.jpg)
When I was at Drexel Burnham Garry Winnick was Michael Milken's right hand man. He wanted to break into the South East in order to sell junk bonds.
I was, then, in charge of institutional sales in the South East so Gary made me a proposal. He said his department, located in Los Angeles, would do everything and transfer 1/2 the commissions if I introduced his sales/traders to our equity clients.
I told him our clients were not overly aggressive and basically managed, what I called "moss money." NCNB was willing to connect with Winnick's team and for several months significant commissions began to roll in but then they stopped.
I Inquired and he told me since we were doing nothing he was walking away from our deal. That is what I know about Gary Winnick. He is now a billionaire and "Casa" is on the market for $250 million.
Today, Michael Milken and plenty of his associates have regained their former positions of respect because, in a capitalist nation, money peaks louder than character. We have a president whose family would be at home in Milken's world.
+++
The Whistle Blows on Hunter Biden’s Plea Deal
IRS agents say the Justice Department hindered their probe of the president’s son.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
The Beltway press corps spent the week quoting “experts” assuring the public that Hunter Biden’s plea deal didn’t amount to special treatment. You can believe that, or you can read the sworn testimony of Internal Revenue Service investigators who say the opposite.
House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith on Thursday released the testimony of Gary Shapley and another, anonymous IRS whistleblower. They tell a story of blocked search warrants, tip-offs to Mr. Biden’s team, squelched avenues of investigation, downgraded charges, and interference by Joe Biden’s appointees. Mr. Shapley, a 14-year IRS veteran, said the Justice Department, its Tax Division and the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office “provided preferential treatment and unchecked conflicts of interest.”
The president’s son on Tuesday scored a sweet deal, pleading guilty to two misdemeanors for “failure” to pay taxes, and a pretrial “diversion” agreement to avoid a felony firearms charge. He’ll likely avoid jail time. We now have a better idea of how this wrist-slap came about.
Mr. Shapley, leader of an elite team of agents specializing in international tax investigations, was brought in as supervisor of the Hunter case in January 2020. He says he quickly was stopped from taking normal investigatory steps. One example: He says his team was told in September 2020 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf that they couldn’t pursue a search warrant of Joe Biden’s guest house (Hunter’s onetime residence) because of the “optics” and because “there is no way we will get that approved.”
In December 2020 the team wanted to search a storage unit in Virginia where Hunter had moved business documents. Ms. Wolf again objected, then tipped off Hunter’s defense counsel, “ruining our chance to get to evidence before being destroyed, manipulated, or concealed,” Mr. Shapley said. Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters also tipped Hunter’s Secret Service team to a proposed “day of action” in which members of U.S. Attorney David Weiss’s team intended to conduct surprise interviews of witnesses—including Hunter. This gave a group “close to Hunter” the opportunity to “obstruct the approach,” and of the “12 interviews we hoped to conduct on our day of action, we only got one substantive interview.” Hunter lawyered up.
Along the way, according to Mr. Shapley’s testimony, Ms. Wolf told investigators not to ask any questions about “dad” or “the big guy.” They were blocked from pursuing leads about the financial transactions of Hunter’s children, since she said they’d get “into hot water if we interview the president’s grandchildren.” They were ordered not to look into evidence of campaign-finance violations. They were told to take Hunter’s name off official document requests, which Mr. Shapley said was “absolutely absurd.” The second whistleblower told the committee that he became “sick of fighting to do what’s right.”
The IRS team nonetheless prepared a document in late 2021 covering tax years 2014-19, in which it recommended charging Hunter with felony tax evasion, felony false tax returns, and failures to pay tax. Mr. Shapley says this was partially based on Hunter’s “textbook” tax evasion of declaring his income from the Ukrainian firm Burisma as a “loan.” Mr. Shapley says the team was also looking into a Foreign Agents Registration Act case.
According to Mr. Shapley, the Weiss team was prepared to pursue these charges but was blocked by Biden appointees—despite Attorney General Merrick Garland’s public claim of Mr. Weiss’s independence. Mr. Shapley notes that the proper venue for a tax case is where a subject resides or a return is filed; in Hunter’s case, the District of Columbia or California. But he says the U.S. attorney in the capital, Matthew Graves, refused to bring charges, and when Mr. Weiss asked for authority to bring charges there, he “was denied.” Mr. Shapley said U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada of California’s Central District, similarly declined to bring charges. Messrs. Graves and Estrada were both appointed by Joe Biden.
The Justice Department told the Journal on Thursday: “As both the Attorney General and U.S. Attorney David Weiss have said, U.S. Attorney Weiss has full authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges as he deems appropriate.”
These actions, and the lapsing of the statute of limitations, spared Hunter the gravest charges—those relating to his 2014 and 2015 tax returns, which Mr. Shapley says showed his “scheme to evade” taxes and possible FARA violation: “The purposeful exclusion of the 2014 and 2015 years sanitized the most substantive criminal conduct and concealed material facts.” Mr. Shapley says that Hunter still hasn’t reported or paid tax on some $400,000 of Burisma income.
Mr. Shapley provided further evidence of influence peddling. He gave the committee a 2017 WhatsApp message in which Hunter tells a Chinese businessman “I am sitting here with my father” and pushes the businessman to fulfill a “commitment.” He warns the businessman to personally resolve the issue that night, or “I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.” Mr. Shapley also says that Hunter’s partner, Rob Walker, admitted to investigators that a Joe Biden appearance (while out of office) at a Hunter business meeting with the Chinese was “orchestrated” to “bolster” the “chances at making a deal work out.” Mr. Shapley says Hunter’s attorney warned prosecutors that any charges would be “career suicide.”
There’s plenty more—including Mr. Shapley’s evidence of intimidation and retaliation against his team. But even this glimpse turns this week’s Hunter plea into a joke. The Justice Department needs to provide answers.
And:
There are to ways "Pop" and the Biden family will swing:
a) Democrats will have to act like loyal citizens and stand up for their country
and/or
the mass media must return to being ombudsmen, be responsible.
Both are highly unlikely.
Why? Because when you see Xfinity is offering viewers free videos pertaining to drag queens you have to believe our nation's morals have sunken so low there is little hope left for this country.
+++
As previously noted, small cap interest is returning because the disparity has reached levels that have attracted buyers.
+++
I have been to the Pacific Museum in Fredericksburg, and it is magnificent. We have traded Adm. Nimitz for Gen. Milley. God Help Us!
+++
Beautiful and profound story - Great Message - the kind we all need…
What God did at Pearl Harbor that day is interesting, and I never
knew this little bit of history.
Tour boats ferry people out to the USS Arizona Memorial in Hawaii
every thirty minutes. We just missed a ferry and had to wait thirty
minutes. I went into a small gift shop to kill time.
In the gift shop, I purchased a small book entitled, "Reflections on
Pearl Harbor" by Admiral Chester Nimitz.
Sunday, December 7th, 1941--Admiral Chester Nimitz was attending a concert in Washington, DC.
He was paged and told there was a phone call for him. When he answered the phone, it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt calling.
He told Admiral Nimitz that he (Nimitz) would now be the Commander of the Pacific Fleet. Admiral Nimitz flew to Hawaii to assume command of the Pacific Fleet.
Nimitz landed at Pearl Harbor on Christmas Eve, 1941. There was such a spirit of despair, dejection and defeat--you would have thought the Japanese had already won the war.
On Christmas Day, 1941, Adm. Nimitz was given a boat tour of the destruction wrought on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Big sunken battleships and navy vessels cluttered the waters everywhere you looked.
As the Admiral’s tour boat returned to dock, the young helmsman of the boat asked, "Well Admiral, what do you think after seeing all this destruction?"
Admiral Nimitz's reply shocked everyone within the sound of his voice.
Admiral Nimitz said, "The Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could ever make, or God was taking care of America.
Which do you think it was?"
Shocked and surprised, the young helmsman asked, "What do mean by saying the Japanese made the three biggest mistakes an attack force ever made?
Nimitz explained:
“Mistake number one:
The Japanese attacked on Sunday morning. Nine out of every ten crewmen of those ships were ashore on leave. If those same ships had been lured to sea and been sunk--we would have lost 38,000 men instead of 3,800.
Mistake number two:
When the Japanese saw all those battleships lined in a row, they got so carried away sinking those battleships, they never once bombed our dry docks opposite those ships. If they had destroyed our dry docks, we would have had to tow every one of those ships to America to be repaired. As it is now, the ships are in shallow water and can be raised. One tug can pull them over to the dry docks, and we can have them repaired and at sea by the time we could have towed them to America. And I already have crews ashore anxious to man those ships.
Mistake number three:
Every drop of fuel in the Pacific theater of war is in top of the
ground storage tanks five miles away over that hill. One attack plane
could have strafed those tanks and destroyed our fuel supply. That's
why I say the Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack
force could make or, God was taking care of America .
I've never forgotten what I read in that little book. It is still an
inspiration as I reflect upon it. In jest, I might suggest that because Admiral Nimitz was a Texan, born and raised in Fredericksburg,Texas -- he was a born optimist. But any way you look at it--Admiral Nimitz was able to see a silver lining in a situation and circumstance where everyone else saw only despair and defeatism.”
President Roosevelt had chosen the right man for the right job. We
desperately needed a leader that could see silver linings in the midst
of the clouds of dejection, despair and defeat.
There is a reason that our national motto is, “IN GOD WE TRUST”.
Why have we forgotten?
PRAY FOR OUR COUNTRY! “
In God We Trust”!
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Whistle blowers suffer more because we intuitively hate "snithches" when we should praise and support them for having the guts to serve our nation.
+++
Who is lying? Merrick Garland or the whistleblowers?
By Jonathan Turley
“I’m not the deciding official.”
Those five words, allegedly from Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, shocked IRS and FBI investigators in a meeting on October 22, 2022. This is because, in refusing to appoint a special counsel, Attorney Garland Merrick Garland had repeatedly assured the public and Congress that Weiss had total authority over his investigation.
IRS supervisory agent Gary A. Shapley Jr. told Congress he was so dismayed by Weiss’s statement and other admissions that he memorialized them in a communication to other team members.
Shapley and another whistleblower detail what they describe as a pattern of interference with their investigation of Hunter Biden, including the denial of searches, lines of questioning, and even attempted indictments.
The only thing abundantly clear is that someone is lying. Either these whistleblowers are lying to Congress, or these Justice Department officials (including Garland) are lying.
The response from both Hunter Biden’s counsel and the attorney general himself only deepened the concerns.
Christopher Clark, an attorney for Hunter Biden, responded to a shocking Whatsapp message that the president’s son had allegedly sent to a Chinese official with foreign intelligence contacts who was funneling millions to him.
“I am sitting here with my father,” the younger Biden wrote, “and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
President Biden has repeatedly told the public that he had no knowledge or involvement in his son’s dealings. He maintained the denial despite audiotapes of him referring to business dealings, photos and meetings with his son’s business associates, as well as an eyewitness account of an in-person meeting.
Clark did not deny that the above-quoted message had been sent. He only said that it was “illegal” to release the text (he did not explain why) and then added that “[a]ny verifiable words or actions of my client in the midst of a horrible addiction are solely his own and have no connection to anyone in his family.”
Most of us expected a simple denial. Yet, after five years, Hunter has never even denied that the laptop was his. His team has continued with the same non-denial denials.
The transcript also details how investigators wanted to confirm the authenticity of the Whatsapp message through the company. The Justice Department reportedly shut down that effort.
If Hunter Biden was evasive, Garland was irate. He denounced the allegations as “an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy, and essential to the safety of the American people.”
The statement bordered on delusion. Polls show that a majority of the public now views the Justice Department as politically compromised and even engaged in election interference. The level of trust in the department under Garland is now lower than it was under his predecessor, Bill Barr.
These questions are not an attack on the institution, but on what some are doing with it. Garland’s reaction is akin to doctors responding to malpractice lawsuits as attacks on medicine itself.
As in the past, Garland continued to insist that the public must trust him and his department, because “You’ve all heard me say many times that we make our cases based on the facts and the law.” Once again, he reminded citizens that “these are not just words. These are what we live by.”
For those us who once supported Garland’s nomination as Attorney General, it was another maddening moment. Garland has done little to change the view of his department or to address the political bias that has plagued it and the FBI for years. That record has resulted in blistering reports from the Inspector General and most recently Special Counsel John Durham.
Garland does have a motto. Yet, as these allegations pile up it is becoming more and more of a meaningless mantra.
The attorney general has a growing problem. For years, many of us have criticized him for his inexplicable refusal to appoint a Special Counsel on the Biden influence peddling scandal. Indeed, I have written over a dozen columns on why such an appointment seemed unavoidable, given the references to the president under various code names as a possible recipient of money and other benefits from foreign deals.
Even after a respected FBI source detailed allegations of a bribery scheme involving Ukrainian figures, Garland still refused to make the appointment. Such an appointment would not only expose Joe Biden to high-risk interviews, but would also allow the Special Counsel to issue a report on influence peddling by his family.
Garland was willing to appoint a Special Counsel to look into classified records found in Biden’s various offices, yet he continues to bar an appointment on major corruption allegations implicating the president.
It was impossible to investigate these matters without tripping over the president and other family members. The whistleblowers detailed repeated occasions in which they were told to back off.
Even the narrow tax issues addressed in Hunter’s recent plea bargain relate to those broader issues, given the source of these funds. Influence peddling may be lawful, but it is also corrupt. Indeed, it is the favorite form of corruption in Washington and a virtual family legacy of the Bidens.
It is the concealment of the corruption that often results in crimes, from false statements to tax evasion to unlawful financial transactions to unlawful work as an unregistered foreign agent.
The whistleblowers allege that the Justice Department consistently cut them off in seeking searches or answers related to President Biden. However, the line that stood out the most was this: “U.S. Attorney Weiss stated that he subsequently asked for special counsel authority from Main DOJ at that time and was denied that authority.”
If true, that means that Garland was not just hearing from experts and members of Congress calling for an appointment, but that Weiss himself also saw the need for such an appointment. Moreover, the report indicates that others in the investigation believed that there was a need to create such separation from the Justice Department in light of what they viewed as the special treatment given the president’s son.
These accounts could explain why the Justice Department took five years to secure a guilty plea to two misdemeanors that could have been established in the first month of the investigation.
It would explain why there is no evidence of serious investigation into the influence peddling or a charge under FARA. It would explain why Hunter’s lawyer cannot recall ever being asked about the laptop.
It would explain why the problem is not the Justice Department’s motto, but the man who is tasked with fulfilling it.
+++
Hanson and Democrat leftovers. Absolutely nothing good.
+++
What the Left Has Left for America
What the Left now fears most is the revolutionary model it has bequeathed to America—and what might happen if its monstrous creation falls into politically incorrect hands.
By Victor Davis Hanson
The present-day Left bears little resemblance to the old civil-libertarian, integrationist Democratic Party that existed from the 1960s through 2000.
The antecedents to its current madness were once previewed in the old party’s extremist wing of campus radicals of the 1960s and 1970s. They were accentuated by Black Lives Matter and Antifa during the Obama years, forged during the COVID lockdown and George Floyd riots, and polished during the era of Trump derangement syndrome.
On almost every issue, Democrats have repudiated their prior reverence for the Supreme Court.
They distrust individual liberty and free expression.
They now worship the money and clout of corporate America.
Racial ecumenicalism and integration are seen as passé.
There is little need for borders to protect vulnerable American workers, given the advantages of inviting in millions of poor illegal immigrants without audits.
Democrats have transmogrified into a Soviet-style socialist binary of rich and poor, run by an elite nomenklatura that dictates its orders to its foot soldiers of the underclass. An entire new left-wing vocabulary—clingers, deplorables, irredeemables, dregs, chumps, ultra-MAGA, semi-fascists—has come to express their hatred of the middle class.
On the Supreme Court
The Left has adopted Franklin Roosevelt’s once infamous (but now sanctified) 1937 approach to destroying the autonomy of the Supreme Court by threatening to pack it.
Note how any means necessary are justified in their attacks. Swarm the conservative justices’ private homes to leverage future opinions, with the assurance that an ethically bankrupt Justice Department will never enforce existing laws prohibiting such intimidation of the justices.
Have the Democrat Senate minority leader scream threats to justices by name at the very doors of the court and at the head of a mob—promising to individual justices a whirlwind to reap and unrecognizable forces that will soon hit them.
Wage ad hominem attacks on traditional justices in the media. Allege they are corrupt, on the theory that they are limited in their means of defense and any rebuttal will lack the wherewithal of the original unfounded smears.
Talk nonstop about changing the number of the court justices in order to intimidate conservative justices to move leftward. Move left or be packed!
Argue for nullifying Supreme Court decisions if they lack legal sanction, given the conservative majority of the Court.
Drive down the Court’s approval ratings in polls by nonstop screams that the justices cruelly hurt left-wing constituencies.
Claim that the presidency and the Senate, both in leftist hands, are the true voices of the people, rather than ossified edicts of heartless conservative justices.
Note the current attack has no principle other than neutering a conservative-leaning court until it can be rebooted left-wing, after which it will return to its former sacrosanct status.
Individual Liberty and Free Speech
In our Animal Farm left-wing world, free speech is “hate speech” and “individual liberty” is selfish privilege.
The ACLU transmogrified into an activist group targeting conservative expression deemed “hateful.”
Universities’ “hate speech” codes and “free speech” zones are Orwellian. They are subtexts for ensuring that any prominent conservative speaker should expect to be shouted down, threatened, slandered, and run off campus—sometimes violently—for infringing on the “safety” of the marginalized and vulnerable.
Social media, Google searches, and internet access are warped by corporate efforts to alter the flow of information. Once dangerous censorship has become a noble effort to silence “misinformation” and more dangerous “disinformation”—as adjudicated by ignorant 20-somethings at computer screens in Silicon Valley and obsequious 30-somethings in government cartels.
Corporate Grandees
Corporate America and its financial power are now left-wing approved.
CEOs now, in politically correct or woke ways, put their gains (once deemed ill-gotten) to the service of the people. Disney, Target, Anheuser-Busch, the airlines, and sports franchises all “get it.”
The Left has co-opted corporate America. So it says to them, “Use your money and clout to fast track our woke agenda, and in return, we will reinvent you, erasing from memory our past slurs of “bloodsucking leeches” and “running-dog capitalists,” and welcoming you into the pantheon of community-minded guardians of our culture. And you will make untold money from our globalized endorsement as never before.”
By absorbing the MBA programs at the major universities, the Left ensures that the new corporate credentialed elite has never gotten its hands grubby or stained in the lower echelons of business, or worked its way up the long, grimy corporate ladder. Instead, unpolluted the new execs transition from their MBA courses in diversity, equity, and inclusion, and in environmental, social, and governance to the activist corporate boardroom.
Remember, only mega-wealth is good. It is a revolutionary force that can bury wannabe capitalists, whose parochial right-wing millions stand no chance against enlightened left-wing globalized billions. Just ask George Soros, Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg, and Mark Zuckerberg.
From Class to Race and Sex
Class no longer matters to the new Left, except as a force multiplier lever if the supposedly marginalized are the nonwhite or nonbinary.
Otherwise, the poor of East Palestine, Ohio or the recruits who join the military from upstate New York or rural Texas are to be written off as the most dangerous demographic in America, full of white “rage,” “supremacy,” and “privilege.”
Segregation and separatism are noble ideas that perpetuate proper racial distinctions on the necessary pathway to massive transfers of reparatory wealth. Tribalism is a good word now. Superficial appearance alone can be reliable proof of exploitation.
“Crime” is a social construct, fabricated by wealthy white men whose manipulation of the economy is reflected in the laws they make to oppress and further victimize.
Segregated dorms, graduations, and safe spaces are necessary to fight integrationists and assimilationists who would culturally appropriate or rob the identities of the Other. There is a good racism necessary to fight bad racism, once experts like Ibram X. Kendi can instruct us which is which. Racism is “systemic” like air, but only trained DEI czars can detect it everywhere.
Poverty is now to be redefined. White poverty is the deserved fate of the stupid who never caught on to globalization and mindlessly try to convince us that ossified farming, the drudgery of mining, icky construction, the stink of fracking, or the monotony of assembly work remain vital industries.
Nonwhite poverty is the fault of the exploitative middle class, which lacks the romance of the distant poor and power and good taste of the rich corporate elite.
The Left’s once disliked intelligence and investigatory agencies, the despised Department of Justice, and the loathed Pentagon hierarchy are now deified on the principle that 1) by fiat, they can implement overdue cultural changes by bypassing the messing right-wing roadblocks of an archaic legislature, and 2) their extralegal powers can ferret out counterrevolutionaries and destroy them in a way impossible by others bound by a calcified and counterrevolutionary Constitution.
The value of these weaponized bureaucracies is endless. FBI directors can lie if the cause is deemed good, and with impunity under oath. Compliant FISA courts that are willingly deluded by false writs can help to spy on right-wingers.
Noble ex-CIA directors can round up “authorities” to issue false manifestos to influence elections. Enlightened attorney generals can overlook corruption and money laundering like that of the Biden family to emasculate any looming political rival.
Whistleblowers are neutral characters: deified when useful to the Left, to be despised as quislings when they disclose left-wing crimes.
The Border
The southern border is a mere construct created by fascists to exclude the Other.
Its removal fast tracks a new demography, dependent on leftist largess and eager to reciprocate with loyalty at the polls.
The triumphalism of the slogans touting a “New Democratic Majority” and “Demography is Destiny” sanctifies the reality that citizenship is defunct and mere residency has replaced it with all its former rights, but none of its erstwhile responsibilities.
Any who object to the cynicism inherent in the new demographic realities are racist adherents to the Great Replacement Theory, who are not wrong in deciphering leftist agendas, but to be damned as enemies of the people for exposing them.
How and Why?
Finally, how did the Left reinvent itself as a revolutionary Jacobin party and so easily stage its revolution?
First, it claimed that there is no Republican Party when in fact there has never been a more viable one that is racially inclusive and representative of the beleaguered middle class. Instead it is to be smeared as “ultra-MAGA” and “semi-fascist” and supposedly as “unrecognizable” as the new Left is demonstrably recognizable as militant socialist.
Second, the Left destroys people.
Cancel culture, doxxing, deplatforming, and shadow banning are all synonyms for left-wing character destruction, an updated electronic form of Trostkyization and Lavrentiy Beria-style “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” persecutions.
Anyone who strays—a Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Matt Taibbi, or an Elon Musk—will be targeted by the woke bureaucracies, libeled in the media, and ostracized by the popular culture.
The message is one of deterrence: stay properly left and you are accorded the James Comey/Andrew McCabe/James Clapper/John Brennan/Anthony Fauci/Hunter Biden/2020 rioters exemptions from legal accountability for lying under oath, rank profiteering, or abject violent rioting.
Swerve improperly rightward, and you will be vaporized by the long arm of the politicized law.
A final note. The Left’s only problem is that it has bequeathed a new legacy that has the potential to boomerang should it ever lose power.
So what has the Left conferred on America?
Impeachment once, twice, and more still is a good thing. Better still, it is to try a president even as a private citizen.
Special counsels are wonderful—all the more so if they have nearly two years and $40 million to hire a dream team of partisan lawyers.
A good attorney general is a president’s “wingman” who uses the law to go after enemies and exempt friends and families from the law, while using indictments to pave the way for reelection.
Lawfare is a legitimate tool of the president, especially when targeting a rival threat to his reelection.
High office is a path to riches. Selling your name for tens of millions of dollars is not only legitimate, but a necessary perk of the vice presidency and presidency.
The FBI, the Pentagon, the CIA, the Justice Department, and the IRS are underused assets. With the right mindset and willpower, all are vital tools in neutering your political enemies.
The media is utterly corrupt. What it covers and what it omits are entirely political decisions and thus can be warped accordingly by government rewards and punishments.
What the Left now fears most is the revolutionary model it has bequeathed to America—and what might happen if its monstrous creation falls into politically incorrect hands.
+++++++++++++++++++
‘There is no value in agreements with Iran’
Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen sits down with JNS to discuss aid to Ukraine, the Iranian threat, Israel-Saudi normalization and more.
By Amichai Stein
Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen arrives for a Cabinet meeting at the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem, Jan. 15, 2023. Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90.
Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen arrives for a Cabinet meeting at the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem, Jan. 15, 2023. Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90.
The rebellion in Russia over the weekend caught Israeli officials by surprise; there was much discussion regarding how the crisis might affect the Jewish state.
According to Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, the consensus was that it wouldn’t.
“This is an internal issue within Russia; we do not interfere in things that are happening within Russia”, Cohen told JNS.
However, he added, there could be indirect effects.
“We are mainly preparing for a scenario in which immigration to Israel increases. There are also currently several tens of thousands of Israelis in Russia for work or vacation purposes, so we may have to increase the number of flights to allow them to return to Israel, if necessary,” he said.
Q: So, there was no fear that the events in Russia might affect Israel?
A: I don’t think so. The events happened so fast. What we were really busy with was to check the immediate consequences for Israel, the envoys, the Israelis and the Jewish community. We updated scenarios on the matter.
Q: Some officials in Ukraine and in the West criticized Israel’s approach, or even “neutrality” when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
A: The Israeli approach is based on support for Ukraine’s sovereignty. I was the first foreign minister in the Middle East to come to Ukraine to strengthen them and to express support. There is very significant humanitarian aid from Israel to Ukraine. But we are also maintaining our relationship with Russia, since we have several important strategic issues in common with them and there is also a very large Jewish community in Russia.
Q: The head of [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky’s office, Andrey Yermak, criticized the Israeli prime minister for not coming to Ukraine.
A: I think that a visit is definitely a real possibility.
Q: And what about giving Ukraine defensive weapons?
A: There are discussions taking place in Israel, but for now there is no change in policy—we will not transfer defensive weapons.
Q: Some say the time has come for you to do so, to “jump on the train.”
A: Despite the complexity of the Russia-Ukraine issue, Israel expresses its support for Ukraine very clearly. IDF soldiers and Ukrainian soldiers have been sitting in Poland for the last few weeks to build a missile-drone warning system to save the lives of Ukrainian citizens.
The Iran threat
Minister Cohen noted the strategic benefit to Israel of Russia’s cooperation with the Islamic Republic with regard to the Ukraine war.
“The whole world is exposed to the fact that Iranian weapons are killing Ukrainian citizens, and this increases the world’s desire to take measures against Iran,” he said.
Q: But How much do you talk with Russia about Iran?
A: We explain the danger posed by the Iranians to every country that is in contact with Iran. We convey the same message: They are the number one financiers of terrorism. A nuclear Iran is not only a danger to Israel but also to the world.
Q: Is the new nuclear agreement, which is being discussed between the United States and Iran, worse than the original 2015 JCPOA agreement?
A: We think that there is no value in agreements with Iran. Its desire to obtain nuclear weapons is intended to [allow it to] continue [to increase] regional instability, to continue to violate human rights. We made it clear, unlike the previous government: We will not accept any agreement.
Q: Does Israel have the ability to prevent a U.S.-Iran agreement?
A: The Biden administration has made it a goal from the beginning to get the nuclear agreement moving. They think that the diplomatic solution is the best solution. We argued that it would not achieve anything.
I believe that if there was a solution, it would include [former U.S. secretary of state] Mike Pompeo’s 12 demands. Such an agreement would need to prevent Iran from both obtaining nuclear weapons and spreading terrorism. Then it would be different.
Q: How much does the relationship between Iran and the Gulf bother you?
A: It’s all a show. Any exchange of ambassadors between these countries and Iran is only for outside observers. Inside there is tension, the hatred and fear are very great. I’m sure the Iranians are not happy with our presence in the region, for example my visits to Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. But we are increasing our presence in Central Asia, and thanks to the Abraham Accords also in western Iran.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Following the deadly June 20 terror attack near Eli in Samaria, Israeli pictures of Israeli Jews rioting in Palestinian villages were broadcast around the world. I asked the minister how many phone calls and explanations he had had to make about these images.
“I didn’t get many calls. But did have to make some explanations, saying that Israel is a state of law and order. We condemn any violence—verbal or physical violence. I know there is enormous pain over the murder of innocents, but do not take the law into your own hands,” he said.
Q: It seems America’s patience is starting to run out.
A: I would be happy if the Americans would condemn the Palestinian Authority policy of incentivizing the murder of Jews. They encourage the murder of Jews.
Q: What do you think about U.S. ambassador Thomas Nides’s tweet regarding the “victims of the last 48 hours”?
A: I know Tom Nides. He loves the State of Israel. It is clear to me that he had no intention of comparing the terrorists who were killed in an [IDF] operation and those innocent civilians [killed by terrorists]. I met with him the next day—and he clarified his words and also issued a corrected tweet.
Q: Some of the Israeli government’s decisions regarding the settlements, and comments made by ministers—it seems they hurt relations with the United States.
A: I think that the relationship between us and the United States is a solid one, but sometimes there are disputes. It is legitimate to have disputes. We build in Judea and Samaria—even the previous government did so. But at the same time, I also suggest that the government maintain a good dialogue [with the U.S. administration].
Saudi Arabia
Though not yet in office for half a year, Cohen has already visited 21 countries. Despite much talk about the possibility that Saudi Arabia might normalize relations with the Jewish state, the kingdom was not among them.
Q: The Saudis issued us a red card—no entry for Israeli diplomats to their Expo2030 event, no direct flights from Israel to Saudi Arabia during the Hajj?
A: There is something that has been happening since the establishment of the Israeli government: there is a dialogue through the Americans regarding the possibility of a normalization and peace agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis currently mainly want from the United States assistance against the Iranian threat.
Q: So we are not part of this negotiation
A: The leading party at the talks is the Americans. The Saudis want, through the promotion of normalization with Israel, to receive from the United States a protective umbrella against Iran.
Q: Do the Americans check with us what our red lines are?
A: We clarify what our red lines are. And one of them is that no [Middle Eastern] country should acquire nuclear capabilities. I think we have a window of opportunity [regarding normalization with the Saudis] until March next year. Then the U.S. elections will come.
Israel-Diaspora relations
Q: Let’s talk about the government’s relations with Jews in the United States.
A: The relationship with the Jewish community is good. I meet with them. Unfortunately, under the auspices of the protest against judicial reform, there has also been an attempt by elements in the Israeli opposition, including [Yesh Atid chairman Yair] Lapid, to damage the relationship. I’ve also been in the opposition, but it never occurred to me to harm Israel.
Q: What do you think about the statements by members of your government (Minister Amichai Chikli) that J Street is hostile towards Israel?
A: I respect all the Jewish communities and organizations in the United States. But I think that supporting organizations like Breaking the Silence and others is unreasonable. It’s important for me to meet with all the communities, and keep in touch, and that’s what will happen in September when I will visit the United States.
Q: And the last question, about Israelis entering the US without a VISA.
A: Progress on the matter is according to plan. In two weeks the pilot will begin, and Israeli citizens will be able to benefit from a visa exemption. Ambassador Nides is the effective factor, and this is his main legacy, the visa exemption.
Amichai Stein is the diplomatic correspondent for Kan 11, IPBC.
jns
Be a part of our community
JNS serves as the central hub for a thriving community of readers who appreciate the invaluable context our coverage offers on Israel and their Jewish world.
Please join our community and help support our unique brand of Jewish journalism that makes sense.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Durham the "whistle blower." No matter what is uncovered that is absolute corruption Democrtas will ignore it as will the mass media in the hope it will go away and Americans no longer care.
+++
John Durham Testifies, yet ‘Collusion’ Lives
At a hearing, Democrats show no interest in acknowledging their role in perpetrating a hoax.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Natural selection tells us if voters objected to their representatives behaving like asses in congressional hearings, their representatives would either stop doing so or stop being returned to office. But a key variable may be wrong if the target of their histrionics isn’t voters at all but fellow activists, interest groups and other members of the inner circle.
Wednesday’s hearing with special counsel John Durham, an exposer of the Russia collusion hoax, perhaps provides proof of concept. If any real voters tuned in, they were almost certainly Durham admirers and unswayed by Democratic hysterics, and yet Democrats outdid themselves in hysterics, even more than Republicans, whose voters were more likely to be watching.
Fresh from being censured by the House GOP majority for spreading collusion lies, Rep. Adam Schiff spread a collusion lie. It wasn’t the “Russian government,” as Mr. Schiff said, but a British music industry publicist who offered dirt on Hillary Clinton, and it was a private Russian lawyer who later showed up at Trump Tower and delivered instead a pitch on sanctions relief apparently on behalf of an oligarch client.
This had nothing to do with the matters Mr. Durham, the special counsel, was appointed to investigate and he said so.
If nobody has yet spelled it out for you, the Federal Bureau of Investigation apparently can open an investigation on the thinnest basis, and that’s fine. Investigations are meant to be confidential. The FBI is assumed to be proceeding in good faith. As Mr. Durham showed, not only did the FBI open a case on a presidential campaign in the middle of an election, it did so on a piece of evidence that broke all records for vagueness and thinness, involving an opaque remark by an unimportant Trump volunteer to an Australian diplomat.
The impetus for opening such an investigation began and ended on the seventh floor, occupied by then-FBI Director James Comey and his closest aides. Stranger still was the handling of the two most solid pieces of evidence, neither of which was favorable to collusion.
The FBI proceeded to falsify one—doctoring a Central Intelligence Agency email to say minor Trump associate Carter Page had not been a CIA informant when he had been. The other the FBI’s overseers simply chose not to share with the team investigating collusion. This was information, received at the very beginning of the inquiry, indicating that Russian intelligence itself was privy to inside dope from the Clinton campaign and a plan to promote collusion fictions against the Trump campaign.
One brainless press report after another has since suggested that Mr. Durham, in citing this intelligence, was himself endorsing “unvetted, unverified” information, but Mr. Durham did not endorse it and explicitly warns that it may not be true or complete.
However, it was also a virtual gold nugget compared with the other unvetted information the task force was being asked to examine. Unlike the Australian tidbit, the Steele dossier or the Alfa Bank allegation, it was vetted by Dutch intelligence before being passed to the CIA, vetted by the CIA before making a formal referral to the FBI, and certainly vetted by CIA chief John Brennan before he rushed over to brief President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and the White House national security staff on the reported Russian window into the Clinton inner circle.
Yet the FBI major-domos withheld from their own team the one piece of information that, whether or not an accurate reflection of Russian penetration of the Clinton camp, accurately suggested that much of the unvetted material the FBI rank-and-file were asked to examine was false and had been fabricated by the Clinton campaign.
In an afternoon of rants, a notable one came from GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz, who accused Mr. Durham of improperly failing to bring criminal charges against Mr. Comey et al.
Mr. Durham was given little chance to answer but it’s hard to believe the leaders of the world’s most powerful law-enforcement agency can’t find ways to do what they want without exposing themselves to criminal liability. My guess is that the long-term foreboding for the rule of law that Mr. Durham mentioned at the beginning and end of his testimony will be confirmed.
Since the collusion hoax, we’ve had a hoax by three former heads of the CIA plus 48 of their former colleagues, with likely participation by active-duty FBI personnel as well, concerning the Hunter Biden laptop. Nor could you listen on Wednesday and not learn that Democrats are neither embarrassed nor deterred by their party’s clear role in fabricating collusion evidence. With the Ukraine war raging, with their own hefty investment in training voters and the media to be receptive to claims about Republicans and Vladimir Putin, “collusion” will likely be with us at least through the 2024 campaign, and—get ready for it—whether or not Donald Trump is the Republican nominee.
According to an FBI document seen by Sen. Chuck Grassley, a confidential human source says 17 audio recordings exist of phone calls between a foreign national and Hunter Biden and then Vice President Biden. But the FBI redacted this information, claiming it's a matter of 'life and death' for the source.
++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment