skip to main |
skip to sidebar
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/06/08/craig-murray-us-prolongs-ukraine-war/
Craig Murray
June 8, 2022
With no hope of a ceasefire soon, Turkey has turned to the more limited goal of ensuring that grain supplies can be shipped out from the Black Sea through the Bosphorus.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, back to camera, meeting with U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on June 1. (NATO)
By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk
I was in Turkey to try to further peace talks, as an experienced diplomat with good contacts there and as a peace activist. I was not there as a journalist and much of what I discussed was with the understanding of confidence. It will be probably be some years before I judge it reasonable and fair to reveal all that I know. But I can give some outline.
Turkey continues to be the center of diplomatic activity on resolving the Ukraine war. It is therefore particularly revealing, and a sign of Western priorities, that I did not come across a single Western journalist there trying to follow and cover the diplomatic process. There are hundreds of Western journalists in Ukraine, effectively embedded with the Ukrainian authorities, producing war porn. There appear to be none seriously covering attempts to make peace.
There was a sea change two weeks ago when Ukraine shifted to a public stance of ceding no territory at all in a peace deal. On May 21, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky’s office stated that “The war must end with the complete restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”
Previously while the Ukrainian side had been emphatic that no territory in “the east” would be ceded, there had been studied ambiguity about whether that referred to Donbass alone or also the Crimea.
The new Ukrainian stance, that there will be no peace deal without recovering the Crimea, has ended for now any hopes of an early ceasefire. It appears to be a militarily unachievable objective. I cannot think of any scenario in which Russia de facto loses Crimea, without the serious possibility of worldwide nuclear war.
18 March 2014: Russian President Vladimir Putin, seated and second from right, signing treaty on the adoption of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol to Russia. (Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
This blow to the peace process was a setback in Ankara, and I should say that every source I spoke with believed the Ukrainians were acting on instructions conveyed from Washington to Zelensky by Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, who openly stated he wanted the war to wear down Russian defense capabilities.
A long war in Ukraine is of course massively in the interest of the U.S. military industrial complex, whose dripping roasts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have gone rather off the heat.
It also forwards the strategic objective of severely damaging the Russian economy, although much of that damage is mutual. Why we live in a world where the goal of nations is to damage the lives of inhabitants of other nations is a question which continues to puzzle me.Turkey has for now turned towards the more limited goal of ensuring that grain supplies can be shipped out from the Black Sea through the Bosphorus. This is essential for developing nations and essential for world food supplies, which were already under pressure before this war began.
Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge on the Bosphorus. (Gryffindor, Wikimedia Commons)
Turkey is offering to clear sea lanes of mines and to police the ships carrying grain from the port of Odessa, which is still under Ukrainian control. Russia has agreed to the deal.
Ukraine is objecting to this plan to export its own wheat, because it objects to the removal of the mines, which I should be clear were put down in the sea lanes by Ukraine to prevent amphibious attack on Odessa. There is monumental hypocrisy by the West on this, blaming Russia for preventing the export of the grain while it is actually blocked in by Ukraine’s own mines, which they currently refuse to allow Turkey to remove.
On May 19 this was the headline of a U.N. press release: “Lack of Grain Exports Driving Global Hunger to Famine Levels, as War in Ukraine Continues, Speakers Warn Security Council.”
As the article says, Ukraine and Russia together account for one third of world grain exports and two thirds of world sunflower oil exports. Many of those who die from this war are likely to do so in developing countries, from hunger.
The decision of the E.U. and U.S. to target Russian and Belarussian agricultural exports for sanctions displays an extraordinary callousness towards the very poorest human beings on the globe, who cannot afford rising food prices.
Well, the headline here is that the U.S. and E.U. are pushing Ukraine to block any food deal, based on a number of objections including the reduction in the security of Odessa and the claim that Russia will sell looted Ukrainian grain. The view in both Ankara and the developing world is that the big picture, of millions facing starvation, is being lost.
The experience has made me so cynical that I am left wondering if the interests of the powerful agricultural lobbies in both the E.U. and U.S. are influencing policy. High world food prices benefit some powerful interests.
I blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for starting a war that does nothing to redress Russian long term security concerns. But the truth is that politicians in the West are equally keen on this war. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has blatantly promoted it for his own political survival. Anybody who makes any effort to stop the killing — French President Emmanuel Macron and Turkish President Recep Erdogan in particular — are immediately and universally denounced by the “liberal” media.
Yet what is the end result that the liberal warmongers wish to achieve? When we reach the stage that Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of state, is a comparative voice of sanity, the political situation is indeed dire.
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/06/10/the-scissors-of-slump/
Last week, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told the US Congress that “We now are entering a period of transition from one of historic recovery to one that can be marked by stable and steady growth. Making this shift is a central piece of the President’s plan to get inflation under control without sacrificing the economic gains we’ve made.”
It’s true that the US economy since the depths of the pandemic slump, (which remember in terms of national output, incomes and investment was the worst since the 1930s – even worse that the Great Recession of 2008-9) has made a recovery. But it could hardly be described as ‘historic’. And as for the claim that the US economy, the best performing of the major economies in the last year, is heading towards ‘stable and steady growth’, that is not supported by reality.
Yes, there is ‘full employment’ of sorts ie the official unemployment rate is near ‘historic’ lows, but many of these jobs are part-time, temporary or on contracts. And many pay poorly. The employment participation rate, which measures the number of people working out of those of working age, remains well below pre-pandemic levels, levels which were already in decline. 
At the same time, productivity growth has been appalling. More Americans have gone back to work since the pandemic but national output is not matching the increase in employment, so productivity per worker has collapsed – from growth rates that were already weak. As a result, unit labour costs (wage costs per unit of output) have shot up, which is shrinking profit margins. 
And despite Yellen’s assurances, the prospects for the US economy during the rest of this year and into the next are not promising, even dismal. According to the Atlanta Fed’s GDP forecasting model, the US economy, after contracting in the first quarter of this year, is likely to grow at less than 1% in this current quarter. 
Even more contrary to Yellen’s view are the latest reports from the World Bank and OECD economists on prospects for the world economy, including the US. The World Bank’s Global Economic Prospects for June was entitled as Stagflation Risk Rises Amid Sharp Slowdown in Growth.
The World Bank economic forecasts were shocking. “Global growth is expected to slump from 5.7 percent in 2021 to 2.9 percent in 2022— significantly lower than 4.1 percent that was anticipated in January. It is expected to hover around that pace over 2023-24, as the war in Ukraine disrupts activity, investment, and trade in the near term, pent-up demand fades, and fiscal and monetary policy accommodation is withdrawn. As a result of the damage from the pandemic and the war, the level of per capita income in developing economies this year will be nearly 5 percent below its pre-pandemic trend.”
Growth in advanced economies is projected to sharply decelerate from 5.1 percent in 2021 to 2.6 percent in 2022—1.2 percentage point below projections in January. Growth is expected to further moderate to 2.2 percent in 2023, largely reflecting the further unwinding of the fiscal and monetary policy support provided during the pandemic. Among emerging market and developing economies, growth is also projected to fall from 6.6 percent in 2021 to 3.4 percent in 2022—well below the annual average of 4.8 percent over 2011-2019.
“The negative spillovers from the war will more than offset any near-term boost to some commodity exporters from higher energy prices. Forecasts for 2022 growth have been revised down in nearly 70 percent of EMDEs, including most commodity importing countries as well as four-fifths of low-income countries.” So the World Bank forecasts stagnation in output with inflation still present.
As for the US, the World Bank forecasts just 2.5% growth in national output this year, 2.4% in 2023 and then just 2% in 2024 – a ‘stable and steady’ growth, you might say, but only at the low levels that the US economy has experienced in the long depression since 2009. And the US performance is forecast to be the best among the advanced capitalist economies: the Eurozone area will manage only 1.9% by 2024 and Japan just 0.6%.
World Bank economists reckon that the combined impact of the pandemic and the war would leave global economic output in the five years from 2020 to 2024 more than 20 percent below the level implied by trend growth between 2010 and 2019. The impact on poor countries will be much greater with developing economies a third less than expected and output in commodity-importing developing countries — especially badly hit by the sharp rise in food and fuel prices provoked by Russia’s invasion — more than 40 per cent less than expected!
The view of the OECD economists is, if anything, even more pessimistic. In June’s Economic Outlook, called The Price of War. OECD economists emphasise the cost of the Russia-Ukraine war. “The world is paying a heavy price for Russia’s war in Ukraine. It is a humanitarian disaster, killing thousands and forcing millions from their homes. The war has also triggered a cost-of-living crisis, affecting people worldwide. When coupled with China’s zero-COVID policy, the war has set the global economy on a course of slower growth and rising inflation – a situation not seen since the 1970s. Rising inflation, largely driven by steep increases in the price of energy and food, is causing hardship for low-income people and raising serious food security risks in the world’s poorest economies.”
Global GDP growth is now projected to slow sharply this year to around 3%. This is well below the pace of recovery projected last December. Growth is set to be markedly weaker than expected in almost all economies. Many of the hardest-hit countries are in Europe, which is highly exposed to the war through energy imports and refugee flows. Global growth will slow further to 2.8% in 2023 – that’s near ‘stall speed’, with the UK having no growth at all, the worst result in the G20 (apart from Russia). Even the US will slow to just 1.2%. 
And inflation of the prices of goods and services in the major economies does not look like abating during the rest of this year. Crude oil prices could go even higher than the current $120/b. Jeremy Weir, chief executive of the commodity trade Trafigura, said that energy markets were in a “critical” state as sanctions on Russia’s oil exports following its invasion of Ukraine had exacerbated already tight supplies created by years of underinvestment. “We have got a critical situation. I really think we have a problem for the next six months . . . once it gets to these parabolic states, markets can move and they can spike quite a lot.” A parabolic move in markets is generally defined as when a price that has been rising suddenly surges to hitherto unseen levels, mimicking the right side of a parabolic curve. Weir added it was highly probable that oil prices could rise to $150 a barrel or higher in the coming months, with supply chains strained as Russia tries to redirect its oil exports away from Europe. 
Energy prices are not rising because of ‘excessive demand’ or even because of ‘price-gouging’, but simply because supply is being restricted. Supply dropped during the pandemic and now Russian exports are sanctioned and cannot be replaced by Saudi oil or US supply. 
The global supply chain breakdown since the pandemic continues, particularly since the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict but even before – see the NY Fed measure of supply squeeze below. 
Of the major economies, the UK is set for highest inflation among G7 until 2024 and the lowest growth. A combination of higher energy prices, a slumping pound, faltering economic growth, a deteriorating environment for small businesses, weak households, trade restrictions on Russia, a central bank that is tightening, and overall inflation at four-decade highs have all produced a toxic environment for the UK economy. The so-called ‘misery index’ which measures the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate as an indicator of ‘misery’ for working-class households, is heading back towards levels not seen since the Thatcher era. 
The nexus between rising prices and wages has led to sharp fall in real incomes as a result. Price rises are outstripping wage growth nearly everywhere and households are seeing a loss of disposable income (ie after price rises and taxes) and so are forced to run down savings (some of which was built up during the pandemic lockdowns) to make ends meet. 
As I have shown before in previous posts in some detail, that, contrary to claims by mainstream politicians, central bank governors and economists, there is no ‘wage-price’ spiral. Wages are not driving prices up. Indeed, it’s profits that have risen sharply as a share of value since the pandemic. However, rising unit labour costs (as shown above) because of low productivity growth, are beginning to eat into profit margins. 
Falling profit margins will eventually lead to lower profitability and even a falling mass of profit. That would be the signal for a new slump, especially if the costs of borrowing to invest rise as central banks hike interest rates in a vain attempt to ‘control’ inflation. Falling profits is the formula for an eventual investment and production slump. That’s one blade of the scissors of slump. 
The other blade is debt. As I have outlined on many occasions, I reckon this next major slump will be triggered by a corporate debt meltdown. In particular, remember the size of what are called ‘zombie companies’ that do not get enough profit to cover even their debt servicing commitments; and ‘fallen angels’, those companies which have borrowed too much to invest in risky assets that now face blowing up. And corporations that are debt-loaded are heading for trouble as borrowing costs rise and banks tighten liquidity. Already the Federal Reserve has raised its policy rate and moved from ‘quantitative easing’ to ‘quantitative tightening’, taking stock market prices down as a result. 
The World Bank economists are worried. “The faster-than-expected tightening of financial conditions worldwide could push countries into the kind of debt crisis we saw in the 1980s. That is a real threat and something we are worried about. Even quite small increases in borrowing costs will be a problem,” said Franziska Ohnsorge, a lead author of World Bank report.
World Bank data show that foreign debt in low-income countries rose by $15.5bn to about $166bn in 2020. Foreign debt in middle-income countries rose by $423bn to more than $8.5tn, leaving them especially exposed to interest-rate rises. Central banks are raising rates rapidly in the most widespread tightening of monetary policy for more than two decades. Over the three months to the end of May, monetary authorities announced more than 60 rate rises. More are expected in the months ahead.
Any downturn in profits and rise in borrowing will expose the layers of businesses that are close to going bust. In the UK, Financial Stability Board chairman Martin McTague, commented “there is still a massive problem with small businesses. They are facing something like twice the rate of inflation for their production prices and it’s a ticking timebomb. They have got literally weeks left before they run out of cash and that will mean hundreds of thousands of businesses, and lots of people losing their jobs.” McTague referred to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) data, showing that 2 million (or about 40%) of the UK’s small businesses had less than three months of cash in reserves to support operations. He noted that 10% (or 200,000) were in grave danger, and 300,000 only had a few weeks of cash left. “It is a very real possibility because … they don’t have the cash reserves. They don’t have any way they can tackle this problem.”
In Europe, its largest financial asset manager has likened parts of the private equity industry to a “Ponzi scheme” that will face a reckoning soon. “Some parts of private equity look like a pyramid scheme in a way,” Amundi Asset Management’s chief investment officer Vincent Mortier said. “You know you can sell [assets] to another private equity firm for 20 or 30 times earnings. That’s why you can talk about a Ponzi. It’s a circular thing.” In other words, private equity companies are buying up companies with huge loans and then selling them onto each other using even bigger loans. Eventually, somebody will lose out from this ‘pass the parcel’ form of finance. Leverage (borrowing) levels have increased proportionately, with debt levels reaching an all-time high.
The scissor blades between falling profitability and rising debt costs are closing and will eventually cut investment, jobs, prices and wages.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/09/terrifying-explosion-texas-gas-plant-spotlights-threat-lng-industry
"We shouldn't have to live in fear just so gas executives like Michael Smith can get rich," said one local resident, referring to Freeport LNG's CEO.
Jake Johnson June 9, 2022
An explosion at a major liquefied natural gas plant in Texas on Wednesday heightened fears of pollution and other impacts in nearby communities—and served as the latest example of the threat the booming LNG industry poses to the climate.
"Freeport LNG really doesn't care about us. This is not the first fire."
The blast at Freeport LNG's export terminal on Texas' Quintana Island was reported around noon local time, and no injuries have been disclosed. Authorities said the fire and "release" from the explosion were swiftly contained and that an investigation into the cause is underway, but local residents voiced concern that they're going to be kept in the dark.
"This is terrifying," said Melanie Oldham, founder of Citizens for Clean Air and Clean Water in Brazoria County, where the Freeport LNG facility is located. "We've been afraid of a disaster happening ever since Freeport LNG started exporting gas. We shouldn't have to live in fear just so gas executives like [company CEO] Michael Smith can get rich."
"This is dangerous business," Oldham added. "What kind of air monitoring are they doing out there? Will they even be able to tell what the explosion released? And will they tell us? Thankfully it looks like none of the workers or anyone else was injured or killed. We may not be so lucky the next time there's an explosion at this plant, or any of the polluting facilities surrounding us, for that matter."
Surveillance video footage posted to Facebook by Quintana Beach County Park appears to show the first moments of the explosion, which reportedly shook nearby buildings.
"I saw it blow up from my job site—biggest fireball I've ever seen," said one Freeport resident.
The facility, one of the largest LNG export plants in the United States, is expected to shut down for at least three weeks in the wake of the explosion and fire, injecting further chaos into global energy markets already roiled by Russia's war on Ukraine.
One industry analyst told Reuters that the temporary shutdown will likely take 1 million tonnes of LNG off the market.
But Harold Doty, who lives on Quintana Island, warned that "there is still no emergency action plan for that plant" despite Wednesday's explosion.
"Originally, the plant said that people on the island should go to the beach and have the Coast Guard pick them up in boats," said Doty. "Freeport LNG really doesn't care about us. This is not the first fire. There are often fire alarms at the plant that I can hear from my house. I can never get any explanation when I call, so I've quit calling."
The explosion came as U.S. LNG exports to Europe are surging as part of the Biden administration's plan to help E.U. nations wean themselves off Russian fossil fuels. According to federal data released this week, U.S. LNG exports averaged 11.5 billion cubic feet per day during the first four months of this year, an 18% jump compared to the 2021 annual average.
While the fossil fuel industry often characterizes LNG as a more climate-friendly alternative to coal and other dirty energy sources that are driving global warming, environmentalists stress that LNG is a major emitter of methane—a greenhouse gas roughly 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
"In the United States, natural gas accounts for more than one-third of carbon emissions and almost half of methane emissions," notes Marisa Guerrero of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
In a statement Wednesday, Citizens for Clean Air and Clean Water in Brazoria County and the Texas Campaign for the Environment said that "the oil and gas industry has been benefiting from an 'export boom' that is sending gas and crude oil overseas in record amounts, but has resulted in leaks, explosions, and wrecked communities back home—from flaring and pollution in the Permian Basin to explosions like the one today on Quintana Island."
"Officials rarely disclose the contents of the tanks that explode, leaving local residents to just have to wonder whether or not they are in danger," the groups continued. "The boom is also jeopardizing global climate agreements, as the window to rein in emissions is closing."
https://popularresistance.org/trailer-park-residents-take-on-venture-capitalists-and-win/
As Gentrification Sweeps The West, Investors Are Buying Up Mobile Home Parks.
Residents Of This Colorado Park Got Together And Bought It Themselves.
Durango, Colorado - On a cold January day at the height of ski season, as tourists check into Durango’s resort hotels and wealthy vacationers roll suitcases into their second homes, Alejandra Chavez pulls away from her single wide trailer on the outskirts of town and drives the two-lane road south to look for a new place to live in New Mexico. Chavez dreads the prospect of making this same 1.5‑hour-drive, back and forth, every day, but she sees few options. Her work is in Durango, but Durango, it seems, may no longer have a home for her.
Chavez, 30, moved to the area 18 years ago to join her parents, who fled economic desolation in Mexico and found work in Durango. In 2008, the family bought their trailer in Westside Mobile Home Park for $12,000. It was in rough shape, but Chavez’s father, who owns a construction company, spent years and some $20,000 renovating it into a comfortable home. Westside, Chavez says, has been a good place to live — a neighborhood where Latino, Native American and white families raise their kids together.
As is common in trailer parks, however, the Chavezes and most of their neighbors own their homes but not the land beneath them. In December 2021, they received notice that the park was for sale. Chavez pictured their homes being torn down to make way for a hotel, a gas station or some other amenity for ski resort-goers. Or their homes might simply become unaffordable: In recent years, an inrush of tourists, remote workers and investors has driven land and housing prices out of control in Durango and across the West. The park’s prospective buyer, Harmony Communities, raised lot rents by 50 percent when it bought a trailer park in Golden, Colo., in 2021.
Chavez and the other Westside residents saw one other option — one way to turn private tragedy into collective victory. On Jan. 14, residents formed a cooperative, elected representatives (including Chavez to the role of vice president), and voted to try to buy the park themselves.
The $5.46 million asking price was daunting, but residents knew the cost of failure. Chavez has friends who pile in six to a car and drive 2.5‑hour commutes to Durango from cheaper towns in New Mexico, casualties of this new, outdoorsy form of gentrification.
The land rush has not spared mobile home parks, which speculators buy up as investment properties. Two such investors even started “Mobile Home University” (MHU) to sell online courses in how to do it. In a blog post titled “How to Make Huge Returns on Mobile Home Parks,” MHU co-founder Frank Rolfe sums up the strategy: “It costs $3,000 to move a mobile home.… As a result, tenants cannot leave when you raise their rents.”
Thanks to a new Colorado law, however, IQ Mobile Home Parks, the New York-based company that owns Westside, had to give residents notice of its intent to sell and 90 days to make their own offer. And Westside residents had a model: In June 2021, residents of Animas View Mobile Home Park across town bought their park with guidance from ROC USA, a program that connects trailer park residents to financing so they can buy and run their parks cooperatively. The Animas View website lists some of the benefits of self-ownership: “There is no profit margin in your rent” and “no commercial owner who can decide to close the community.”
On March 15, with Denver-based Elevation Community Land Trust (ECLT) negotiating on their behalf, Westside residents made an offer at asking price, contingent on financing. IQ rejected it in favor of Harmony’s cash offer, but gave residents a week to come up with a cash offer of their own, according to Stefka Fanchi, president and CEO of ECLT. Residents launched a GoFundMe and hosted a fundraising dinner, bringing in nearly $50,000 in a few days. La Plata County, the Colorado Impact Development Fund, the Local First Foundation and ECLT offered loans and grants to cover the rest. On March 31, after what Fanchi called “a miraculous act of financial gymnastics,” IQ accepted the offer.
Michael Peirce thinks it shouldn’t take a miracle for residents to be able to buy their own parks. Peirce is project manager for the Colorado Coalition of Manufactured Home Owners (CoCoMHO) and president of the resident co-op that bought Sans Souci park outside Boulder in June 2021. But such successes are the exception: Of the 68 parks that have sold since Colorado’s opportunity-to-purchase program took effect in 2020, only four (including Westside) have been successfully purchased by residents. To lower the barriers, CoCoMHO is supporting a bill in the Colorado legislature that would extend the offer timeline to 180 days and impose penalties on owners who don’t negotiate in good faith.
In the meantime, Chavez offers this encouragement to other trailer park residents interested in buying their parks: “Look out for each other. Ask your community for help. If we did it, I’m pretty sure others can.”
https://popularresistance.org/the-setback-in-russiagate-probe/
The jury foreperson said politics wasn’t a factor.
But was any prosecution of a senior Clinton campaign official possible in a jurisdiction where Clinton beat Trump 91-4?
Michael Sussmann, an A-list attorney who was a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, was acquitted by a jury in the federal District Court of the District of Columbia last week.
Sussmann had been accused of lying to the F.B.I., a crime widely considered to be a “process felony” or a “throwaway felony,” something the Justice Department charges you with when they can’t get you for anything else. Even though the federal sentencing guidelines called for 0-6 months in prison had Sussmann been convicted, the loss of his law license and the humiliation of a felony conviction would have been a far worse punishment.
But that didn’t happen. Sussmann was acquitted after the jury had deliberated for only six hours, two of which were spent eating lunch. After the trial was completed, two jurors, including the foreperson, told The Washington Post that the verdict was not a close call or a hard decision.
The foreperson added, “Politics were not a factor. Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted…The government could have spent our time more wisely.” The second juror said, “Everyone pretty much saw it the same way.”
Four Vital Questions
The verdict raises several different — and important — questions. First, how did this happen? The evidence against Sussmann was pretty straightforward, at least if you take the F.B.I.’s word for it. I’ll give you the details in a minute.
Second, why did this happen? The jury foreperson said that politics was not a factor. But was any prosecution of a senior Clinton campaign official even possible in a jurisdiction where Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump 91-4?
Third, was this more a reflection on the incompetence and unpopularity of the F.B.I.?
And finally, was it because people still believe the false narrative of the Steele Dossier, that the Russians got Donald Trump elected president of the United States.
Opposition Research Masquerading as Intelligence
This case began with the Steele Dossier. That document, compiled on behalf of the 2016 Clinton campaign by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, made a number of very serious accusations against Donald Trump, his company, and the Trump campaign. Some of these accusations, if they had been true, would have constituted major crimes.
The allegations in the Steele Dossier included that the Russians had: “cultivated Trump for at least five years” and that the operation was “supported and directed by Putin;”
that there was an “extensive and well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian leadership, with information willingly exchanged in both directions;”
that Trump had used “moles inside the DNC (Democratic National Committee), as well as hackers in the US and Russia” to spy on his political rivals;
that Trump had declined “sweetener real estate business deals,” but that he had accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin on his political rivals;
that Trump hated former President Barack Obama so much that when he stayed in the presidential suite at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow, he hired prostitutes to urinate on the bed while in his presence in order to defile the bed used during an earlier visit by the Obamas;
that the Russian intelligence service was responsible for the hack of the DNC’s emails, not an internal whistleblower, and that Wikileaks, which published the documents, was used only as a cut-out for plausible deniability;
and that the former pro-Russian President of Ukraine had told Putin that he had been making “untraceable” bribery payments to Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, presumably for inside information or for passage back to Trump.
Literally nothing in the Steele Dossier was demonstrably true. That’s the problem with raw intelligence, which was really just dressed-up as opposition research in this case. It’s just a collection of unvetted rumors.
Steele, being a career intelligence professional, knew that. He saw his job as putting all the rumors he could collect from his Russian contacts in one document and then sending it to the Clinton campaign. But the Clinton people, including Sussmann, were not intelligence professionals. They wanted to accept the revelations as fact, which is what got them into trouble in the first place.
The Text Message
Sussmann’s role in this was that when the Clinton campaign received the Steele Dossier, which had also alleged that the Trump Organization was communicating with Russia’s Alpha Bank using a private encrypted server, he texted a contact at the F.B.I., former F.B.I. General Counsel James Baker, saying, “I have a time-sensitive (and sensitive) issue that I need to raise with you. I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau.”
That text message essentially kicked off the case. Sussmann wasn’t going to speak to the F.B.I. as a private citizen. He was going as a representative of the Clinton campaign. At least, that was special prosecutor John Durham’s contention.
Durham thought he had proved that because when Sussmann got back to his office, he billed the Clinton campaign for the time he took to talk to Baker. The billing document was entered into evidence as a prosecution exhibit.
This is where there was an odd twist in the case. The Justice Department didn’t charge Sussmann with lying to the F.B.I. in the text message. It’s unclear why, and DOJ has never explained it.
Instead, Sussmann was charged with lying to Baker in their actual meeting. Baker testified that he was “100 percent confident that he said that” (that Sussmann was acting as a private individual) in the meeting.
“Michael’s a friend of mine and a colleague, and I believed it and trusted that the statement was truthful,” Baker said. Prosecutors alleged that when Baker then sent the information about Alpha Bank and the Trump Organization to F.B.I. agents for investigation, he could not tell them that the Steele Dossier was a piece of opposition political research from the Clinton campaign.
Wasted Time
As a result, F.B.I. agents wasted their time investigating the allegations. For their part, the F.B.I. agents conducting the investigation said that all they knew was that the information had come from the general counsel, so it “must have been reliable.”
Sussmann’s attorneys countered that Baker was mistaken. They found a note from a meeting at the Justice Department in March 2017 attended by Baker, senior Justice Department officials and F.B.I. agents, which mentioned the Alfa Bank investigation and said the information was brought to the F.B.I. “by an attorney on behalf of client (sic).” So therefore Sussman hadn’t misrepresented himself to Baker, his lawyers argued.
Baker said that he had only a vague memory of that meeting and that he had no recollection that anybody had said anything about Sussmann’s “client.” Baker, however, had to admit that he had not taken any notes in the original meeting with Sussmann and that he was relying only on his memory, a violation of the F.B.I.’s standard operating procedure for meetings with people outside the F.B.I..
The case against Sussmann was clearly weak from the start. It was also very poorly timed. The decision to prosecute the attorney was taken while the F.B.I. was still reeling over allegations that it, not the Russian government, was the one responsible for giving the country Donald Trump.
Remember, former F.B.I. Director James Comey said in July 2016, four months before the presidential election, that he was recommending to the attorney general that Hillary Clinton not be charged for mishandling classified information by using a private email server.
But on Oct. 28, 2016, just days before the election, Comey felt compelled to send a letter to Congress saying that he was considering reopening the investigation against Clinton. The act caused a political earthquake, and *The Washington Post* reported that a senior Justice Department official speaking on the condition of anonymity said, “Director Comey understood our position (on the Clinton investigation.) It was conveyed to the F.B.I., and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”
Clinton was livid. And she has always blamed Comey for the fact that she lost the election.
Going to the Media
Another of the Sussmann defense points was that neither he nor the Clinton campaign would have gone to the F.B.I. if they had wanted to spread rumors about Trump. They didn’t trust the F.B.I., after all. Instead, they said they would have gone to the media. And go to the media they did.
Clinton campaign manager Marc Elias said during the trial that it was Clinton herself who ordered senior campaign officials to leak the claim that the Trump Organization had a secret channel to the Kremlin through Alpha Bank. She had the information sent to Slate, which published it immediately.
The campaign then followed up with a statement expressing “alarm,” as if this were some sort of new revelation they had never heard before. It was a false narrative that the Clinton campaign circulated for political gain.
The New York Times, though, even now that the trial is over, continues reporting from an alternative reality. Journalist Charlie Savage, who covered the Sussmann trial for the paper, wrote the day after the verdict that the trial “centered on odd internet data” after it became public that “Russia had hacked the Democrats.”
A logical conclusion was that the information in the Steele Dossier was true because “Mr. Trump had encouraged the country to target Mrs. Clinton’s emails.” Savage continued that, “Trying to persuade reporters to write about such suspicions is not a crime.”
Nobody ever said it was a crime. That’s not why Sussmann was charged in the first place. He was charged because the F.B.I. believed he had lied to them. And there was never any evidence that “Russians had hacked Democrats,” by the way.
None of that matters anymore. It’s all over. Sussmann is free to go. The F.B.I. looks like a bunch of incompetent boobs and that Durham wasted millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money. And The New York Times still spins a different story.
https://popularresistance.org/ominous-economic-distress-in-india-no-buying-power-no-jobs-rising-prices/
By Subodh Varma, People's Dispatch.
June 8, 2022
Educate!
The government is ignoring people’s distress and the worsening crisis – and it has no solutions.
Recently released estimates of India’s economic output show that people are not spending enough. The only reason this can be is because they do not have sufficient income, and their buying power is limited. On the other hand, prices of all essential commodities are increasing at a disturbingly high rate. This will further restrict spending. Industrial production has grown at snail’s pace, and with people not having enough to spend, demand will continue to be low and industrial output too will languish. Bank credit for large industries is growing very slowly. So, prospects of any check on raging unemployment continue to be bleak because there is unlikely to be a fresh investment that would create jobs.
It is an ominous situation – and the Narendra Modi government, which is celebrating eight years of ‘sushasan’ (good governance), appears to be indifferent to it. All of their neoliberal prescriptions have failed spectacularly – tax cuts to the corporate sector did not spur new investment, squeezing funds on welfare schemes did not encourage private capital to move in, and putting public sector units for sale has not received many takers and hence not much disinvestment funds, opening up various sectors to foreign direct investment has not led to any boost to the economy and employment. In fact, the government’s policies have led to a tanking economy and widespread distress for people, which is sought to be salved by free food grain distribution.
No Buying Power
The provisional estimates for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the fiscal year 2021-22 show that per capita Private Final Consumption Expenditure (PFCE) was Rs.61,215, down from Rs.61,594 two years ago, in 2019-20. During the pandemic year 2020-21, it had slipped to Rs. 57,279. PFCE represents spending by all non-governmental entities and hence includes all families besides business entities. Comparing it with two years ago is sensible because it shows that the spending has still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels.
What this means is that for a majority of the people of this country, there is no increase in their buying power. This is because either earnings have become very low or they are unemployed. High prices are further robbing them of their meager earnings. As a result, demand for products and services will remain low. PFCE makes up the most substantial part of the economy, making up 56.9% of GDP, the same as in 2019-20. Hence the whole economy can’t revive unless private consumption spending picks up.
What about government spending, which could have provided the requisite demand? Government spending (called Government Final Consumption Expenditure or GFCE) increased slightly in the pandemic year to 11.3% of GDP, but it has since declined in 2021-22 to 10.7%. In other words, the government has started pulling its hands back and restricting its expenditure. So much for the talk of all the beneficial schemes that one hears endlessly from the Modi government! Government spending would be the only way this crisis can be resolved, but the Modi government is shackled by its neoliberal dogmas, unable to lift itself out of the paralysis.
Industrial Production Slump
As shown in the graph below, the Index of Industrial Production (IIP) has been showing very weak growth for the past year.
The high growth rate for May 2021 and, to some extent, for the following three months are merely because growth is being computed in comparison to a year ago since then – and a year ago was May 2020, the lockdown that stopped all industrial activity. The next few months also reflect this base effect as the comparison is with the slowly reviving industrial activity in those months of 2020. However, once the base effect goes away, the real situation emerges – the IIP slumps to a very weak, almost negligible growth of 1-2% every month.
IIP measures a basket of different types of industrial output. If one looks only at the manufacturing sector, which forms the backbone of the economy, the growth is even weaker. For instance, in March 2022, when the overall index grew at 1.9%, the manufacturing sector grew at just 0.9%.
All this is meant to show that the industrial sector – especially the big corporate sector is not growing, thus causing the increase in unemployment and the prevalence of insecure, low paying jobs in agriculture or the informal sector.
The likelihood of growth in the coming months is bleak because, as we saw earlier, demand is low. This is confirmed by the fact that bank credit to the large industry is growing at a measly pace, according to Reserve Bank of India data. Loans outstanding to large industry increased by just 1.6% between April 2021 and April 2022. In the previous year, credit had slumped by -3.6% because of the pandemic. Credit to the MSME sector has grown by leaps and bounds, driven by the easy credit made available by the government to that sector as part of its pandemic management strategy. However, since there has been hardly any demand, the sector is still facing a crisis.
Rising prices and unemployment
This situation becomes even more desperate for people because of rising prices and continuing joblessness.
Prices of essential items of use – from food to fuels – have risen inexorably over the past years. This has led to cutbacks in consumption. Retail inflation, that is, the rise in prices of what common people pay for various commodities or services, was recorded at 7.73% in April 2022. Within this general rise in prices, food items have increased more, topping off at 8.03% in the same month.
As shown in the chart below, based on data from the Reserve Bank of India, retail inflation has zoomed up since September last year.
2021-22 has become the year with the highest average yearly wholesale price increase in the past decade at 13%. Much of this increase is driven by fuel prices, which accounted for 25% of the jump in wholesale prices. Petrol and diesel prices have risen mainly due to the imposition of excise duties by the Modi government, which saw this as an easy way of raising resources. Price rise is actually direct robbery – it is the transfer of resources from the pockets of common people to rich traders and industrialists.
Meanwhile, unemployment continues unabated, having remained over 6.5% since September 2018, that is for 44 months continuously, according to CMIE. This includes the almost 25% rate of unemployment that was hit in April 2020, as the lockdown was imposed unexpectedly in India. In May 2022, average unemployment was clocked at 7.2%, while urban unemployment was higher, still at 8.2%.
The combination of these features has become an unbearable burden on the Indian people – and there appears to be no hope of any relief soon because the Modi government is only planning more of the same policy prescriptions.
https://popularresistance.org/bidens-exclusionary-summit-of-the-americas-disrupted-by-journalists/
How can you speak of press freedom when your governments murder journalists?
The ninth Summit of the America’s opened in Los Angeles on Monday, June 6. This is the second time that the summit has been hosted in the United States. The Biden administration chose to exclude the elected governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, inviting members of the US-backed far right ‘opposition’ instead. That decision caused the presidents of other American countries to boycott the summit, notably Mexico, Bolivia, Honduras and Guatemala.
In protest, social movements from the United States and Latin America organized a counter summit, The People’s Summit, which begins on June 8. Journalists involved in the People’s Summit disrupted Biden’s sham Summit, confronting US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the head of the US-controlled Organization of American States, Luis Amalgro.
One journalist confronted Amalgro over the OAS’ backing of a violent right-wing coup in Bolivia in 2019 that prevented the democratically-elected Evo Morales from taking his seat as president. Coup supporters massacred dozen of people, including journalist Sebastien Moro.
Abby Martin of The Empire Files confronted Sec. Blinken over the United States selling weapons to Saudi Arabia and the state of Israel, two countries that are responsible for the murders of journalists Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian who worked for The Washington Post, and recently Shireen Abu Akleh, a US citizen who worked for Al Jazeera.
And Eugene Puryear, host of Break Through News, also confronted Sec. Blinken over the exclusion of the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela while including illegitimate leaders such as Dr. Ariel Henry of Haiti, who is governing without a Constitutional mandate and who has been involved in multiple crimes, including the murder of the past president Jovenel Moise.
You can follow The People’s Summit at Break Through News.
