Panama Papers Scandal May Land Sanders the

White House

Amidst the scandal of the Panama Papers leak on Monday, one politician remains unfazed: Bernie Sanders.

When Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca leaked 11.5 million documents to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), they exposed how the upper end of the 1 percent cashes billions of dollars each year through gray areas in tax law and shell companies. Given the magnitude of the release, 400 journalists worked for an entire year to compile and sort through the documents. Over 140 world leaders from 50 different countries worldwide were implicated in the scandal.

In October of 2011, Bernie Sanders expressed his disapproval of the Panama trade pact, denouncing the typical arguments heard in favor of the deal. As he stated on the Senate floor,

“Panama’s entire economic output is only $26.7 billion per year, or about two-tenths of one percent of the US economy. No one can legitimately claim that approving this free trade agreement will significantly increase American jobs.”

Sanders continued on to argue that Panama was “a world leader when it comes to allowing large corporations and wealthy Americans to evade US taxes,” allowing for these individuals to “evade about $100 billion in taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens”. His ultimate attempt appeared to be to warn of the inevitable widespread corruption that would take effect if the pact was approved.

His words sound eerily prophetic in light of this leak, as Sanders has taken to acknowledging in the wake of his campaign. In a statement released on Tuesday, Sanders confirmed he has been “opposed to the Panama Free Trade Agreement from day one,” stating that he wished he had “been proven wrong”, but the damage of the scams was “even worse” than he had feared.

While leaders like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Icelandic Prime Minister Davíð Gunnlaugsson have struggled to fight off accusations, Sanders has promised that if elected, he will terminate the agreement within his first six months in office, followed by “an immediate investigation into US banks, corporations, and wealthy individuals who have been stashing their cash in Panama to avoid taxes.”

News of Americans implicated in the scandal have been few and far between; however, given the massive amount of data, it may be a while before early reports showing 211 names corresponding to US addresses are confirmed. Despite this lack of absolute, the Panama Papers leak fits perfectly into Sanders’ narrative of corruption and greed among this country’s elite.

Sanders has already begun to use this scandal as means of attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, who initially opposed the agreement yet later pushed it in her time as Secretary of the State. At the time, Clinton called the initiative “the leading edge of a job-creating trade agenda, that will open markets, level the playing field for our businesses and workers, and champion America’s working families in an age of tough global competition.” Her statement was released just a day after Sanders’ Senate speech; despite the proximity in time frame she made no move to address the “tax haven” reputation of Panama.

Sanders is currently taking fire at Clinton for her move to push the free trade pact through Congress, calling the results “a disaster” and using her encouragement of the pact as ammunition to show her incompetency. Perhaps his longstanding opposition and Clinton’s change of heart will prompt Democratic voters to reconsider whom they elect come November.

Does Sanders stand a chance? Please comment, like, and share!

This article (Panama Papers Scandal May Land Sanders the White House) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com.

font redaction http://anonhq.com/panama-papers-scandal-may-land-sanders-white-house/

font images google

Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection

JOHN AND TONY PODESTA AREN’T FOOLING ANYONE

The revelations of the so-called Panama Papers that are roiling the world’s political and financial elites this week include important facts about Team Clinton. This unprecedented trove of documents purloined from a shady Panama law firm that arranged tax havens, and perhaps money laundering, for the globe’s super-rich includes juicy insights into how Russia’s elite hides its ill-gotten wealth.

Almost lost among the many revelations is the fact that Russia’s biggest bank usesThe Podesta Group as its lobbyist in Washington, D.C. Though hardly a household name, this firm is well known inside the Beltway, not least because its CEO is Tony Podesta, one of the best-connected Democratic machers in the country. He founded the firm in 1998 with his brother John, formerly chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, then counselor to President Barack Obama, Mr. Podesta is the very definition of a Democratic insider. Outsiders engage the Podestas and their well-connected lobbying firm to improve their image and get access to Democratic bigwigs.

Which is exactly what Sberbank, Russia’s biggest financial institution, did this spring. As reported at the end of March, the Podesta Group registered with the U.S. Government as a lobbyist for Sberbank, as required by law, naming three Podesta Group staffers: Tony Podesta plus Stephen Rademaker and David Adams, the last two former assistant secretaries of state. It should be noted that Tony Podesta is a big-money bundler for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign while his brother John is the chairman of that campaign, the chief architect of her plans to take the White House this November.

Sberbank (Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its public image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being known for their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s hard-hit financial sector.

It’s hardly surprising that Sberbank sought the help of Democratic insiders like the Podesta Group to aid them in this difficult hour, since they clearly understand how American politics work. The question is why the Podesta Group took Sberbank’s money. That financial institution isn’t exactly hiding in the shadows—it’s the biggest bank in Russia, and its reputation leaves a lot to be desired. Nobody acquainted with Russian finance was surprised that Sberbank wound up in the Panama Papers.

Since the brothers are destined for very high-level jobs if the Democrats triumph in November, their relationship is something they—and Clinton—need to explain.

Although Sberbank has its origins in the nineteenth century, it was functionally reborn after the Soviet collapse, and it the 1990s it grew to be the dominant bank in the country, today controlling nearly 30 percent of Russia’s aggregate banking assets and employing a quarter-million people. The majority stockholder in Sberbank is Russia’s Central Bank. In other words, Sberbank is functionally an arm of the Kremlin, although it’s ostensibly a private institution.

Certainly Western intelligence is well acquainted with Sberbank, noting its close relationship with Vladimir Putin and his regime. Funds moving through Sberbank are regularly used to support clandestine Russian intelligence operations, while the bank uses its offices abroad as cover for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service or SVR. A NATO counterintelligence official explained that Sberbank, which has outposts in almost two dozen foreign countries, “functions as a sort of arm of the SVR outside Russia, especially because many of its senior employees are ‘former’ Russian intelligence officers.” Inside the country, Sberbank has an equally cosy relationship with the Federal Security Service or FSB, Russia’s powerful domestic intelligence agency.

Ukraine has pointed a finger at Sberbank as an instrument of Russia’s aggression against their country. In 2014, Ukraine’s Security Service charged Sberbank with “financing terrorism,” noting that its branches were distributing millions of dollars in illegal aid to Russian-backed separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine. Kyiv’s conclusion, that Sberbank is a witting supporter of Russian aggression against Ukraine, is broadly supported by Western intelligence. “Sberbank is the Kremlin, they don’t do anything major without Putin’s go-ahead, and they don’t tell him ‘no’ either,” explained a retired senior U.S. intelligence official with extensive experience in Eastern Europe.

In addition, Ukrainian intelligence has alleged that the FSB collaborated with Sberbank in the bombings of two of the bank’s branches in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, in June 2015. The attacks caused no casualties but got major coverage in Russian state media as “proof” of Ukraine’s instability and violent anti-Russian nature. Although the notion that Russian spies would plant bombs as a provocation, what the Kremlin terms provokatsiya, may sound outlandish to those unacquainted with espionage, in fact Russian spies have been doing such things since tsarist times. What I’ve termed“fake terrorism” is a longstanding Kremlin core competency, and it can only be pulled off with logistical support, including with finances.

Predictably, Sberbank has blown off the Panama Papers revelations as nothing of consequence, but the fact that they are an arm of the Kremlin and they do plenty of shady things in many countries is a matter of record. As is the fact that the Podesta Group is their lobbyist in America.

Among the Sberbank subsidiaries that the Podesta Group also represents are the Cayman Islands-based Troika Dialog Group Limited, the Cyprus-based SBGB Cyprus Limited, and the Luxembourg-based SB International. As reported this week by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a consortium of journalists exploring the Panama Papers leak, Sberbank and Troika Dialog are used by members of Mr. Putin’s inner circle to shift public funds into sometimes questionable private investments. In other words, this is top-level money laundering of a brazen kind. As the OCCRP stated plainly, “Some of these companies were initially connected to the Troika Dialog investment fund, which was controlled and run by Sberbank after the bank bought the Troika Dialog investment bank. Troika and Sberbank declined to comment.”

Adding to shadiness of all this, the Podesta Group is playing along with the useful charade that Sberbank is simply a private financial institution, rather than the state-owned bank that it is, since that would require the lobbyists to register as agents of the Russian government under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

John and Tony Podesta aren’t fooling anyone with this ruse. They are lobbyists for Vladimir Putin’s personal bank of choice, an arm of his Kremlin and its intelligence services. Since the brothers Podesta are presumably destined for very high-level White House jobs next January if the Democrats triumph in November at the polls, their relationship with Sberbank is something they—and Hillary Clinton—need to explain to the public.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story referred imprecisely to the fouding of The Podesta Group and to the Podesta brother who registered the firm they founded as a lobbyist for Sberbank. The Observer regrets the errors.

font redaction http://observer.com/2016/04/panama-papers-reveal-clintons-kremlin-connection/

CNN Anchor Blamed for Military Baltimore Riots [Video]

By Cherese Jackson onApril 29, 2015

CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin blamed military veterans for the outbreak of violence in Baltimore.

This accusation, although bizarrely retracted, upset many Americans who understand the value of the United States Armed Forces and appreciate Their many sacrifices to Ensure the country's freedom.Baldwin INITIALLY apologized via Twitter and has since apologized on-air.

Lauren Brooke Baldwin is a television news anchor who hosts the afternoon segment of CNN Newsroom. She quickly Became the subject of scorn after her loose-lipped comment about veterans who now serves law enforcement. At the team, the anchor was interviewing Rep. Elijah Cummings about the need for police training Within the city of Baltimore. During the conversation she Suggested que veterans might be more trigger-happy than police who Were not former military.

While speaking with the Congressman, Baldwin referenced a conversation she had with a Baltimore city councilman about police officers representing communities They do not live in.Reportedly, the councilman commented about the people who are forced to live in the community while others who seemingly protect do not have an emotional investment. Baldwin added:

I love our nation's veterans, but some of Them are coming back from war, They do not know the communities, and They are ready to the battle.

Baldwin Issued a Tweet stating she was Merely repeating another's opinion on the matter. Earlier During the same segment Baldwin continued an argument made by another who said que Americans are Becoming desensitized to the videos of These young black men being killed. She stated, "It is time to stop and have this national conversation about African-American deaths in order to experience current change."

Baldwin's comment about military veterans sparked outrage via social media. Twitter users expresso Their disdain of the anchor's accusation and insisted she retract or explain her words. One Twitter user said:

This is an idiotic, unproductive, and utterly incorrect assertion about veterans.

Baldwin Also found support from Those Who sought to clarify her statement. One supporter stated:

Wait a minute. Saying que some veterans are ready to the battle Indicates PTSD issues-Not Necessarily vets attacking the protest-rioter-looter groups but maybe joining One of Those three categories Themselves. We Have Become all-too-ready to get mad at our fellow Americans; even the journalist gorgeous is not safe from verbal attack! I bet this crap does not happen in Canada, Britain, or Scandinavia.

To defend the statement and Provide further clarity Baldwin tweeted Also:

Folks. Please do not misunderstand me. Dear friends / family of mine are veterans. I was repeating the vocalized concern to me lately. That's it.

While it may be true que the CNN anchor was simply repeated the opinion of another party, her comment opened her up to be the target for heavy criticism. The lesson to be learned is que words do not just pop up, They are born from the soul. The soul of a person is Their mind, will and emotions. This is the place where past experience connects with future potential. Simply stated, the words Which flow out of the person's mouth are a symptom or sign of what is really going on inside.

Also, it is up to the one speaking to Ensure Their words are stated responsibly. The things que are said, not only about today's youth, but in general have the power to frame tomorrow and alter expectations. Words can heal and hurt. A true sign of maturity is When a person possessions the ability to govern and be accountable for the words spoken. It takes discipline and discernment to learn how to use words wisely and as a source of uplifting to the outside world.

Brooke Baldwin recently cam under fire for blaming military veterans for instigating the violence Witnessed in Baltimore. She has since apologized for the statement and said it does not accurately reflect her sentiments. The CNN anchor has family members and friends who are in the military and Were. She said she loves the military and, those of many others, values Their continued contribution to the freedom of this great country.

Featured Image Courtesy of Eyes On Fire 89 - Creativecommons Flickr License
Top Image Courtesy of Flickr Creativecommons License
Inside Image Screenshot of Twitter (Brooke Baldwin)

font images google
font redaction http://guardianlv.com/2015/04/cnn-anchor-blamed-military-for-baltimore-riots-video
font video youtube