Qaeda terrorists, one of them under her watch, were waterboarded and subjected to other harsh interrogation techniques that opponents call torture.

It is not known whether Ms. Haspel played any personal role in Mohammed’s interrogation. After his 2003 capture in Pakistan, he was held and interrogated at secret CIA facilities in Afghanistan and Poland.

Marine Lt. Col. Derek A. Poteet, Mohammed’s lawyer in his military tribunal, described his client’s request to the Times.

He said he had submitted the request to Army Col. James Pohl, who is overseeing pre-trial procedures in the tribunal, which could condemn Mohammed to death. It was not immediately clear whether Col. Pohl would approve the request.

According to Col. Poteet, Muhammad submitted an article titled “Additional Facts, Law and Argument in Support,” containing “six specific paragraphs of information” from the Al-Qaeda leader who plotted the deaths of 3,000 Americans in the 2001 attacks.


“I am not able to describe the information,” Col. Poteet said, telling the Times that the information was from Mohammed himself, not from the government papers about the treatment of terrorism suspects.

Saturday, May 5, 2018

Iranian generated false news which is then published in the Guardian and in the New York Times and then reported as a news story in Google news, etc.

The article below is an example of Iranian generated false news which is then published in the Guardian and  in the New York Times and then reported as a news story in Google news, etc.


 The documentation concerning the Obama generated echo chamber [How it operated… Clandestine money went directly to Plowshares and other supposedly independent research groups, etc.] came directly from the mouth of Ben Rhodes Junior and was published in the New York Times..


Trump hired agency to discredit Obama

Iran deal negotiators


TEHRAN, May. 05 (MNA) – It has been learned that Trump aides hired an Israeli Zionist private spy agency in an attempt to flesh out any potential incriminating information on officials from the Obama administration who assisted with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiations.

Aides to US President Donald Trump hired an Israeli Zionist private intelligence agency to find incriminating 
information on Obama administration employees who participated in Iran deal negotiations, The Guardian has reported.
The outlet reported that Trump’s team hired an Israeli spy agency the previous year in May to find derogatory information about former US President Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes and former Vice-President Joe Biden’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Colin Kahl in an attempt to compromise the Iran nuclear accord.
The idea behind the move was to discredit those pivotal in selling the agreement, which — if any dirt had been located — would make it easier to pull out, The Guardian reported, citing a source familiar with details of the investigation.
The private investigators were tasked with looking into Rhodes and Kahl’s political careers and personal lives, checking to see if they might have benefited from the Nuclear Deal, according to documents the outlet claims to have seen.
There is no information on how deep the hired spies were able to dig, or what became of any possible information unearthed, according to the outlet’s sources.
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) commonly known as Iran Nuclear Deal, which stipulated a gradual lifting of sanctions against Iran in exchange for Tehran curbing its nuclear program, was reached by the so-called P5+1 group — Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, Germany — and the European Union on July 14.
The International Atomic Energy Association has verified that Iran is upholding its commitments under the accord. However, Trump has repeatedly criticized the deal during his 2016 election campaign, saying the European Union needed to fix major flaws in it. He now faces the May 12 deadline to waive sanctions on Iran under the agreement.

40 QUESTIONS SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER NEEDS TO ANSWER NOW

by Rep. Louie Gohmert  Updated 04 May 2018 

A Republican lawmaker contends the prosecutor has a lot to explain about his present job and prior posts as well



A firestorm was ignited earlier this week when The New York Times published a list of 40 questions that special counsel Robert Mueller allegedly wants President Donald J. Trump to answer under oath.

It is a revealing list of questions, proving that after a year of strong-arming Trump family and friends, bankrupting Trump campaign volunteers and former staff, and leaking like a sieve, Mueller has found no evidence of any crime by the president whatsoever.

But since Mueller has wasted millions of tax dollars and endless hours of Trump’s time, it’s time for the special counsel to answer some questions. Let’s start with a few on the present runaway railroading of the president, then a look back to prior instances of the same sordid behavior by Mueller.

Regarding Your Trump “Investigation”


1.) Why did you hire only lawyers with backgrounds as Democratic Party donors for your investigative team? Were there no Establishment Republicans willing to help railroad President Trump?

2.) Peter Strzok was removed from your team after more than 10,000 texts between him and fellow team member Lisa Page were found to contain vitriolic anti-Trump tirades. These texts were not simply anti-Trump. They were more in the nature of desperate attempts to stop him from becoming president and talk of a nefarious insurance policy to orchestrate his removal if he were elected. Did they ever speak this way about Donald Trump in your presence? Why were you so determined to have people with outright hatred of Donald Trump on your special counsel team?

3.) Andrew Weissman has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election-night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. Not to mention his vast history of prosecutorial abuses.

Both of you were involved in the investigation into Russia’s illegal efforts to obtain U.S. uranium. Did either of you alert the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to the crimes being committed? The plea deals? Did either of you profit in any way from the $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation or from those who benefited from the sale of U.S. uranium that would ultimately end up in the hands of Russian owners? Do you consider this to be a potential conflict of interestto the current investigation?

4.) What efforts have you undertaken to identify the leakers in your team who’ve revealed investigative details to the media? Were the leaks done with your permission or encouragement? When do you believe the statutes of limitations would run on possible prosecutions of you or your team for any such criminal leaks?

5.) Have you threatened White House officials with investigative actions or public statements regarding opposition by the White House to your partisan personnel decisions? Have you asked staff of the deputy attorney general’s office to issue these threats on your behalf?

6.) Were you aware that Judge Rudolph Contreras, who accepted former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea, also served on the FISA court and had a personal relationship with team member Strzok? Did you know that Strzok interviewed Flynn? Was Contreras angry about being recused for all his conflicts of interest?

Gohmert on His 48-Page Report “Mueller Unmasked”

7.) Do you believe it was proper for the case against Flynn to be brought before FISA Judge Contreras, even though he was such a close personal friend of Strzok?Did Contreras also hear the Steele dossier evidence in his FISA court? Who actually recused Contreras?

8.) Are you investigating the unmasking of American citizens in these matters? For example, Flynn’s name was somehow unmasked in the NSA surveillance, which apparently allowed the Obama administration to peruse his meetings and conversations. Are you investigating this unmasking of American citizens?

9.) Was Flynn made aware of the exculpatory evidence, before he entered his guilty plea, that the interviewing FBI agents did not believe he intentionally lied to them? Was the judge who took the plea aware of the agents’ belief that Flynn did not have intent to deceive?

10.) Where are the FBI’s notes from the Flynn interview? If they were provided to Flynn, when?

11.) Did you or anyone else on your team get the required signoff from then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster, as required on any retasking of NSA surveillance, in April of 2017 when the direct FISA surveillance of Carter Page and indirect surveillance of Trump was again extended, this time with approval by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein?

Now on to Mueller’s multiple past prosecutorial abuses.

On Mobster Whitey Bulger
As head of the criminal division while assistant U.S. attorney, then as acting U.S. attorney in Boston, Mueller oversaw a cluster of prosecutions tied to protected FBI informant and mob kingpin Whitey Bulger.

Mueller’s stewardship of these prosecutions led to wrongful murder convictions, cover-ups and a $100 million settlement to the victims or their families, as two of these men died in prison. The Boston Globe only had one “lingering question” — I have a few more.

12.) Why did the U.S. Attorney’s office, under your direction, let the FBI protect known mobster Whitey Bulger?

13.) Why did you work so hard to prevent the parole of the four men who were exonerated for the murder of Teddy Deegan?

14.) Did you purposefully allow these innocent men to remain in prison for murder to protect FBI informant Vincent “Jimmy” Flemmi?

15.) Whom do you think should be held responsible for the $100 million paid to compensate the four defendants wrongly framed by FBI agents on your watch?

16.) Did you leak or authorize the leaks of any information to anyone associated with organized crime during the Whitey Bulger investigation? There was a pattern of leaks to organized crime figures to disparage your targets in the Whitey Bulger investigations.

Rep. Curt Weldon Defeated by Mueller’s FBI
In the wake of 9/11 while Mueller was FBI director, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) tried to hold those accountable in the FBI and CIA that he believed mishandled actionable intelligence from a top-secret program organized at the request of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff using intelligence assets to focus on al-Qaida. This secret program was called Able Danger.

17.) Though you were not yet director of the FBI, do you know why the FBI would not accept the intelligence information from the U.S. military regarding 9/11 attacker Mohammed Atta? In January and February 2000, one year before 9/11, members of the program Able Danger identified the Brooklyn al-Qaida cell and Mohammed Atta. In September 2000, Able Danger attempted to provide information to the FBI on three separate occasions, but administration lawyers denied the transfer of information.

18.) If the FBI had received that information from the Able Danger team, what actions could have been taken to prevent 9/11?

19.) Did you leak information to the press or authorize the leak about nonexistent allegations against Weldon? Did you leak to the media or authorize a leak about the raid of the Weldon family property? Whose idea was it to do the search two weeks before Weldon’s re-election? Could the FBI’s raid have achieved its purposes if it had been done two weeks after Weldon’s re-election? Did you investigate how the media knew of the raid and its location?

20.) Was a grand jury convened to hear evidence in the alleged investigation of Weldon and his daughter?

21.) What was the outcome of that investigation, if there was one? What follow-up has occurred to attempt to remedy the loss that the FBI participated in causing?

Mueller’s Illegal Raid on Congressional Offices
Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) was secretly videotaped taking bribes in an undercover sting and, subsequently, Mueller’s FBI found $90,000 in cold, hard cash in his freezer during a raid at his home.

The Constitution frames our government with three coequal branches, but Mueller doesn’t seem to care too much about constitutional restraints. Mueller’s FBI agents raided the offices of a sitting member of Congress — for the first time in our nation’s history  — without attorneys in the House of Representatives first reviewing the material seized to ensure nothing privileged was obtained by the FBI.

The Supreme Court sided with the legislative branch against the executive branch to throw out Mueller’s illegal raid of Jefferson’s federal office. There are set processes by which these coequal branches cooperate for warrants. Which leaves this lingering question:

22.) As FBI director, why did you authorize the raid of Jefferson’s office without first consulting with House of Representatives attorneys? Did you intend the raid to put fear into members of Congress that you could raid them whenever you wanted? In the wake of that raid did you state that you might decide to assign 400 agents to investigate all of the members of Congress, or words to that effect? Was it your intent to intimidate members of Congress and dissuade them from asking further questions or making demands upon your office?

National Security Letter Abuses
National Security Letters (NSL) are a tool that allows the Department of Justice (DOJ) to bypass the formality of subpoenas, warrants, and instead simply send a letter to an individual, business or any entity they so choose to demand documents.

The letter also informs the recipient that it is a federal felony to reveal to anyone that the letter was received or what it requires to be produced, and if he or she has done so, prosecution will follow. Under Muller’s tenure as FBI director, there was incredibly widespread abuse of the NSLs.

23.) Are you responsible for the FBI’s misusing the Patriot Act, NSLs and other methods to obtain information on American citizens without probable cause?

24.) Other than the attorney general, did anyone lose his or her job as a result of the widespread abuse of NSLs and the Patriot Act?

25.) When you said at the time that you were accountable for that massive assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens, how exactly were you held accountable? Did you write or find some way to apologize to or compensate the thousands of Americans whose records were improperly seized?

Mueller’s Witch Hunt Against Sen. Ted Stevens
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was falsely charged and prosecuted in 2008 just 100 days before his re-election bid for what the FBI alleged was not paying full price for improvements to a cabin he owned in Alaska. In the midst of the prosecution, Stevens lost his re-election bid and, two years later, lost his life.

Large-scale misconduct was revealed through a whistleblower in an audit of the case, in which FBI agents and prosecutors, among many other things, withheld exculpatory evidence.

26.) Were you aware of any exculpatory evidence, or attempts to conceal evidence, that would have exonerated Stevens?

27.) Did you take any actions of any kind to prevent FBI agent Mary Beth Kepner from being fired? Did you take any actions to pursue disciplinary procedures against her for the wrongdoing in the Stevens case?

28.) Why was the whistleblower, FBI agent Chad Joy, permanently restricted from participating in any more criminal cases? Whose decision was that? Did you approve of it? Is it true that whistleblowers against the FBI while you were FBI director were routinely disciplined or dismissed, despite any wrongdoing they unearthed or caused to be corrected?

29.) Why was a critical witness in the case with exculpatory evidence sent back to Alaska by FBI agents before the information could be shared with Stevens’ defense attorneys? Did you ever consider advocating to have the case against Stevens dropped when you learned of all the improprieties, instead of waiting for a new attorney general to take over and drop the charges the following year?

Ruin of Dr. Steven Hatfill’s Reputation, Productive Life
And a few questions on the wrongful, malicious prosecution of Dr. Steven Hatfill, accused by Mueller of mailing anthrax letters in the wake of 9/11, a Mueller/Comeytwofer. They ruined Hatfill’s life and his relationship with friends, neighbors, and potential employers.

30.) Despite a 100 percent absence of any admissible evidence of Hatfill’s guilt, why did you work so hard to convince people he was the perpetrator? Did you find it helpful for your purposes to move public attention away from the radical Islamic jihadis who had attacked us on 9/11 and instead place the attention on a white male?

31.) Was any research done into the disposition of cases involving the dogs you had brought in from California to smell Dr. Hatfill? Did you know these same dogs were involved in many cases in which the defendants were later exonerated? Do you believe that every time a dog seems to appreciate having his ears rubbed, as these did when Dr. Hatfill petted them, it is an “alert” to evidence of a crime?

33.) Whom do you feel is most responsible for the settlement in excess of $6 million paid out to Dr. Hatfill for your FBI’s maliciously and wrongful persecution of an innocent man who never had any contact with anthrax?

The Framing of Scooter Libby
Another Mueller/Comey twofer came in 2003 — a fabricated and politically charged FBI investigation “searching” for the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity to the media.

34.) Did you encourage James Comey to ask then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to recuse himself from the Plame investigation? Did you bother to discern that Plame was not in a protected status at the time her identity was allegedly outed and before Scooter Libby, a former aide to Vice President Richard Cheney, was wrongfully convicted, as we now know?

35.) When did you learn that the source of Plame’s identity leak was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage? Wasn’t it before U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (godfather to one of Comey’s children) was sworn in as special counsel? Why, as FBI director, did you not stop the witch hunt, since you knew that there was no crime committed — and if there was one, Armitage committed it? Did it cross your mind that not only would you avoid an innocent man’s being convicted, but also save millions of dollars to stop the unnecessary special counsel prosecution? How much did Fitzgerald’s investigation cost American taxpayers?

36.) Was Scooter Libby at all involved in the leak of Plame’s identity to reporters?

Mueller’s Unethical Acceptance of Special Prosecutor Appointment
Federal law at 28 CFR 600.7 prohibits anyone from serving as a special counsel if there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.

37.) How long have you been a mentor and friend to Comey? Did he mention to you that he was thinking about leaking information to try to get a special counsel appointed? Have you spoken to Comey since you have been special counsel? If so, was it recorded? Were there witnesses to your conversation? Did you write a 302 memo immediately after your conversation?

38.) Have you reviewed the standards for recusing oneself from prosecuting a case?  Are you aware that under 28 CFR 600.7, you are prohibited from serving as special counsel even if there is only the appearance of a conflict of interest?

39.) Do you have a conflict of interest in your relationship with Comey? Since Comey is necessarily a witness in any potential case against Trump regarding a potential obstruction of justice, can you admit that you are disqualified from investigating or prosecuting the case?

40.) Do you consider your role as special counsel to be the protector of those who want President Trump removed from office because you believe he never should have been elected? Do you realize that actions to remove a duly elected president for crimes he did not commit may reasonably fit the definition of sedition?

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former chief justice of the 12th Circuit Court of Appeals (Texas).


Friday, May 4, 2018

The Shame of The New York Times

Jerold S. Auerbach   5-3-18

 https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/05/03/the-shame-of-the-new-york-times/


Criticizing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s “vile words” in his address to the Palestinian National Council, The New York Times‘ editorial brigade seemed (finally) to have grasped Palestinian reality. Citing Abbas’ “reprehensible anti-Semitic myths and conspiracy theories,” it concluded what Israelis long ago learned: Abbas has “shed all credibility as a trustworthy partner” in peace negotiations.

For a newspaper long opposed to the very idea of a Jewish state, buried the Holocaust in its inside pages, and has incessantly blamed Israel for failed peace negotiations with Palestinians, it was a welcome change. It finally recognized that Abbas’s antisemitic “tendencies are not new,” even citing his doctoral dissertation that “seemed to question” (i.e. denied) the Nazi extermination of six million Jews.

That said, however, the editorial glided into conventional Times mode. First there was a reference to “Israel’s hard-line government,” which has “expanded settlement building” — a familiar Times lament. Then it cited “pressures” on Abbas, “some of his own making and many others caused by Israel,” that presumably make governing difficult for the Palestinian president, now in the 13th year of his four-year term. But at least it reached the appropriate conclusion: “It is time for him to leave office.”

If the (belated) Times editorial criticism of Abbas surely is deserved, its coverage of the Hamas-inspired weekly violence on Israel’s border with Gaza has been woefully myopic. It has converted violent Palestinian protesters trying to breach the border fence, directing the stench and smoke of burning tires into Israel, and flying kites with flaming torches across the border into victims of Israeli military aggression.


Relying primarily on Gaza-based reporters to provide details of the toll exacted by Israeli soldiers fighting the violence ignited by Hamas, the Times has completely ignored the consequences of Hamas aggression for residents of kibbutz Nahal Oz, 800 meters to the east. Their fields have been burned by kites bearing flaming torches (and swastikas) and their air polluted by the smoke. None of this has been considered news fit to print.

A frightening glimpse of the consequences of Hamas violence was provided by Avner Yona, a Nahal Oz farmer, writing in Israel Hayom. “We, the farmers in the Gaza periphery, are helpless,” he writes. “It pains my heart to see a field on fire after we worked day and night to sow it. … I see crops burning before they can be harvested, and my heart burns along with them.” He adds, “I can’t keep a tractor on standby every day and wait until we see kites in the air so we can start putting out the fires when they land. I’m not a firefighter. I’m a farmer.”

Yona describes his helplessness, saying, “It’s truly a terrible feeling. … My plot was burned up and the army is standing there, not doing anything. What can it do? By the time they called in a fire truck, the field burned.” He laments, “The fire spread to the jojoba we planted five years ago and have been waiting to bear fruit. Now a lot of my plants are gone and I don’t have the words to describe what I feel. Everything is burned.”

Nor, Yona writes, is Hamas-induced hardship new to Nahal Oz residents. “It’s always something else: tunnels, bombs, snipers, and now the terrorists are using kites. We have to tell the truth. The Palestinians don’t want us in this country [Israel] and don’t recognize our existence. They don’t care that they are sacrificing people.”

To date The New York Times has not devoted even miniscule coverage to the impact of Hamas cross-border aggression on Israeli civilians nearby. So it was four years ago, when four-year-old Daniel Tragerman, who knew to race to the protected room in his Nahal Oz home when he heard air raid sirens, failed to get there in time and was killed by a mortar shell fired by Hamas from Gaza. “His pure small life,” wrote David Horovitz in The Times of Israel, was “extinguished by pure evil.” The New York Times barely noticed.

“All the News That’s Fit to Print,” the Times motto ever since Adolph Ochs purchased the newspaper in 1896, once again seems to mean all the news that fits its criticism of Israel and indifference to the suffering of its people inflicted by those who seek to destroy it.

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of Print to Fit: The New York Times, Zionism and Israel 1896-2016, to be published this summer by Academic Studies Press.

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

The dirty secret of Syria: enabling the enablers
Who is doing business in Iran today?

By BOB FEFERMAN  Jerusalem Post   May 1, 2018 

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-dirty-secret-of-Syria-enabling-the-enablers-553256


The dirty secret of Syria: enabling the enablers
A POSTER of Iranian Quds Force leader Qassem Suleimani.. (photo credit: REUTERS)
In its coverage of the Syrian civil war, the media has ignored a key factor that fuels the ongoing tragedy. We know a lot about the war crimes committed by the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, and we also know that Iran and Russia are the key enablers of the Assad regime. However, few analysts have bothered to ask: who has been enabling the enablers? The answer contains the dirty secret of Syria.

In her speech to the UN Security Council following the latest chemical weapons attack by the Syrian regime, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said, “We must not overlook Russia and Iran’s roles in enabling the Assad regime’s murderous destruction...


after all, no civilized government would have anything to do with Assad’s murderous regime.”

Unfortunately, the world has failed to hold Iran accountable for its pivotal role in the Syrian tragedy even though the facts are well known.

Whereas Russia only entered the conflict in the past two years, since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, Iran has gone out of its way to prop up the brutal regime of Assad.

Experts estimate that since 2011, Iran has been spending between $6 billion and $35b. per year in Syria.

Beyond its financial support, Iran has provided the Assad regime with an endless supply of ammunition and weapons and tens of thousands of fighters from its Revolutionary Guard Corps and from its loyal proxy, Hezbollah. In addition, Iran has recruited, trained and deployed thousands of loyal Shi’ite fighters from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to Syria.

It is important to know that the arm of the Iranian government that supports the Syrian regime and deploys foreign fighters to Syria is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. Specifically, it is the notorious Maj.-Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the IRGC Quds Force, who runs the war in Syria.

Absent the support of the IRGC, Assad would have fallen from power years ago and there could have been a peaceful resolution to the civil war.

Hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved and there would not be seven million Syrian refugees wandering the face of the earth.

And why has Iran been investing so much blood and treasure in Syria? In an excellent article that addresses this question, Iran expert Karim Sadjapour quotes Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Supreme Leader Khamenei. Velyati writes, “The chain of resistance against Israel by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, the new Iraqi government and Hamas passes through the Syrian highway. ...Syria is the golden ring of the chain of resistance against Israel.”

This explains why Iran is working to build a permanent military infrastructure in Syria.

So here is the dirty secret of the Syrian tragedy: At the recent Munich Security Conference, former US national security advisor Lt.-General H. R. McMaster warned, “When you invest in Iran, you’re investing in the IRGC. You might as well cut the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a check and say, ‘please use this to commit more murder across the Middle East.”

McMaster makes a point that has been missing from the discussion of Iran and Syria. The IRGC is not just a paramilitary organization. It is also a major economic force in Iran.

According to the website of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), “The IRGC now largely controls the petrochemical, banking, construction and telecommunications sectors in Iran. Estimates of IRGC control of the economy “range from a third to nearly two-thirds of Iran’s GDP – amounting to tens of billions of dollars.”

Who is doing business in Iran today? Whereas US law prevents most American companies from doing business in Iran because it is designated as a “State Sponsor of Terror,” that is not the case for Asian and European companies. Since the lifting of economic sanctions under the Iran nuclear deal (the JCPOA), hundreds of major multinational companies have returned to do business in Iran – and investors should beware.

If you are investing in Asian or European companies, then you should ask whether these companies are doing business in Iran. If they are, then there’s a very good chance they are doing business with the IRGC. And let there be no doubt, the business deals of Asian and European companies not only enrich the IRGC, they also send Iranian leaders the message that there are no economic consequences for their support for the war crimes of the Assad regime.

There is a moral dimension to this reality that we cannot ignore.

Each of us as investors has the power to choose where to put our money. And major institutions – including endowment funds and pension funds – have tremendous economic power. If we are to put an end to the slaughter in Syria, then we must demand that the international business community cut its ties with companies owned by the IRGC.

The leaders of major Asian and European companies who do business in Iran have chosen to ignore the moral consequences of their decisions. They have chosen to be indifferent to the complicity of Iran in the murder and suffering of the people of Syria, simply for the sake of economic gain.

The late Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel wrote in his famous book, Night, “On planet Auschwitz, human moral responsibilities are silenced and deformed into indifference.”

We as investors must not remain indifferent to human suffering.

We must not inadvertently help to enable the IRGC and its support for the war crimes of the Syrian regime.


The author is outreach coordinator for the non-partisan advocacy group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI).

The Deep State Weaponizes Vetting of Trump Appointees
Unaccountable Pentagon officials block a security clearance for a would-be White House aide.

Sean M. BigleyMay 1, 2018 6:52 p.m. ET
The Deep State Weaponizes Vetting of Trump Appointees
Photo: Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
Nothing ends a Washington career like being branded an unacceptable national-security risk. That’s why officials adjudicating personnel-security cases must act in a mature, objective and nonpartisan fashion. But when it comes to vetting Trump appointees, they often aren’t. Instead, security clearances are being weaponized against the White House by hostile career bureaucrats, thwarting the president’s agenda by holding up or blocking appointees.

Consider the case of Adam Lovinger. Mr. Lovinger is a highly regarded and politically conservative Defense Department official. In January 2017, the Trump administration made a “by name” request for him to serve as a senior director on the White House National Security Council.

Before departing the Pentagon that January, Mr. Lovinger raised documented concerns with his supervisor about the misuse of contractors. One outfit, run by a woman Chelsea Clinton describes as her “best friend,” was being used to perform foreign-relations activities on behalf of the U.S. Mr. Lovinger, an attorney, perceived the arrangement as violating a federal law delineating inherently governmental functions. He also took issue with millions of dollars in public funds being spent on contractor studies of questionable relevance. One taxpayer-funded study sought to determine whether Americans are a “war-like people.”

Months after Mr. Lovinger raised these issues, the Pentagon suspended his security clearance and his White House detail was canceled without warning. The reason? Specious, and constantly evolving, claims of misconduct. One of Mr. Lovinger’s alleged transgressions was that Pentagon officials had improperly marked an academic report he took aboard an airplane for reading.

The father of three, his family’s primary breadwinner, remains on administrative leave. The same official who suspended Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance is now moving to cut off his pay while the allegations are under review. Amplifying due-process concerns, the panel rendering the final decision reports to the official who suspended him. She refuses to recuse herself or her subordinates despite a conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, Pentagon officials ignored a longstanding executive order requiring they provide the accused with the government’s evidence within 30 days. This forced Mr. Lovinger to respond blindly to vague allegations, then contend with bureaucrats claiming he did not adequately rebut documents he has never seen. Pentagon officials underscored their contempt for anyone who challenges them by leaking false, defamatory information about Mr. Lovinger.

Mr. Lovinger’s lifeline is that his case, although symptomatic of a political agenda, is fundamentally one of whistle-blower reprisal. That affords him legal tools and remedies—including an inspector general investigation and potential monetary damages—that other Trump appointees, victims of similarly abusive practices, can’t access.

As an attorney who defends security-clearance holders, including Mr. Lovinger, I have had a front-row seat to behavior that only a year ago I would have dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Across the federal government, what was long an apolitical process with clearly defined standards has devolved to the point that wildly unfounded accusations are now being used to smear reputations and settle petty vendettas. And it all occurs in closed-door proceedings not appealable to the courts. Failure to stop these abuses risks undermining the integrity of the entire personnel-security system.

In Mr. Lovinger’s case, those weaponizing the security-clearance process include a senior official who remains on the job despite publicly disparaging President Trump as “unfit” to lead, a Pentagon attorney who instructed colleagues on the importance of concealing retaliatory motives behind their actions, and the Defense Department’s security adjudications chief, who persists in advancing false allegations.

They and other unelected partisans are quietly usurping presidential prerogatives through a litany of seemingly small but slowly compounding abuses of bureaucratic power. Their efforts evidence a philosophy that laws and rules are not static boundaries of societal norms, but flexible tools of the administrative state.

It is imperative that federal-agency heads and inspectors general step in to stop the power grab, lest those targeting Mr. Lovinger and others like him believe themselves immune to accountability. Failure to act decisively will mean not only the continued destruction of lives and careers, but also a precipitous dwindling of the pool of patriots willing to subject themselves to such abuses.

Mr. Bigley is a national-security attorney and a partner at Bigley Ranish LLP.

Appeared in the May 2, 2018, print edition.