TBR News July 2, 2016
The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. July 2, 2016: “Shades of the George W. Bush elections, the Austrian courts have overturned the results of their last presidential elections because of what are diplomatically referred to as “irregularities.” If the right wing gets into power there, more problems for the EU. This US-supported entity, like Nato, is in the process of breaking up and there is consternation in the US, especially in high official circles and the financial world. US control is slipping. A plan to admit 10,000 Muslim refugees into the US is about to be neutralized and it is always important to remember that when a ruling entity is threatened, minorities suffer.”
The Müller Washington Journals 1948-1951
At the beginning of December, 1948, a German national arrived in Washington, D.C. to take up an important position with the newly-formed CIA. He was a specialist on almost every aspect of Soviet intelligence and had actively fought them, both in his native Bavaria where he was head of the political police in Munich and later in Berlin as head of Amt IV of the State Security Office, also known as the Gestapo.
His name was Heinrich Müller.
Even as a young man, Heini Müller had kept daily journals of his activities, journals that covered his military service as a pilot in the Imperial German air arm and an apprentice policeman in Munich. He continued these journals throughout the war and while employed by the top CIA leadership in Washington, continued his daily notations.
This work is a translation of his complete journals from December of 1948 through September of 1951.
When Heinrich Müller was hired by the CIA¹s station chief in Bern, Switzerland, James Kronthal in 1948, he had misgivings about working for his former enemies but pragmatism and the lure of large amounts of money won him over to what he considered to be merely an extension of his life-work against the agents of the Comintern. What he discovered after living and working in official Washington for four years was that the nation¹s capital was, in truth, what he once humorously claimed sounded like a cross between a zoo and a lunatic asylum. His journals, in addition to personal letters, various reports and other personal material, give a very clear, but not particularly flattering, view of the inmates of both the zoo and the asylum.
Müller moved, albeit very carefully, in the rarefied atmosphere of senior policy personnel, military leaders, heads of various intelligence agencies and the White House itself. He was a very observant, quick-witted person who took copious notes of what he saw. This was not a departure from his earlier habits because Heinrich Müller had always kept a journal, even when he was a lowly Bavarian police officer, and his comments about personalities and events in the Third Reich are just as pungent and entertaining as the ones he made while in America.
The reason for publishing this phase of his eventful life is that so many agencies in the United States and their supporters do not want to believe that a man of Müller¹s position could ever have been employed by their country in general or their agency in specific.
Thursday, 5. April, 1951
As expected, the Rosenbergs get death! The other one (Morton Sobell, ed.) got 30 years in prison. The lawyers will now get busy but the end is preordained. As an example to others is what is said here and it has a chilling effect on the very liberal segment of American politics. There are still very many in this country, very quiet now of course, who view Soviet Russia as the hope of the world. They are not happy with the brutalities of Stalin but still admire communism as an “equalizing” system that is kind to cripples (such as themselves of course).
It is expected that MacArthur is going to be replaced within the week. Here, he is viewed as either a dangerous man or insane. Or perhaps both. We know about his plots against Roosevelt and now we see him trying to inflict his will on Truman. There is no question that MacArthur would have dropped atomic bombs on China…and perhaps Russia…if he had them. The CIA hates him because he blocked any attempt on their part to open offices in Japan.
Hiss finally went to jail at the end of last month. He will be locked up for five years and be a left-wing martyr for the rest of his life.
McCarthy is getting his knife into the liberal community and people are being accused and fired right and left. He will eventually either run his course or run for the Presidency. He has a very serious alcoholic problem and a terrible temper so higher office will be denied him. Besides, the party leadership decides who will be the candidate and never the voters.
Wednesday, 11. April, 1951.
MacArthur was fired today in a dramatic way. He has his people in Washington and got the news that he was finished. Truman has his people in Tokyo and found out that MacArthur was going to dramatically resign…and attack Truman in the process. Truman struck first and issued a statement just ahead of MacArthur.
A thoroughly expected but still unnerving public response. This is being written late at night and the papers as well as the radio news indicates a great wave of popular outrage directed against Truman. There are those who want the President to recant but he will not and MacArthur is finished. The drama has to go through the last act but the President has won this battle at least. Ridgeway is the Imperator-elect and is certainly doing a competent job in Korea.
Now that M. is out, the CIA want immediately to move into the Asian area where they can have ripe pickings, they hope, and make more international mischief. They already have their fingers in the European and Near East cake and now they are licking their lips in anticipation of meddling in Asia as well. Well, no doubt there will be more destabilized governments, more assassinations and certainly more money for their private accounts in Switzerland.
I reminded one of my associates, not in jest, that now the CIA could get into the opium business and this one only nodded and said, “By God, I hadn’t thought of that.”
Soon we will all have our opium pipes courtesy of Allen Dulles and his academic clowns. And I am sure that this will happen with this nest of thieves.
The involvement by the CIA with Southeast Asian drugs has become well known in the years following the end of the war in Vietnam. Books have been written on the subject…when publishers can be found that are not susceptible to CIA pressure…but the degree and extent of this extracurricular financing is yet to be fully disclosed.
SECRECY NEWS
From the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2016, Issue No. 56
July 1, 2016
FOIA IMPROVEMENT ACT SIGNED INTO LAW
President Obama signed into law the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Improvement Act of 2016 yesterday.
The Act places a 25 year limit on the use of the deliberative process exemption, codifies a presumption of openness, and makes various procedural improvements in the FOIA. The Department of Justice summarized its understanding of the new law here.
The White House portrayed the law as consistent with its own record of promoting open government.
“I am very proud of all the work we’ve done to try to make government more open and responsive, but I know that people haven’t always been satisfied with the speed with which they’re getting responses and requests,” President Obama said at an Oval Office signing ceremony. “Hopefully this is going to help and be an important initiative for us to continue on the reform path.”
A White House fact sheet said that more would be done. “The Administration is taking a number of steps to further the progress made since 2009, ensuring that this Administration’s track record of openness is institutionalized throughout government and carries forward for years to come.”
But the new FOIA law explicitly provides no new resources for implementation. So in the face of rising and, in fact, unconstrained demand from some FOIA users, it is unclear how much improvement the FOIA Improvement Act can be expected to generate for the average requester.
“In honor of Congress’ passage of FOIA reform bill, I just submitted approx 700 new #FOIA requests to FBI,” tweeted FOIA campaigner Ryan Shapiro on June 14. He did not appear to be joking.
SLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND MORE FROM CRS
Noteworthy new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Slow Growth in the Current U.S. Economic Expansion, June 24, 2016
Economic Growth Slower Than Previous 10 Expansions, CRS Insight, June 30, 2016
The Economic Effects of Trade: Overview and Policy Challenges, June 29, 2016
Job Creation in the Manufacturing Revival, updated June 28, 2016
U.S. Semiconductor Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal Policy, June 27, 2016
Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2017, June 24, 201Digital Searches and Seizures: Overview of Proposed Amendments to Rule 41 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, June 29, 2016
Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives, updated June 27, 2016
Midnight Rules: Congressional Oversight and Options, CRS Insight, June 27, 2016
Senate Action on U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During the Eighth Year of a Presidency, CRS Insight, June 30, 2016
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Supreme Court’s 4-4 Split on Immigration, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 24, 2016
Iran’s Foreign Policy, updated June 27, 2016
Financing U.S. Agricultural Exports to Cuba, CRS Insight, June 24, 2016
After Brexit: A Diminished or Enhanced EU?, CRS Insight, June 29, 2016
Possible Economic Impact of Brexit, CRS Insight, June 28, 2016
Zika Virus in Latin America and the Caribbean: U.S. Policy Considerations, June 29, 2016
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer, updated June 28, 2016
Breedlove’s war: Emails show ex-NATO general plotting US conflict with Russia
July 1, 2016
RT
Hacked private emails of the US general formerly in charge of NATO reveal a campaign to pressure the White House into escalating the conflict with Russia over Ukraine, involving several influential players in Washington.
The emails, posted by the site DCLeaks, show correspondence between General Philip M. Breedlove, former head of the US European Command and supreme commander of NATO forces, with several establishment insiders concerning the situation in Ukraine following the February 2014 coup that ousted the elected government in favor of a US-backed regime.
Breedlove served as the NATO Supreme Commander between May 2013 and March 2016. His personal email incorporated his Air Force call sign “Bwana” – a Swahili word for “boss.”
The hacked emails reveal his frequent and intense communications with retired General Wesley Clark, as well as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and involving a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, State Department official Victoria Nuland, and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.
Clark, who commanded NATO during the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, reached out to Breedlove in April 2014. On April 8, he forwarded “intelligence” obtained by Anatoly Pinchuk and Dmitry Tymchuk, activists close to the new regime, claiming a Russian invasion was in the works.
The information was conveyed by Phillip Karber, an ex-Marine and president of the Potomac Foundation, whom Clark calls a “colleague” and “our guy.” Karber wrote about observing the Russian border from inside a Ukrainian tank, and eagerly transmitted Tymchuk and Pinchuk’s calls for support. Contacted by The Intercept on Friday, Karber confirmed the authenticity of several emails in the leaked cache.
Reporting on his meeting with Ambassador Pyatt on April 6, Karber wrote: “State is the one trying to be pro-active and recognizes need to do more faster,” while General Martin Dempsey – at that point the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – was “dragging his feet in order to save [military] relations with Russians.”
In an email dated April 12, Clark referred to his exchange with “Toria” Nuland – the assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia, who personally backed the Ukrainian revolution – pushing for open US support for the regime in Ukraine to use force against protesters in the east. Prior to the coup, Washington had strongly warned Kiev not to use force against the anti-government demonstrators in the city.
Kiev’s summer “anti-terrorist operation” ended in crushing defeat in August, and the first armistice between the government and rebels was signed in Minsk in September. Meanwhile, the so-called Islamic State jihadist group arose in Iraq and Syria, drawing US attention away from Eastern Europe with gruesome beheadings of Westerners. Frustrated by the White House’s reluctance to back his belligerent agenda in Ukraine, Breedlove reached out to Powell, a retired general and former secretary of state.
“I seek your counsel on two fronts,…. how to frame this opportunity in a time where all eyes are on ISIL all the time,… and two,… how to work this personally with the POTUS,” Breedlove wrote to Powell in September 2014. Powell’s response was not made available.
Breedlove was introduced to Powell by Harlan Ullman, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and the author of the “shock and awe” doctrine used by the Bush administration in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In October 2014, Ullman urged Breedlove to reach out to Vice President Joe Biden. Aside from Powell, Ullman wrote, “I know of no better way of getting into 1600,” referring to the White House’s address on Pennsylvania Avenue.
In November, Ullman also suggested Breedlove should get together with David O’Sullivan, the new EU envoy to Washington. Noting that Europe “seems to be a six letter expletive in the White House,” Ullman adds that “perhaps quiet collaboration between him and NATO (SecGen) as well might be useful.”
“Obama or Kerry needs to be convinced that Putin must be confronted,” Ullman wrote in February 2015, before the ‘Minsk II’ talks.
He also gave Breedlove pointers on getting into the good graces of Ash Carter, the new Defense Secretary. “I would take or pretend to take careful notes. Ash is an academic. And he is trained that students who take good notes rise to be A grades. This may be maskarova. But it is useful maskarova,” Ullman wrote, misspelling the Russian word for camouflage (maskirovka).
Washington did approve hundreds of millions of dollars in “non-lethal” aid to Ukrainian troops, including the notorious “volunteer battalions,” in the 2016 military budget.
Breedlove continued to push for more aggressive US involvement, claiming a heavy Russian troop presence in Ukraine – which was later denied even by the government in Kiev. In March this year, the general was telling US lawmakers that Russia and Syria were “deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”
Breedlove was replaced at the helm of EUCOM and NATO in May, and officially retired from the military on July 1. He was replaced by US Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, whose public statements suggest a similar level of hostility for Russia.
New elections in Austria: “The right decision”
Constitutional judges in Austria unanimously agreed that holding a repeat presidential election will strengthen trust in democracy. They were astounded by inconsistencies in the handling of the ballots.
July 1, 2016
DW
“The scale of it completely surprised me,” Austrian constitutional lawyer Heinz Mayer said in an interview with DW. Hearings in the constitutional court brought more and more misconduct to light. The former law professor from the University of Vienna explicitly welcomes the judges’ strict verdict. “They have boosted faith in democracy: They took a clear stance and made a resolute decision,” he said.
On Friday at noon, the president of Austria’s constitutional court, Gerhard Holzinger, announced the most important decision of his career. Ermine fur resting on his shoulders, he uttered the words that have accorded Austria a third round in a hard-fought presidential campaign. “The challenge brought by Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache against the May 22 election… has been upheld.”
The court found irregularities in 14 of the 20 investigated constituencies; some 77,000 votes were affected. Green Party candidate Alexander van der Bellen had only led the right-wing populist Norbert Hofer by 30,863 votes, so judges could not rule out the possibility that the overall election result was distorted.
Election regulations were violated
In his statement, Holzinger said that although there was no evidence of manipulation, there were enough grievances to merit a rerun of the election. The constitutional court considers it unlawful, for example, to disclose preliminary results to journalists before polls close. On the day of the election, initial figures were revealed in social media outlets at 5:00 p.m., long before polling stations were officially closed. “This violates the freedom of choice,” said Holzinger. Even more regrettable were the mistakes in the counting procedure. Ballots were sorted and counted too early, sometimes even in the absence of scrutineers who nevertheless documented correct proceedings in many cases.
“The election officials’ boundless ignorance of the rules is inconceivable to me,” said constitutional expert Heinz Mayer. His colleague Klaus Poier from the University of Graz told DW it was “frustrating to realize that election rules were violated on such a large scale.” Both constitutional experts praise the court’s decision. “In this way, democracy is being served better than if the judges had said, ‘They were just sloppy,'” said Klaus Poier. He recalled a similar case the United States in 2000, when the Supreme Court stopped the recount of disputed votes in the election between George W. Bush and Al Gore after reports of irregularities emerged. “In comparison, this decision is much better.”
Hofer: A third of a president
Now that constitutional judges have made their decision, the Hofburg Palace, the residence and workplace of Austria’s president, will temporarily be vacant from July 8 on, when the term of the outgoing president ends. Official duties will be carried out in the interim by a three-party committee consisting of top parliamentarians. This ironically makes Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party (FPÖ) a third of a president. The triumvirate is made up of Hofer, National Council president Doris Bures of the Social Democrats (SPÖ), and Karlheinz Kopf of Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP). Hofer has already announced that he would not give up the position. “I will prove that I conduct myself in a non-partisan manner.”
The Austrian government will set the date for the election rerun. There is no deadline, however preparing the ballots will take about 11 weeks, meaning the election could take place at the end of September or beginning of October. Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka expects a decision next week. He wants to implement the court’s verdict immediately, which means there will be no preliminary results following the rerun; the outcome will only be announced after all votes have been counted.
Advantage for FPÖ
Both Alexander van der Bellen and Norbert Hofer were quick to praise the court’s decision. “I respect the decision, that is clear,” said van der Bellen, adding: “To make one thing clear – I expect to win a second time.” His opponent Norbert Hofer said he has a “real desire for another election campaign.”
It was Hofer’s Free Democrats (FPÖ) who filed the appeal at the constitutional court. The party’s lawyer sees this as a clear image boost. “The FPÖ has successfully challenged the election results and demanded a clean-up where sloppiness prevailed.” Does that give them an advantage in the repeat election? Yes, said constitutional expert Heinz Mayer. “Now they can play up their image as guarantors of the rule of law.” His colleague Klaus Poier is not so sure about that. “That is understandable political rhetoric but people can judge it easily. There was no proven manipulation.”
‘Austria will stay in EU if Turkey stays out’ – presidential candidate Hofer to RT
July 1, 2016
RT
There will be no need for a referendum on EU membership in Austria if the European Union decides not to let Turkey become a member, Norbert Hofer, the head of Austria’s eurosceptic Freedom Party (FPO) told RT.
“I believe that people are able to learn, that political structures are able to develop, and that Austria will contribute to making Europe better. There is one exception, however, that is if the EU decides to let Turkey join the Union,” Hofer said, adding that under such circumstances “Austrians will have to be asked whether they want this.”
“I hope that there will be no need for a referendum [on EU membership] in Austria, and that the Union will develop in a positive manner,” he added. “But I am fully certain that Austrian people will not accept Turkish membership in the bloc, as well as the situation where Austria is deprived of its powers in favor of the authorities in Brussels.”
Hofer said the EU must learn the lesson the posed by the British referendum, namely to divide the powers between its central authority in Brussels and the 27 member states.
“Of course I was concerned about the future of the EU [in view of the British referendum results]. I respect the decision the British nation made, all democratic decisions must be respected,” he said.
“However, the European Union must learn this lesson: we must be creating Europe for the people, not Europe for bureaucrats. This means that we need to come up with better agreements, we must divide the powers between the EU, on the one hand, and its member states, on the other, and get the citizens involved in these projects,” Hofer said.
He said that the EU has a chance to avoid the of other European states following the UK out of the bloc if it becomes a subsidiary union, which “takes into consideration, which powers are exercised by its authorities, and which – by member states.”
“Bottom line, it all depends on the direction the EU chooses for its further development,” Hofer said.
Earlier, Hofer warned that Austria could hold its own referendum on EU membership within a year if the bloc insists on political “centralization.” The FPO leader and his establishment see the bloc as based on economic, rather than political, cooperation. And his views have an increasing influence on the public opinion in Austria, especially now that Hofer has a chance to become Austrian president after the country’s Constitutional Court ruled a re-run of last month’s presidential election which saw him narrowly lose the post by just 31,000 votes.
“If the EU chooses the right path, there will be no need for a referendum in Austria,” Hofer told RT.
Turkey’s “double game” on ISIS and support for extremist groups highlighted after horrific Istanbul attack
Turkish President Erdoğan has long been accused of helping ISIS and other extremist militants fight Kurds and Assad
June 30, 2016
by Ben Norton
Salon
Istanbul’s popular Atatürk airport was plunged into chaos this week after a horrific attack by three suicide bombers killed at least 43 people and injured another 239.
Turkish government officials say they have strong evidence that the bombings were carried out by the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.
The alleged ISIS attack has reignited concern about Turkey’s “double game” on ISIS in Syria. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has long been accused of indirectly and even directly helping ISIS and other extremist groups in Syria, in their fights against Kurdish rebels and Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
For years, Turkey — a U.S. ally and NATO member — let ISIS and other violent Salafi (Sunni extremist) groups cross its open border with Syria, which some dubbed the “jihadi highway.”
A former ISIS member told Newsweek in 2014 that the so-called Islamic State saw Turkey as its ally. He explained that heavily armed ISIS fighters were allowed to freely cross the NATO member’s border, and “ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks.”
The ex-ISIS militant said he “connected ISIS field captains and commanders from Syria with people in Turkey on innumerable occasions,” and added that ISIS commanders “mostly spoke in Turkish because the people they talked to were Turkish officials.”
“ISIS and Turkey cooperate together on the ground on the basis that they have a common enemy to destroy, the Kurds,” he explained.
Today, Turkey is technically fighting ISIS, having joined in the U.S. coalition against the fascist group. But this comes after years of alleged support for the Islamic State.
David L. Phillips, director of the Program on Peace-Building and Rights at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights, has done extensive research on Turkey’s alleged collaboration with ISIS. Salon spoke with Prof. Phillips.
“Turkey was the midwife that created ISIS. Now ISIS has turned on its benefactor,” Phillips said.
Past Turkish support for ISIS was not just tacit, he argued. “Erdoğan and ISIS are both fighting the YPG and they cooperate.”
The YPG is a secular leftist Kurdish rebel group that has been both fighting ISIS and waging a revolution in northern Syria. The YPG is aligned with the PKK, a revolutionary socialist Kurdish group that has for decades fought for independence from Turkey.
The YPG itself has also accused Turkey of collaborating with ISIS. In 2014, a spokesperson for the Kurdish rebel group said, “There is more than enough evidence with us now proving that the Turkish army gives ISIS terrorists weapons, ammunitions and allows them to cross the Turkish official border crossings in order for ISIS terrorists to initiate inhumane attacks against the Kurdish people in Rojava.” Rojava is the northern Kurdish-majority area of Syria.
Although they have collaborated in their fight against the Kurds, Phillips argued that the Islamic State has since come to resent Turkey for allowing the U.S. to use its Incirlik air force base for anti-ISIS operations.
Phillips, who has also served as a former adviser to the United Nations Secretariat and an adviser to the U.S. State Department, has published a research paper detailing the many links between Turkey and ISIS.
Turkey may have given weapons and military equipment to ISIS and provided transport, intelligence, medical care and training to its fighters, according to media reports and documents cited by Phillips. Turkey has also been accused of supporting ISIS financially through the purchase of oil, assisting it in recruitment and helping it fight the anti-ISIS Kurdish resistance in Rojava.
Phillips said the airport bombings on Tuesday, June 28 look like an ISIS attack. He clarified that Kurdish rebel groups like the PKK and YPG do not usually target civilians; instead, they target Turkish soldiers and police, with whom Kurdish rebels have been at war.
Extremist groups like ISIS, on the other hand, frequently target civilians, not just government military or security forces.
It certainly looks like an ISIS attack. And there is no reason to think Turkish officials are being misleading by blaming the Islamic State. If the Turkish government wanted to exploit the attack for political gain, it would likely blame it on Kurdish rebel groups, against whom Erdoğan has been waging a brutal military crackdown. In fact, Turkey has in the past blamed attacks on Kurdish rebels that were later discovered to have been carried out by non-Kurdish groups.
This is not the first time Turkey has been attacked by alleged ISIS members. In October 2015, at least 128 people were killed and hundreds were injured after two suspected ISIS suicide bombers attacked a rally of leftist, pro-Kurdish political parties.
Erdoğan’s ruling right-wing nationalist Justice and Development Party, AKP, condemned the massacre, but was accused of not doing enough to protect the left-wing, pro-Kurdish groups. Moreover, there were even reports that Turkish police had been ordered to block ambulances from treating the activists who were bombed.
“A double game in Syria”
Robert Naiman, policy director at Just Foreign Policy and the author of the chapter on Syria in the book “The WikiLeaks Files,” also told Salon he has a similar analysis of the situation in Turkey.
“Turkey has played a double game in Syria with respect to ISIS, as the Turkish government basically admitted when it tried to suppress the reporting of Turkish journalists about it,” he said, referencing the recent imprisonment of two prominent Turkish reporters who exposed how the Erdoğan government has directly armed Islamist rebels in Syria — in an incident one columnist described as “weapons to Syria, journalists to jail.”
“Turkey is certainly not the only country that has played a double game with respect to” extremist Islamist groups, Naiman noted. “So have the Gulf Sunni monarchies.”
“And so has the U.S., in the sense that the CIA is arming groups, as The New York Times has reported, that the president claims with little dispute that he could target under the 2001 AUMF as ‘associated forces to al-Qaeda,’” he explained, using an acronym for the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
“But Turkey is paying a higher price for the double game because it is closer to Syria,” Naiman added.
Pentagon officials have been reluctant to arm Syrian Islamist rebel groups who they say are linked to extremist groups like al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra. The CIA, which supports these groups, has butted heads with the Department of Defense in disagreement.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia, both of whom are close Western allies, are also supporters of the Salafi militant groups Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham. The founder of Jaysh al-Islam, Zahran Alloush, called for religious minority groups to be cleansed from Syria’s capital, Damascus, and Human Rights Watch says the extremist group likely put Alawite Muslims in cages to be used as human shields. Ahrar al-Sham has fought alongside al-Nusra, Syria’s al-Qaeda.
Despite their extremism, however, both Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham are members of the High Negotiation Committee, the Saudi-led alliance of some 34 rebel groups that are in peace talks to end the war in Syria. For several months, Mohammed Alloush, a cousin and brother-in-law of Zahran Alloush, was the opposition’s chief negotiator in the peace talks, although he later stepped down in frustration at the lack of progress.
In 2014, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey Francis Ricciardone also accused Turkey of directly supporting al-Nusra.
“The Turks frankly worked with groups for a period, including al-Nusra, whom we finally designated as we’re not willing to work with,” Ricciardone said. The U.S. government considers al-Nusra a terrorist organization. Yet Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been accused of supporting the extremist group.
The U.S. is also playing its own double game in Syria and Turkey. In Syria, it is supporting Kurdish rebel groups that are fighting ISIS — and, to further complicate it, the Pentagon is arming Syrian Kurds, which are secular leftist forces fighting Islamist extremists, while the CIA is arming Syrian Islamist rebels, which are actively fighting both the Kurds and Assad.
Buildings, which were damaged during the security operations and clashes between Turkish security forces and Kurdish militants, are seen in the southeastern town of Cizre in Sirnak province
Meanwhile, in Turkey, the U.S. supports the government and opposes Kurdish rebels, even though Turkish Kurdish rebels are, for the most part, allied with the Syrian Kurdish rebels that the U.S. supports.
Moreover, a recent report by The New York Times detailed how millions of dollars of weapons sent by the CIA and Saudi Arabia to Syrian rebels were “systematically” stolen and sold to arms traffickers on the black market.
This is the kind of twisted web that the war in Syria has morphed into in the past five years. Dozens of countries are fighting for their piece of the pie, and the harsh repression of the Assad regime and the intense fighting from foreign-backed rebels has turned Syria into an imperial battleground that has destroyed the once middle-income country and plunged it into a level of extreme destruction, chaos and desperation that will take decades to fully recover from.
Internal war against Kurds
“Turkey is isolated and enfeebled,” David L. Phillips told Salon. “It’s at war with its neighbors and, by virtue of its unjustified attacks against the Kurds, Turkey is at war with itself.”
He pointed out that Kurdish rebels are on the verge of connecting the Syrian cities Azzaz and Jarablus, which would allow them to form a security buffer along the Turkey-Syria border. “Turkey wants to establish the security buffer but its arch-enemy, the YPG, controls this route,” Phillips explained.
Erdoğan has become increasingly authoritarian and repressive in recent years. His regime has seized control of opposition newspapers, brutally clamped down on reporters and press-freedom advocates and claimed journalists who undermine his government are terrorists.
Prosecutors have opened more than 1,800 cases against people on charges of insulting Erdoğan since he took office in 2014. Young students have been imprisoned for accusing him of corruption, and people have been sued for comparing him to “Lord of the Rings” character Gollum on social media.
Moreover, for months, Turkey has literally been at war with itself. The Erdoğan regime has waged a destructive military campaign against Kurdish rebels within Turkey proper, displacing hundreds of thousands and killing hundreds of civilians in the process.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has said Turkey is killing, torturing and displacing large numbers of Kurdish civilians in “highly disproportionate” attacks.
According to the U.N., the Turkish military has “deliberately” killed innocent Kurdish civilians, shooting them with snipers or with gunfire from tanks. In one instance cited by the U.N., more than 100 people in the Kurdish-majority city of Cizre were burned alive.
Large parts of Kurdish-majority areas in Turkey resemble the blood-stained rubble in Syria, although the crimes of Erdoğan, a close Western ally, have received little media coverage.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights condemned the “black-out” of information, which it said “fuels suspicions about what has been going on.”
German human rights activists and lawmakers filed a civil suit against Erdoğan this week, accusing the Turkish regime of committing war crimes against Kurds.
With the region on fire and extremism on the rise, some say the Turkish government’s policies are coming back to haunt it. Unfortunately, it is the Turkish people who are paying the price.
Disabled woman beaten bloody by TSA agents after becoming confused and afraid at security checkpoint
July 1, 2016
by Travis Gettys
Raw Story
A disabled woman was beaten bloody by federal agents during an airport security screening while on her way to undergo treatment for a brain tumor.
Hannah Cohen set off the metal detector at a security checkpoint at the Memphis International Airport, and she was led away for additional screening, reported WREG-TV
“They wanted to do further scanning, (but) she was reluctant — she didn’t understand what they were about to do,” said her mother, Shirley Cohen.
Cohen said she tried to tell agents with the Transportation Security Administration that her 19-year-old daughter is partially deaf, blind in one eye, paralyzed and easily confused — but she said police kept her away from the security agents.
The confused and terrified young woman tried to run away, her mother said, and agents violently took her to the ground.
“She’s trying to get away from them, but in the next instant, one of them had her down on the ground and hit her head on the floor,” Cohen said. “There was blood everywhere.”
The young woman, who was returning home after finishing treatment for the brain tumor at St. Jude Hospital, was arrested and booked into jail.
Authorities eventually threw out the charges against Hannah Cohen, but her family has filed a lawsuit against Memphis police, airport police and the TSA.
Neither police department commented on the suit, but a spokesperson for the TSA said passengers should notify agents ahead of time if they have special needs.
“Passengers can call ahead of time to learn more about the screening process for their particular needs or medical situation,” said TSA spokesperson Sari Koshetz.
Teen Sues US Over Cavity Drug Search for Which She Was Billed $575
June 23, 2016
by Peter Van Buren
AntiWar
Ashley Cervantes, a then 18-year-old American citizen, was stopped at the Mexico border and, for some unspecified reason, perhaps related to her being young and of Hispanic ethnicity, accused by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of smuggling drugs.
What Drugs?
A search of her person and belongings proved fruitless, which often is a strong indicator that there are no drugs. The process involved being locked into a detention room for several hours, handcuffed to a chair, while several dogs were brought in to sniff at her. A request to call her mother was denied.
But bullying is the best law enforcement tactic, so they gave her a body cavity search, which means a CBP agent put on some rubber gloves and shoved a finger up her vagina and butt. She was also made to squat pantless so female investigators could visually inspect her privates. Still no drugs.
So Customs and Border Protection took her to a local hospital against her will, in handcuffs. No warrant, no consent. Instead, a Customs and Border Protection agent signed a “Treatment Authorization Request” as she was considered an alleged “potential internal carrier of foreign substance.” That form requested an X-ray.
After the X-ray showed no drugs, doctors performed another vaginal and anal search. No drugs. She was finally released after seven hours of humiliation and given a bill for $575 for “medical treatment.”
What Rights?
Cervantes now has a civil rights lawsuit pending against the government. “[I] had never before been to a gynecologist and, for the remainder of my life, will always remember that my first pelvic and rectal exams were done under the most inhumane circumstances imaginable to a U.S. citizen at a hospital on U.S. soil,” she charges.
What Border?
Begin at America’s borders. Most people believe they are in the United States as soon as they step off an international flight, or as long as they are waiting for their outbound flight, or as they enter a CBP office on the border, as with Cervantes in the case above, and are thus fully covered by the Bill of Rights.
Wrong. And the irony that a person can be separated from his Constitutional rights by a border marked by a pane of glass is not to be missed.
The truth has, in the twenty-first century, become infinitely more complicated as long-standing practices are manipulated to serve the expanding desires of the national security state.
Over the years, recognizing that certain situations could render Fourth Amendment requirements impractical or against the public interest, the Supreme Court crafted various exceptions to them. One was the “border search.” The idea was that the United States should be able to protect itself by stopping and examining people entering or leaving the country. As a result, routine border searches without warrants are constitutionally “reasonable” simply by virtue of where they take place. It’s a concept with a long history, enumerated by the First Congress in 1789.
What Border, 2016 Edition?
Here’s the twist in the present era: The definition of “border” has been changed. Upon arriving in the United States from abroad, you are not legally present in the country until allowed to enter by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials. You know, the guys who look into your luggage and stamp your passport. Until that moment, you exist in a legal void where the protections of the Bill of Rights and the laws of the United States do not apply. This concept also predates Post-Constitutional America and the DHS. Remember the sorting process at Ellis Island in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? No lawyers allowed there.
What once were modest exceptions in Constitutional America morphed into a vast “Constitution-free zone.” The “border” is now a strip of land circling the country and extending 100 miles inland that includes two-thirds of the U.S. population. In this vast region, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can and conduct warrantless searches.
Does More Security at Airports Make Us Safer or Just Move the Targets?
July 1, 2016
by Larry Buchanan, Jennifer Daniel and Adam Pearce
New York Times
The deadly attack Tuesday at Istanbul Ataturk Airport, the city’s main international airport, highlighted a difficult truth in airport security: Subjecting passengers to more security before they board a plane doesn’t necessarily deter terrorists.
At Ataturk airport, passengers pass through metal detectors and their bags are scanned as they enter the terminal.
This differs from the procedures at most American airports, where anyone can enter the terminal without being screened.
Turkish officials said the attackers initially tried to enter the building, but were turned away at the security screening.
They returned with “long-range rifles” from their suitcases. Two of the attackers entered the terminal in the ensuing panic.
One set off his explosives on the arrivals floor of the terminal; the other detonated his on the departures floor one level above. A third attacker blew himself up outside the terminal as people fled.
“Attempting to ‘protect’ against mass casualty attacks is a somewhat hopeless task due to the near infinite number of targets,” said Mark Stewart, a professor at the University of Newcastle in Australia, who studies how to protect infrastructure from terrorist attacks.
“A deterred terrorist will just go elsewhere,” he said.
The Ataturk airport reopened on Wednesday with additional security measures: More cars are being screened and more security officers are visible.
In the attack at Brussels Airport in March, there was no security check at the terminal entrance. The attackers entered the building and detonated their explosives.
Since that attack, the airport began checking the boarding passes and IDs of passengers entering the departures terminal.
In addition, the airport no longer allows travelers to be dropped off at the terminal. They must be dropped off at parking lots nearby.
At American airports, passenger screening checkpoints are the responsibility of the Transportation Security Administration.
The agency received intense criticism a month ago over long lines at airports across the United States. The wait for security screening stretched to more than three hours at times, and thousands of passengers missed flights.
There are trade-offs to increasing security and adding checkpoints, said John Mueller, a professor of political science at Ohio State University, who studies terrorism and security.
“The T.S.A. has created a target with security lines,” Mr. Mueller said, pointing to the long security lines. He suggested that programs that speed up screening like T.S.A. PreCheck be more widely adopted.
Less crowding could be critical to reducing casualties in a terrorist attack.
A RAND Corporation analysis of Los Angeles International Airport found that decreasing the wait at baggage check-in to one minute from 15 minutes could reduce the number of deaths in a bomb attack by more than half.
Security at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport is similar to that of American airports. There is no security screening in public areas like access roads, parking lots or terminal entrances, but armed soldiers patrol the areas.
In places under constant threat, like Baghdad and Kabul, Afghanistan, security checkpoints begin miles from the terminal and include myriad scans, checks and bomb-sniffing dogs.
With security checks spread over a wider area, long lines are unusual at the Baghdad airport.
Adding security measures at major American airports would be challenging. Some airports have little space to install additional checkpoints.
Staffing new checkpoints would also be difficult. One reason cited by the T.S.A. for the long waits in May was budget cuts; the agency said it has had to reduce the number of screeners by 12 percent since 2011.
Simon Bennett, director of the Civil Safety and Security Unit at the University of Leicester, pointed to the nonmonetary costs of increased security. “We celebrate the fact that we can travel with relative ease. As soon as we begin to undermine those values, guess who’s won? Daesh. Daesh has won,” he said referring to the Islamic State using an acronym of the group’s Arabic name.
Bagdad-style security in the United States would be unfeasible, Mr. Bennett said. “The public simply wouldn’t stand for it. And the politicians wouldn’t either.”
Mr. Stewart and Mr. Mueller have questioned whether adding security is the best way to stop terrorist attacks.
“Perhaps the most cost-effective measure is policing and intelligence — to stop them before they reach the target,” Mr. Stewart said.
Reporting was contributed by Tim Arango, Aurelien Breeden, Nicola Clark, Bryan Denton, Ron Nixon, Miles Peyton, Sergey Ponomarev, Alissa Rubin, Milan Schreuer, Anjali Singhvi and Ceylan Yeginsu.
British Conservatives in Chaos Over Brexit, but Labour Party’s in No Position to Pounce
July 1, 2016
by Robert Mackey
The Intercept
Until Thursday, the political wrangling in Britain over how, or whether, to withdraw from the European Union — a move supported by a narrow majority of the voters in last week’s referendum, but opposed by 75 percent of the members of Parliament elected just last year — seemed likely to trigger a new general election.
Although the ruling Conservative Party is not required to call an election until 2020, most political observers expected Prime Minister David Cameron to be replaced by the leader of the campaign for a British exit from the EU, Boris Johnson, who would then want a fresh mandate from the public.
That was the thinking, anyway, until an extraordinary sequence of events unfolded, starting with an announcement from Michael Gove, the Leave campaign’s ideologue, who was expected to run Johnson’s campaign to become the new leader of the Conservatives, and hence prime minister. Gove, the justice secretary, released a statement on Thursday saying that he did not think Johnson, his ally in the Leave campaign, was up for the job of running the country, and he wanted to be prime minister himself.
Gove’s surprise move undermined Johnson’s chances of winning the internal party vote to be leader, but also seemed to make it unlikely that he could succeed either, given how many bitter accusations of betrayal it prompted from fellow Conservatives.
With the anti-EU faction of his party suddenly split, and rumors that his candidacy was opposed by the men who run Britain’s most influential right-wing tabloids, Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre, Johnson turned up late for the speech in which he was expected to announce his leadership bid and revealed that he would not take part in the race.
Given that it was widely believed that Johnson had only joined the Leave campaign as a way to increase his popularity and make it more likely that he could become prime minister, this shocking turn of events earned him widespread derision online from Britons who see departure from the EU as a disaster for the country.
By Friday morning, Johnson was being heckled on the street, accused of plunging the country into chaos for his own advancement and then dropping out of the contest to be in charge of cleaning up the mess.
This somewhat farcical series of events was made all the more absurd by how strenuously Gove had previously denied having any ambition to be prime minister in interviews that instantly resurfaced on social networks.
Under normal circumstances, this kind of disarray inside the Conservative Party — with the resignation of a prime minister and a deep divide between the factions opposed to and in favor of EU membership — should present an opportunity for the opposition Labour Party. That party, however, has been busy with a civil war of its own.
In the aftermath of the referendum, and driven partly by speculation that there might be an election soon, about 80 percent of the party’s members of Parliament have called for their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to step down. Corbyn, who was accused of being lukewarm about the EU, has refused — pointing out that he was chosen not by his fellow MPs, but by a clear majority of the party’s members and paying supporters in a direct election held just 10 months ago.
A poll of Labour members released on Thursday suggested that he would easily win a new vote.
The attempt to topple Corbyn, whose left-wing politics are popular with young voters and trade unions but frighten pro-business centrists, has led to bitter recriminations and public feuding. That, in turn, has drawn attention away from the fact that the Conservative government has divided the country over the EU, plunging the economy into uncertainty and fostering anti-immigrant hysteria — all without any apparent plan for how to manage the transition out of the EU.
That infighting continued on Thursday, as Labour released a report on confronting anti-Semitism in its ranks. News coverage of the report, however, was devoted not to its recommendations but to the outraged reaction from some members of the party to remarks by Corbyn that they called anti-Semitic. “Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government,” Corbyn said, “than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organizations.”
That comment was widely misreported as Corbyn comparing Israel to “the Islamic State,” which he denied. But when video of his statement on the report was posted on his own Twitter account later, that part of his remarks was omitted.
A second spat between Labour members also marred the same news conference. That confrontation began when Marc Wadsworth, a black Labour activist who supports Corbyn, distributed a press release that accused those plotting against the leader of cooperating with the “right-wing, corporate media” to smear him. Wadsworth then complained of what he called an example of such collusion at the news conference, saying that a reporter for The Telegraph, Kate McCann, had handed a copy of his statement to a Labour MP, Ruth Smeeth.
Smeeth, who is Jewish, was outraged by the accusation and stormed out of the event. In a statement she released later, Smeeth said that Wadsworth had “used traditional anti-Semitic slurs to attack me for being part of a ‘media conspiracy.’” She added that it was “beyond belief that someone could come to the launch of a report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and espouse such vile conspiracy theories about Jewish people, which were ironically highlighted as such in Ms. Chakrabarti’s report, while the leader of my own party stood by and did absolutely nothing.”
Wadsworth wrote later that he “had no idea that Smeeth was Jewish,” had not intended to endorse any conspiracy theory about Jewish control of the media, and had “a life-long record of fighting against racism and anti-Semitism.”
The leadership of the Labour Party is perhaps a sideshow, however, distracting attention from the worrying implications of the fact that voters in many of its traditional strongholds supported British withdrawal from the EU. Although just 10 of Labour’s 229 MPs supported the Leave campaign, one study suggested that majorities in 70 percent of the areas represented by Labour in Parliament voted for withdrawal.
Writing in The Guardian this week, John Harris argued that the referendum revealed signs of “a longstanding and possibly terminal malaise” for Labour, from which the party might never recover.
As with the centre-left parties across Europe in the same predicament, Labour is a 20th-century party adrift in a new reality. Its social foundations — the unions, heavy industry, the nonconformist church, a deference to the big state that has long evaporated — are either in deep retreat or have vanished completely. Its name embodies an attachment to the supposed glories of work that no longer chimes with insecure employment and insurgent automation.
Given that level of disarray, it appears unlikely that Labour will be able to capitalize on the Conservative split over leaving the EU anytime soon. An early general election is also looking less likely, as the Conservative leadership contest coalesces.
While several Conservatives have put themselves forward to compete with Gove in the party’s internal contest, which will conclude in early September, the clear frontrunner for the job is now Home Secretary Theresa May, even though she supported the campaign for Britain to remain in the EU. As a senior figure in the government elected last year, May made it clear in a speech announcing her candidacy that she would not feel the need to call a new election before 2020.
In her declaration, May pledged to respect the referendum result, saying, “Brexit means Brexit: the campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public gave their verdict.”
She did not, however, specify what sort of arrangement Britain would seek with the remaining 27 members of the union, although it is widely expected to be something like membership of the European Economic Area, along with countries like Norway, that are not in the EU but can trade freely with the bloc in exchange for paying dues and agreeing to allow citizens from EU nations to live and work freely in their country.
May also said that Britain would not give formal notification of its departure from the EU, triggering a two-year time limit on negotiations over a new trade deal, until some unspecified time next year.
Although May publicly opposed leaving the EU before the referendum, she has previously worked to restrict immigration into Britain, which many voters said was their main objection to membership in the economic bloc.
As Rebecca Glover observed in The Independent, May is far from a champion of progressive values, as her harsh rhetoric on asylum seekers and economic migrants at last year’s Conservative Party conference made plain.
“There are people who need our help, and there are people who are abusing our good will,” May said then. “When immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society. It’s difficult for schools and hospitals and core infrastructure like housing and transport to cope, and we know that for people in low-paid jobs, wages are forced down even further while some people are forced out of work altogether.”
Statements like those, and a promise to restrict immigration in any new deal with the EU, might reassure voters who support the formal British exit, but troubled many of those on the left of the political spectrum who see May as partly to blame for the increasing anxiety over immigration.
Stoking anti-immigrant hysteria was a central part of the Leave campaign, and in the aftermath of the referendum vote, there has been a sharp increase in incidents of racist abuse aimed at ethnic and racial minorities across Britain.
On Thursday, a radio journalist for the BBC, Trish Adudu, gave an emotional account of how a man on a street in Coventry had used racist slurs against her and a student of South Asian ancestry the day before, telling them that they vote meant they should “go home.”
Adudu, who was born in England to parents who emigrated from Ghana, eventually reported the incident to the West Midlands Police force, which is investigating the incident as a hate crime.
Armenia as genocide.
July 2, 2016
DW
French parliament votes to criminalize denial of Armenian genocide
France’s lower house of parliament has unanimously voted to criminalize the denial of all crimes against humanity. The move comes shortly after Germany recognized the killing by Ottoman forces in Armenia
The amendment, which was an extension of the current French holocaust denial law, was passed on the first reading on Friday.
The amendment covered all events which the French law defined as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or slavery. The law set out penalties of up to one year in prison and a 45,000-euro ($50,000) fine for those who contradicted it.
“This text will punish the challenge or the trivialization of all crimes against humanity and war crimes,” Ericka Bereigts, junior minister in charge of equality, told AFP news agency. MP Henri Jibrayel, whose ancestors survived the tragedy 100 years ago, said Friday was “one of the greatest days” of his political career.
The document still needs to be passed by France’s Senate before it is implemented. Its backers hoped to see it enter into force by the end of 2016.
Nearly 1.5 million people were slaughtered by Ottoman armies between 1915 and 1917. Turkey says the killings were a collective tragedy in which both Turks and Armenians die, but Armenians have campaigned long and hard for the mass murders to be categorized as a crime against humanity.
Relations between Turkey and Berlin soured last month when Germany voted to recognize the killings as genocide – a term Ankara rejects.
How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch
July 2, 2016
by Dan Balz
The Washington Post
Bill Clinton has made a mess. It was either out of foolish indifference or plain foolishness, but it has created a terrible moment for his wife and the Democrats, and for President Obama and perceptions of the integrity of his administration.
Clinton’s private, unplanned meeting with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch at the Phoenix airport last week, coming at a time when the Justice Department should be nearing completion of its examination of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails as secretary of state, will inevitably — and negatively — affect public attitudes about that investigation.
For a politician long praised for his political smarts, it was a striking error of judgment on Clinton’s part to walk to Lynch’s plane for any kind of conversation. It was a similarly huge lapse on the part of the attorney general, who was appointed by Clinton as a U.S. attorney in 1999, to allow him to come aboard for any kind of conversation.
Lynch has tried to make amends, though not without leaving some confusion in her wake. In a conversation Friday with Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart at the Aspen Ideas Festival, she insisted again that the conversation was innocent — about grandchildren and golf and such — and did not touch on the investigation of the emails.
But she said she recognized that others would not see it that way. “The fact that the meeting that I had is now casting a shadow over how people are going to view that work is something that I take seriously, and deeply and painfully,” she said.
Lynch said that she would “be accepting” whatever recommendation the career prosecutors and FBI Director James B. Comey bring her — though she did not say she would remove herself completely from the case. She also said she had made that decision some months ago but was only now making it public. If she sticks to her pledge simply to accept what is recommended without any genuine review and consideration, she is abdicating her role as attorney general.
Bill and Hillary Clinton meanwhile have been silent about the meeting and its propriety. He has made no public comment, and an adviser said he has no plans to do so. The silence on the part of the presumptive Democratic nominee — though she bears no responsibility for her husband’s actions — is part of a pattern of declining to answer questions about the email issue unless and until pushed by events to be more transparent.
Let’s assume that Lynch’s description of the meeting is wholly accurate — that this was a casual encounter between two people who have known each other for some time and who happened by circumstance to be on the same airport tarmac at the same time. Will that lessen suspicions that there is a coziness between the Clintons and the people in the Obama administration who have overall responsibility to be fair and fearless in the investigation? Hardly.
The meeting has provided fodder for Donald Trump and Republican leaders to cast doubt on whatever conclusions the career prosecutors and Comey come to. Trump called it “so horrible” and said he was “flabbergasted” by the reports of it. On Friday, he questioned the description of the conversation that took place.
“I love my grandchildren so much,” he said at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, “but if I talk about them for more than nine or 10 seconds . . . after that, what are you going to say?” He also said, “I love golf but after speaking about golf for a couple minutes, it’s tough.”
Trump’s campaign advisers long have seen the investigation as a win-win politically: Either Clinton is indicted and a major political crisis occurs for the Democrats or, if there is no case brought, the whole exercise was a whitewash. He can argue it round or square. If there is to be no charge against Clinton, Trump will point to the Lynch-Clinton meeting to question the integrity of the Justice Department’s decision. He has been handed a gift, and the Republican base is likely to respond with even greater indignation if no penalty is sought.
Trump’s effort to exploit the investigation for political gain is predictable and therefore discounted by Democratic allies of candidate Clinton. But that does not lessen the dismay among Democrats about what took place and why the former president would play into the hands of the Republicans so easily
Senior administration officials have consistently tried to project a hands-off attitude about the investigation. White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters at the Friday briefing that the president “believes this matter should be handled without regard to politics.” He added, “This is an independent investigation that is deliberately being shielded from any political interference.”
But this is anything but a routine matter, and there is a difference between political interference and a case involving politics. This is a case with dramatic political ramifications, as everyone knows. The outcome could reshape the presidential campaign.
Lynch isn’t the only one whose actions raise questions. Think of this: The president has endorsed and is actively campaigning for Clinton at a time when his Justice Department is still in the process of deciding whether she should be prosecuted. Although that has drawn little comment, it shocks some who have been in senior positions in previous governments and who believe that no White House can be truly indifferent or disinterested in such an important case.
Obama has made mistakes on this before. He seemingly sided with Clinton earlier, saying she was careless but that he didn’t think she had intentionally put national security in jeopardy. Does the fact of his endorsement mean that he thinks, as do any number of legal experts, that she will be in some way exonerated by the Justice Department?
Finally there is the question of when the investigation will end and the findings made public. The prosecutors are trying to be careful and thorough, which is laudable. But a clock is ticking. The Democrats are now weeks away from likely nominating Clinton for president. The longer the investigation goes, the more any decision has major political impact.
Hillary Clinton wants and needs a clean resolution of the long investigation. Bill Clinton and the attorney general managed to muddy all this with their private chat in Phoenix, no doubt to the consternation of both Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Justice Department officials trying to bring this to a resolution soon. No one looks good in this transaction.