motherjones--2020-01-17--Bloomberg Intends to Release His Tax Returns, Upping the Pressure on Trump

A lawsuit by House Democrats to force the administration to hand over Donald Trump ’ s tax returns to investigators was put on hold by a federal judge on Tuesday .
But the president may soon feel pressure to disclose more about his personal finances—and separate himself from his business empire—from a different source : the other New York billionaire running for president .
Michael Bloomberg , the former Republican-turned-independent New York mayor and current Democratic presidential candidate , is planning to release his tax returns if he receives the Democratic nomination for president , says a senior Bloomberg campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his returns , ” says Tim O ’ Brien , a former editor at Bloomberg News and Trump biographer , “ and he has every intention of handling this in a completely different way than Donald Trump has , because he understands the transparency around his finances and the absence of financial conflicts of interest are important for the president of the United States.
” Trump , who is estimated by Forbes magazine to have a net worth of about $ 3.1 billion , has steadfastly refused to release his tax returns or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The sole concession to transparency has been an annual release of the personal financial documents that all top federal employees must fill out , which lists—in broad ranges—assets and debts and some information on income .
That document , which Trump is expected to file again in May , has raised new questions about Trump ’ s finances in the past—for example , a $ 50 million loan the president claims to have purchased years ago , which does not appear to be real , suggesting that Trump may have committed tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not only help investigators determine whether the president has truly defrauded the government , but would also shed light on how much money Trump truly makes and how much he pays in taxes .
After Democrats took control of the House , Ways and Means Committee chair Richard Neal ( D-Mass . )
began pursuing a copy of the president ’ s tax returns , invoking a law that requires the Internal Revenue Service to provide copies of tax returns if requested by Congress .
The Trump administration has refused to cooperate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge put the fight on hold until another case is decided , involving former White House counsel Don McGahn and whether he can be made to testify in Congress ’ impeachment inquiry .
The judge ’ s ruling may give the president some breathing room ; the McGahn case could drag on for months .
But he might soon face peer pressure from another billionaire whose willingness to reveal financial details undermines many of Trump ’ s arguments about protecting his own .
One of several reasons Trump has given for refusing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given his wealth , they are too complicated for Americans to understand .
“ It is big , ” he told Politico .
“ And it is complex .
And it is probably feet high .
It is a very complex instrument .
And I think that people would not understand it.
” But Bloomberg , who Forbes estimates has a net worth of $ 59,5 billion , is listed as the 8th richest person in the world ( to Trump ’ s 715th ) and presumably has tax returns at least as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Brien , the Bloomberg aide , says his boss is committed to releasing his actual returns .
As it happens , O ’ Brien wrote a book about Trump in the early 2000s that alleged the president is not actually a billionaire , and he was sued by Trump over the claim .
During the course of the lawsuit—which was eventually dismissed—O ’ Brien said he was allowed to see copies of the president ’ s tax returns , though he was not permitted to disclose details about them .
O ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withhold some details of his tax returns .
Typically , presidential candidates self-censor some personal details , though the key information—income and effective tax rate paid—is usually included .
While serving as the mayor of New York , Bloomberg was famously reluctant to share details of his taxes : Instead , Bloomberg allowed reporters to view summaries of his tax information—in person , for a limited period of time .
O ’ Brien said that will not be the way Bloomberg handles it if he is the nominee , opting instead for public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insights into Bloomberg ’ s wealth will likely come in early February .
February 4 is the deadline for Bloomberg to file his own personal financial disclosure , which would lay out his finances in ranges , as Trump ’ s disclosures have done .
Bloomberg could also up the ante for Trump to separate himself from his businesses , which are riddled with conflicts of interest .
The president has claimed that his business holdings are too hard to unwind .
But Bloomberg plans to do exactly what Trump says he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee .
“ If he ’ s the nominee , he intends to place the business in a blind trust , so he can move forward to a sale , ” O ’ Brien says .
“ And the conditions of the sale are , he doesn ’ t want to sell it to a private equity or a foreign buyer , to protect the [ Bloomberg News ] newsroom.
” Before his inauguration , Trump put his businesses into a revocable trust in his name—a financial mechanism that essentially changed nothing about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed him to continue to withdraw money .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A lawsuit by House Democrats to force the administration to hand over Donald Trump’s tax returns to investigators was put on hold by a federal judge on Tuesday. But the president may soon feel pressure to disclose more about his personal finances—and separate himself from his business empire—from a different source: the other New York billionaire running for president.
Michael Bloomberg, the former Republican-turned-independent New York mayor and current Democratic presidential candidate, is planning to release his tax returns if he receives the Democratic nomination for president, says a senior Bloomberg campaign aide.
“He’ll release his returns,” says Tim O’Brien, a former columnist and executive editor at Bloomberg Opinion and Trump biographer, “and he has every intention of handling this in a completely different way than Donald Trump has, because he understands the transparency around his finances and the absence of financial conflicts of interest are important for the president of the United States.”
Trump, who is estimated by Forbes magazine to have a net worth of about $3.1 billion, has steadfastly refused to release his tax returns or reveal many details of his personal finances. The sole concession to transparency has been an annual release of the personal financial documents that all top federal employees must fill out, which lists—in broad ranges—assets and debts and some information on income. That document, which Trump is expected to file again in May, has raised new questions about Trump’s finances in the past—for example, a $50 million loan the president claims to have purchased years ago, which does not appear to be real, suggesting that Trump may have committed tax fraud. Releasing his actual tax returns would not only help investigators determine whether the president has truly defrauded the government, but would also shed light on how much money Trump truly makes and how much he pays in taxes.
After Democrats took control of the House, Ways and Means Committee chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.) began pursuing a copy of the president’s tax returns, invoking a law that requires the Internal Revenue Service to provide copies of tax returns if requested by Congress. The Trump administration has refused to cooperate, and on Tuesday, a federal judge put the fight on hold until another case is decided, involving former White House counsel Don McGahn and whether he can be made to testify in Congress’ impeachment inquiry. The judge’s ruling may give the president some breathing room; the McGahn case could drag on for months. But he might soon face peer pressure from another billionaire whose willingness to reveal financial details undermines many of Trump’s arguments about protecting his own.
One of several reasons Trump has given for refusing to release his tax returns is that, given his wealth, they are too complicated for Americans to understand. “It is big,” he told Politico. “And it is complex. And it is probably feet high. It is a very complex instrument. And I think that people would not understand it.”
But Bloomberg, who Forbes estimates has a net worth of $59,5 billion, is listed as the 8th richest person in the world (to Trump’s 715th) and presumably has tax returns at least as complicated as Trump’s. O’Brien, the Bloomberg aide, says his boss is committed to releasing his actual returns.
As it happens, O’Brien wrote a book about Trump in the early 2000s that alleged the president is not actually a billionaire, and he was sued by Trump over the claim. During the course of the lawsuit—which was eventually dismissed—O’Brien said he was allowed to see copies of the president’s tax returns, though he was not permitted to disclose details about them.
O’Brien did say that Bloomberg will likely withhold some details of his tax returns. Typically, presidential candidates self-censor some personal details, though the key information—income and effective tax rate paid—is usually included.
While serving as the mayor of New York, Bloomberg was famously reluctant to share details of his taxes:
In 2001, when he first ran for mayor, Bloomberg refused to release his IRS filings even as his rivals disclosed theirs. Asked why his competitors would release their returns but he wouldn’t, Bloomberg reportedly snarled that it was easy for other candidates who didn’t have his wealth. “That is fine,” he told reporters. “They don’t make anything.”
Instead, Bloomberg allowed reporters to view summaries of his tax information—in person, for a limited period of time. O’Brien said that will not be the way Bloomberg handles it if he is the nominee, opting instead for public release of actual returns.
The first insights into Bloomberg’s wealth will likely come in early February. February 4 is the deadline for Bloomberg to file his own personal financial disclosure, which would lay out his finances in ranges, as Trump’s disclosures have done.
Bloomberg could also up the ante for Trump to separate himself from his businesses, which are riddled with conflicts of interest. The president has claimed that his business holdings are too hard to unwind. But Bloomberg plans to do exactly what Trump says he can’t if he becomes the Democratic nominee.
“If he’s the nominee, he intends to place the business in a blind trust, so he can move forward to a sale,” O’Brien says. “And the conditions of the sale are, he doesn’t want to sell it to a private equity or a foreign buyer, to protect the [Bloomberg News] newsroom.”
Before his inauguration, Trump put his businesses into a revocable trust in his name—a financial mechanism that essentially changed nothing about his ultimate ownership of the companies and allowed him to continue to withdraw money.


motherjones--2020-01-16--The Trump Administration Is Getting Sued Over Its New Food Stamps Rule

“ Taking food off the table from Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet is both cruel and ineffective , ” Eric Angel , Legal Aid ’ s executive director said in a press release .
“ SNAP benefits are an essential part of the safety net for a large number of people who critically need them.
” Describing the administration ’ s rule as “ arbitrary and capricious , ” the complaint has asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction while the case is litigated .
More than a dozen states ’ attorneys general , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed similar complaints in an effort to halt the implementation of the measure .
As I reported last December , work requirements have been a part of receiving SNAP benefits since 1996 , but there was flexibility built into the program : There are already tough restrictions in place covering who can receive federal food assistance .
In 1996 , as part of President Bill Clinton ’ s sweeping welfare reform , then-Reps. John Kasich and Bob Ney , both Ohio Republicans , added a provision to the legislation limiting benefits for “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 and 49 with no dependents .
After three months of assistance , these SNAP recipients must prove they are working at least 20 hours a week to continue receiving benefits .
The measure , however , allowed the governors of states with high unemployment rates to request waivers from the three-month cutoff .
But the new Trump rule makes the criteria for requesting those waivers much stricter by , among other things , changing the type of data states can use to justify the waivers .
Under Trump ’ s new rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people be cut off from their vital benefits , but the cuts will reverberate through communities , especially small and rural grocery stores that rely on SNAP funds for revenue .
I previously reported : Small grocery stores in rural areas are likely to experience the biggest financial hit .
“ SNAP is a huge economic engine for rural areas , ” Sarah Reinhardt , a food systems and health analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists , says .
Out of the 150 counties with the highest SNAP participation rates , 136 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top 50 .
In 2017 , $ 65 billion in SNAP benefits created and supported 570,000 jobs—50,000 of which were in the agriculture sector .
In Washington , DC , where the suit was filed , the time limit requiring employment for these adults has been waived for more than 20 years , because the city ’ s unemployment rate exceeds the national average .
Many poorer areas in the city experience unemployment rates twice the national average , and an estimated 13,000 people could suffer if the rule goes into effect .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anonymous .
Mr. S is one of them .
He struggles with homelessness and other impairments that limit his ability to work , but they are not sufficiently severe to enable him to qualify for disability benefits .
“ Without food stamps , ” he is quoted as saying , “ I can not guarantee that I will be able to eat.
” It ’ s unlikely that Mr. S is alone .
For many of the people affected by this rule , SNAP is the only benefit they are eligible for .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase the employment rate among SNAP beneficiaries , ” Angel said .
“ But it will most definitely increase hunger .
”

“Taking food off the table from Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet is both cruel and ineffective,” Eric Angel, Legal Aid’s executive director said in a press release. “SNAP benefits are an essential part of the safety net for a large number of people who critically need them.”
Describing the administration’s rule as “arbitrary and capricious,” the complaint has asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction while the case is litigated. More than a dozen states’ attorneys general, including those from California and Pennsylvania, have filed similar complaints in an effort to halt the implementation of the measure.
As I reported last December, work requirements have been a part of receiving SNAP benefits since 1996, but there was flexibility built into the program:
There are already tough restrictions in place covering who can receive federal food assistance. In 1996, as part of President Bill Clinton’s sweeping welfare reform, then-Reps. John Kasich and Bob Ney, both Ohio Republicans, added a provision to the legislation limiting benefits for “able-bodied adults” between the ages of 18 and 49 with no dependents. After three months of assistance, these SNAP recipients must prove they are working at least 20 hours a week to continue receiving benefits. The measure, however, allowed the governors of states with high unemployment rates to request waivers from the three-month cutoff. But the new Trump rule makes the criteria for requesting those waivers much stricter by, among other things, changing the type of data states can use to justify the waivers.
Under Trump’s new rule, not only will hundreds of thousands people be cut off from their vital benefits, but the cuts will reverberate through communities, especially small and rural grocery stores that rely on SNAP funds for revenue. I previously reported:
Small grocery stores in rural areas are likely to experience the biggest financial hit. “SNAP is a huge economic engine for rural areas,” Sarah Reinhardt, a food systems and health analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says. Out of the 150 counties with the highest SNAP participation rates, 136 are rural, including 48 of the top 50. In 2017, $65 billion in SNAP benefits created and supported 570,000 jobs—50,000 of which were in the agriculture sector.
In Washington, DC, where the suit was filed, the time limit requiring employment for these adults has been waived for more than 20 years, because the city’s unemployment rate exceeds the national average. Many poorer areas in the city experience unemployment rates twice the national average, and an estimated 13,000 people could suffer if the rule goes into effect. All the plaintiffs in the case are anonymous. Mr. S is one of them. He struggles with homelessness and other impairments that limit his ability to work, but they are not sufficiently severe to enable him to qualify for disability benefits. “Without food stamps,” he is quoted as saying, “I cannot guarantee that I will be able to eat.”
It’s unlikely that Mr. S is alone. For many of the people affected by this rule, SNAP is the only benefit they are eligible for. “Implementation of this rule will not increase the employment rate among SNAP beneficiaries,” Angel said. “But it will most definitely increase hunger.”


motherjones--2020-01-16--Billionaire Oil Magnate Funded Travel by Lev Parnas

A billionaire Republican donor helped to bankroll travel by Lev Parnas , the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani , as Parnas maneuvered to press the Ukrainian government to announce investigations that would help President Donald Trump politically .
House Democrats on Wednesday released WhatsApp messages between Parnas and Harry Sargeant III , an oil and shipping magnate who lives in Florida , as part of a trove of material they recently obtained from Parnas .
The messages show that Sargeant helped fund some of Parnas ’ travel and was supportive of efforts by Parnas and Giuliani to convince Trump to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Parnas and Giuliani have said they believed Yovanovitch ’ s removal would help them pressure Ukraine ’ s government to provide dirt on Trump ’ s foes .
Sargeant , a financial backer of Giuliani ’ s 2008 presidential campaign , is friendly with the former New York mayor .
Sargeant met Parnas through Giuliani , a source said .
In a statement Wednesday , Chris Kise , an attorney representing Sargeant , confirmed the billionaire had loaned Parnas money for some of his travel costs .
Kise said that Sargeant had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Sargeant had been duped by Parnas .
“ As is evident from the texts , Mr. Sargeant loaned Lev Parnas small sums for travel expenses because Mr. Parnas claimed , perhaps falsely , he was broke , and promised to pay the funds back , ” Kise said .
“ But despite repeated requests by Mr. Sargeant , and continual promises of repayment by Lev Parnas , Mr. Parnas never repaid these expenses.
” Kise cited an August 26 message in which Sargeant urged Parnas to repay debts to him and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If accurate , Kise ’ s statement suggests Sargeant was one of several wealthy individuals Parnas convinced to help finance a jet-setting lifestyle .
Dmitry Firtash , a Ukrainian oligarch , appears to have paid Parnas more than $ 1 million last year .
Parnas also has a string of debts in Florida , where he lives , including $ 350,000 owed to a couple who say he convinced them to help finance a movie .
They have sued Parnas and have accused him of conning them .
Previous reporting has revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Parnas , whose frenetic activity included lavishing campaign donations on Trump and other Republicans , regular travel to Ukraine to help Giuliani pressure Ukrainian officials , and pursuit of business deals in Ukraine and Kazakhstan .
Sargeant has downplayed his relationship with Parnas and has denied involvement in Parnas and Giuliani ’ s Ukrainian machinations .
In an April 2 , 2019 , WhatsApp message , Parnas asked Sargeant to “ approve ” payment for a car service , adding that “ we got a deal from Rudy ’ s guy.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ w this stuff pls.
” It ’ s not clear if he approved the expense .
About a week later , Parnas seemed to complain to Sargeant that a trip he planned , and apparently billed to Sargeant , had been canceled .
Parnas said he was about to meet with Giuliani and indicated the cancelation would interrupt his plans to hold meetings “ on Saturday in Vienna.
” It is not clear if Parnas traveled to Vienna on this occasion or who he planned to meet .
But in June , Parnas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukrainian gas magnate who is under house arrest there while he fights extradition to the United States , where he faces federal bribery charges .
Parnas told MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday that in that meeting , he had urged Firtash to agree to a deal : Firtash would hire two Trump allies , Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing , a husband-and-wife legal team , who would use their ties to Attorney General William Barr to get Firtash ’ s case dropped .
In exchange , Firtash would help dig up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political foes .
Though it may sound outlandish , some pieces of this proposal appear to have been carried out .
Firtash replaced his American attorneys with Toensing and diGenova in July .
In late August , the duo secured a meeting with Barr in which they pushed for the DOJ to drop Firtash ’ s prosecution , though Barr did not agree to that request .
And Firtash ’ s lawyers in Vienna did obtain , as part of his legal battle in Austria against extradition , an affidavit from Viktor Shokin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firing Joe Biden had advocated .
In that affidavit , Shokin leveled new accusations about the former vice president .
Giuliani then touted those claims as major revelation .
A DOJ spokesperson on Wednesday denied Parnas ’ claims regarding Barr .
In a statement Thursday , Mark Corallo , a spokesperson for Toensing and diGenova , did not directly address Parnas ’ account .
“ Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova were retained by Mr. Firtash to represent him in his case in US District Court in Chicago and to present facts to Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence presented by Justice Department lawyers to the Austrian court , ” Corallo said .
The WhatsApp messages also show that Sargeant applauded Parnas ’ efforts to oust Yovanovitch .
On March 23 , Parnas texted Sargeant : “ She ’ s gone.
” Sargeant wrote back , “ AWESOME !
!
!
” Yovanovitch was not actually removed then .
But on April 23 , Parnas , tipped by Giuliani , informed Sargeant : “ The bomb is dropping tomorrow.
” Yovanovitch said in House testimony that she was informed of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Parnas texted Sargeant : “ Come meet me in Ukraine next week like Wednesday or Thursday.
” Sargeant seemed interested : “ I could leave Thur and be there Friday maybe.
” Patrick Dorton , Sargeant ’ s spokesperson , said the billionaire did not go to Ukraine then and has not been to that country for more than a decade .
Dorton said he didn ’ t know why Sargeant told Parnas he might be willing to make the trip .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A billionaire Republican donor helped to bankroll travel by Lev Parnas, the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, as Parnas maneuvered to press the Ukrainian government to announce investigations that would help President Donald Trump politically.
House Democrats on Wednesday released WhatsApp messages between Parnas and Harry Sargeant III, an oil and shipping magnate who lives in Florida, as part of a trove of material they recently obtained from Parnas. The messages show that Sargeant helped fund some of Parnas’ travel and was supportive of efforts by Parnas and Giuliani to convince Trump to remove US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Parnas and Giuliani have said they believed Yovanovitch’s removal would help them pressure Ukraine’s government to provide dirt on Trump’s foes. Sargeant, a financial backer of Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign, is friendly with the former New York mayor. Sargeant met Parnas through Giuliani, a source said.
In a statement Wednesday, Chris Kise, an attorney representing Sargeant, confirmed the billionaire had loaned Parnas money for some of his travel costs. Kise said that Sargeant had expected to be paid back and suggested that Sargeant had been duped by Parnas.
“As is evident from the texts, Mr. Sargeant loaned Lev Parnas small sums for travel expenses because Mr. Parnas claimed, perhaps falsely, he was broke, and promised to pay the funds back,” Kise said. “But despite repeated requests by Mr. Sargeant, and continual promises of repayment by Lev Parnas, Mr. Parnas never repaid these expenses.” Kise cited an August 26 message in which Sargeant urged Parnas to repay debts to him and to the owner of a charter flight company.
If accurate, Kise’s statement suggests Sargeant was one of several wealthy individuals Parnas convinced to help finance a jet-setting lifestyle. Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch, appears to have paid Parnas more than $1 million last year. Parnas also has a string of debts in Florida, where he lives, including $350,000 owed to a couple who say he convinced them to help finance a movie. They have sued Parnas and have accused him of conning them.
Previous reporting has revealed that Sargeant over the last year interacted with Parnas, whose frenetic activity included lavishing campaign donations on Trump and other Republicans, regular travel to Ukraine to help Giuliani pressure Ukrainian officials, and pursuit of business deals in Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Sargeant has downplayed his relationship with Parnas and has denied involvement in Parnas and Giuliani’s Ukrainian machinations.
In an April 2, 2019, WhatsApp message, Parnas asked Sargeant to “approve” payment for a car service, adding that “we got a deal from Rudy’s guy.” Sargeant told Parnas not to “bother w this stuff pls.” It’s not clear if he approved the expense.
About a week later, Parnas seemed to complain to Sargeant that a trip he planned, and apparently billed to Sargeant, had been canceled. Parnas said he was about to meet with Giuliani and indicated the cancelation would interrupt his plans to hold meetings “on Saturday in Vienna.”
“Just getting expensive flying u guys everywhere LEV,” Sargeant responded.
It is not clear if Parnas traveled to Vienna on this occasion or who he planned to meet. But in June, Parnas met in Vienna with Firtash, a Ukrainian gas magnate who is under house arrest there while he fights extradition to the United States, where he faces federal bribery charges. Parnas told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday that in that meeting, he had urged Firtash to agree to a deal: Firtash would hire two Trump allies, Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, a husband-and-wife legal team, who would use their ties to Attorney General William Barr to get Firtash’s case dropped. In exchange, Firtash would help dig up dirt in Ukraine on Trump’s political foes.
Though it may sound outlandish, some pieces of this proposal appear to have been carried out. Firtash replaced his American attorneys with Toensing and diGenova in July. In late August, the duo secured a meeting with Barr in which they pushed for the DOJ to drop Firtash’s prosecution, though Barr did not agree to that request. And Firtash’s lawyers in Vienna did obtain, as part of his legal battle in Austria against extradition, an affidavit from Viktor Shokin, the former Ukrainian prosecutor whose 2016 firing Joe Biden had advocated. In that affidavit, Shokin leveled new accusations about the former vice president. Giuliani then touted those claims as a major revelation.
A DOJ spokesperson on Wednesday denied Parnas’ claims regarding Barr. In a statement Thursday, Mark Corallo, a spokesperson for Toensing and diGenova, did not directly address Parnas’ account. “Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova were retained by Mr. Firtash to represent him in his case in US District Court in Chicago and to present facts to Justice Department leadership detailing the false and misleading evidence presented by Justice Department lawyers to the Austrian court,” Corallo said.
The WhatsApp messages also show that Sargeant applauded Parnas’ efforts to oust Yovanovitch. On March 23, Parnas texted Sargeant: “She’s gone.” Sargeant wrote back, “AWESOME!!!” Yovanovitch was not actually removed then. But on April 23, Parnas, tipped by Giuliani, informed Sargeant: “The bomb is dropping tomorrow.” Yovanovitch said in House testimony that she was informed of her ouster on April 24.
In June, Parnas texted Sargeant: “Come meet me in Ukraine next week like Wednesday or Thursday.” Sargeant seemed interested: “I could leave Thur and be there Friday maybe.”
Patrick Dorton, Sargeant’s spokesperson, said the billionaire did not go to Ukraine then and has not been to that country for more than a decade. Dorton said he didn’t know why Sargeant told Parnas he might be willing to make the trip.


motherjones--2020-01-16--Ukraine Wants the FBI to Help Investigate Russian Hacking of Burisma

On the day the US Senate formally began the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump , the government of Ukraine said it had asked the FBI for help getting to the bottom of an alleged email phishing campaign targeting Burisma Holdings .
The impeachment inquiry is deeply tied to earlier requests from the administration that Ukraine announce an investigation into the gas company .
Artem Minyailo , a Ukrainian interior ministry official , told reporters on Thursday that “ the national police has initiated creation of a joint international investigation team , to which FBI representatives have already been invited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced Ukraine would launch its own investigation into whether Trump associates had surveilled Marie Yovanovitch during her time as the US ambassador in Kiev .
An FBI spokesperson told Mother Jones that the agency had no comment “ in keeping with our standard practice of neither confirming nor denying the existence of an investigation.
” The news comes several days after Area 1 Security , a Silicon Valley firm founded by former NSA computer experts , said it had found evidence that the same group of Russian military hackers who helped exfiltrate emails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 2016 election interference efforts were engaged in an ongoing email phishing campaign targeting Burisma and its subsidiaries dating back to early November .
The report referred to the ongoing campaign as “ successful , ” but offered no evidence that any data had been obtained .
Reuters cited an unnamed source close to Burisma who said the “ company ’ s website had been subject to multiple break-in attempts over the past six months , ” but who declined to share further details .
Burisma Holdings has not responded to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phishing campaigns targeting corporations aren ’ t particularly newsworthy , but the geopolitical context and the timing of the Area 1 report—just as impeachment proceedings were kicking back into gear after a holiday lull—caused an immediate flurry of headlines .
Area 1 ’ s findings were covered on Monday by the New York Times , which cited an anonymous American official as saying the ongoing phishing campaign was running alongside a “ parallel ” effort by Russian spies in Ukraine to dig up information aimed at embarrassing former Vice President Joe Biden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was paid to serve on Burisma ’ s board .
Congressional Democrats immediately complained about learning of the alleged phishing operation from the news rather than being briefed by US intelligence .
“ I ’ m a bit distressed to see this for the first time in a newspaper report , ” Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , said on MSNBC after the news broke .
“ If the intel community is aware of this , that should have been brought to our attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also complained about the lack of briefing on the matter , according to a CNN reporter .
Congressional aides told Mother Jones on Tuesday that senior Democrats were planning to ask the relevant intelligence agencies whether they knew about the Russian phishing campaign and , if so , why the information wasn ’ t shared .
On Thursday , those aides either declined to comment or did not respond to further questions about the lack of briefing .
Area 1 CEO Oren Falkowitz told Mother Jones that the company had shared its findings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in understanding this campaign in greater depth ” ahead of the report ’ s release .
Neither the FBI nor the Office of the Director of National Intelligence , the umbrella agency tasked with oversight and coordination between the various intelligence agencies , responded to questions asking if they had known of evidence suggesting the campaign before the report was released .
“ We take seriously our responsibility to keep Congress and its leaders fully and currently informed on intelligence matters and will continue to do so , ” an ODNI spokesperson @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On the day the US Senate formally began the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, the government of Ukraine said it had asked the FBI for help getting to the bottom of an alleged email phishing campaign targeting Burisma Holdings. The impeachment inquiry is deeply tied to earlier requests from the administration that Ukraine announce an investigation into the gas company.
Democrats complained about learning of the operation from the news.
Artem Minyailo, a Ukrainian interior ministry official, told reporters on Thursday that “the national police has initiated creation of a joint international investigation team, to which FBI representatives have already been invited,” Reuters reported. He also announced Ukraine would launch its own investigation into whether Trump associates had surveilled Marie Yovanovitch during her time as the US ambassador in Kiev.
An FBI spokesperson told Mother Jones that the agency had no comment “in keeping with our standard practice of neither confirming nor denying the existence of an investigation.”
The news comes several days after Area 1 Security, a Silicon Valley firm founded by former NSA computer experts, said it had found evidence that the same group of Russian military hackers who helped exfiltrate emails from Democratic operatives as part of Russia’s 2016 election interference efforts were engaged in an ongoing email phishing campaign targeting Burisma and its subsidiaries dating back to early November.
The report referred to the ongoing campaign as “successful,” but offered no evidence that any data had been obtained. Reuters cited an unnamed source close to Burisma who said the “company’s website had been subject to multiple break-in attempts over the past six months,” but who declined to share further details. Burisma Holdings has not responded to a Mother Jones request for comment.
Email phishing campaigns targeting corporations aren’t particularly newsworthy, but the geopolitical context and the timing of the Area 1 report—just as impeachment proceedings were kicking back into gear after a holiday lull—caused an immediate flurry of headlines. Area 1’s findings were covered on Monday by the New York Times, which cited an anonymous American official as saying the ongoing phishing campaign was running alongside a “parallel” effort by Russian spies in Ukraine to dig up information aimed at embarrassing former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, who previously was paid to serve on Burisma’s board.
Congressional Democrats immediately complained about learning of the alleged phishing operation from the news rather than being briefed by US intelligence. “I’m a bit distressed to see this for the first time in a newspaper report,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on MSNBC after the news broke. “If the intel community is aware of this, that should have been brought to our attention by now.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also complained about the lack of briefing on the matter, according to a CNN reporter.
Congressional aides told Mother Jones on Tuesday that senior Democrats were planning to ask the relevant intelligence agencies whether they knew about the Russian phishing campaign and, if so, why the information wasn’t shared. On Thursday, those aides either declined to comment or did not respond to further questions about the lack of briefing.
Area 1 CEO Oren Falkowitz told Mother Jones that the company had shared its findings with “relevant stakeholders that have an interest in understanding this campaign in greater depth” ahead of the report’s release. Neither the FBI nor the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the umbrella agency tasked with oversight and coordination between the various intelligence agencies, responded to questions asking if they had known of evidence suggesting the campaign before the report was released.
“We take seriously our responsibility to keep Congress and its leaders fully and currently informed on intelligence matters and will continue to do so,” an ODNI spokesperson told Mother Jones.


motherjones--2020-01-16--Florida’s Supreme Court Says Ex-Felons Must Pay Fines Before Regaining the Vote

In 2018 , Florida voters approved a ballot initiative restoring the right to vote to ex-felons .
On Thursday , the state ’ s highest court said that right should be taken away from many of them .
The Florida Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion Thursday that felons must first pay certain fines and fees before gaining access to the polls .
The decision is not legally binding but could influence future rulings by federal judges and put the reenfranchisement of potentially 1.4 million Floridians at risk .
After the 2018 passage of Amendment 4 to restore voting rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back—passing a bill that would bar people with felony records from voting until all of their court fines and fees are paid .
It was compared to a poll tax .
Republican Gov .
Ron DeSantis signed the bill into law .
He then asked the state Supreme Court for guidance amid potential lawsuits .
On Thursday , the court said Amendment 4 ’ s language means felons must pay fines and fees associated with their sentencing documents before voting .
It also said voters could change this by passing another measure with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees is not a precondition for voting .
The opinion hinges on the amendment ’ s language concerning “ completion of all terms of sentence , ” wrote the Court , which determined that it “ plainly encompasses ” paying fines and fees from sentencing .
But voting rights advocates say this misses the point .
Paying off hundreds and thousands of dollars in debts from time in the criminal justice system can be nearly impossible for those reentering society , particularly with rapidly accumulating interest .
As Ari Berman reported in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a long-running problem in Florida : Felon disenfranchisement has helped [ former governor and current senator Rick ] Scott and other Florida Republicans remain in power .
Of the ex-felons granted clemency under [ Charlie ] Crist , 26 percent , or 40,000 , registered to vote in the 2012 election , with 59 percent registering as Democrats , according to research by University of Pennsylvania professor Marc Meredith and Harvard doctoral candidate Michael Morse .
In 2016 , Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by 113,000 votes in Florida , but 500,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African Americans who did vote in Florida favored Clinton by a 76-point margin .
Voting rights groups sued the state after DeSantis signed the bill requiring payment of fees , and those cases are ongoing .
But this advisory opinion will bolster the state ’ s argument that felons who have not paid fines and fees can not vote .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In 2018, Florida voters approved a ballot initiative restoring the right to vote to ex-felons. On Thursday, the state’s highest court said that right should be taken away from many of them.
The Florida Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion Thursday that felons must first pay certain fines and fees before gaining access to the polls. The decision is not legally binding but could influence future rulings by federal judges and put the reenfranchisement of potentially 1.4 million Floridians at risk.
After the 2018 passage of Amendment 4 to restore voting rights, Florida’s legislature quickly fought back—passing a bill that would bar people with felony records from voting until all of their court fines and fees are paid. It was compared to a poll tax.
The #Florida Supreme Court issued a decision this morning permitting a modern-day poll tax and redefining the voter-approved #Amendment4. https://t.co/rwMtikCIyN — Southern Poverty Law Center (@splcenter) January 16, 2020
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill into law. He then asked the state Supreme Court for guidance amid potential lawsuits. On Thursday, the court said Amendment 4’s language means felons must pay fines and fees associated with their sentencing documents before voting. It also said voters could change this by passing another measure with language clearly stipulating that the payment of fees is not a precondition for voting.
The opinion hinges on the amendment’s language concerning “completion of all terms of sentence,” wrote the Court, which determined that it “plainly encompasses” paying fines and fees from sentencing.
But voting rights advocates say this misses the point. Paying off hundreds and thousands of dollars in debts from time in the criminal justice system can be nearly impossible for those reentering society, particularly with rapidly accumulating interest.
As Ari Berman reported in a deep dive on Amendment 4, disenfranchisement has been a long-running problem in Florida:
Felon disenfranchisement has helped [former governor and current senator Rick] Scott and other Florida Republicans remain in power. Of the ex-felons granted clemency under [Charlie] Crist, 26 percent, or 40,000, registered to vote in the 2012 election, with 59 percent registering as Democrats, according to research by University of Pennsylvania professor Marc Meredith and Harvard doctoral candidate Michael Morse. In 2016, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by 113,000 votes in Florida, but 500,000 African Americans were unable to vote. African Americans who did vote in Florida favored Clinton by a 76-point margin.
Voting rights groups sued the state after DeSantis signed the bill requiring payment of fees, and those cases are ongoing. But this advisory opinion will bolster the state’s argument that felons who have not paid fines and fees cannot vote.


motherjones--2020-01-16--Congress’s Nonpartisan Watchdog Finds That Trump’s Ukraine Policy Broke the Law

The Trump administration broke the law by improperly withholding security assistance from Ukraine , according to a legal decision published Thursday by the Government Accountability Office , an independent congressional watchdog .
While the White House Office of Management and Budget had told the GAO that it wanted to ensure the funding would not be spent “ in a manner that could conflict with the President ’ s foreign policy , ” auditors found that the blocking of nearly $ 214 million in military aid took place in defiance of the law and without an appropriate legal justification .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law , ” read the decision , which was issued by GAO general counsel Thomas Armstrong .
“ OMB withheld funds for a policy reason , which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act ( ICA ) .
The withholding was not a programmatic delay .
Therefore , we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.
” That blunt determination comes on the same day House Democrats formally presented articles of impeachment to the Senate detailing how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine for his personal gain .
The Republican-controlled upper chamber will debate whether the president should be removed from office for his role in making Ukraine ’ s military aid contingent on the country launching a series of investigations into Trump ’ s political rivals .
Last month , the Democratic-majority House impeached Trump on a largely party-line vote , determining that he abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and an energy company connected to his son Hunter .
Beginning in July , government auditors tasked with monitoring appropriations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release of funds for Ukraine to the Pentagon nine times , as the White House claimed the hold was necessary “ to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds.
” Presidents have limited power to withhold funds approved by Congress , and must formally notify Congress of the reasons for any deferral .
The Trump administration did no such thing .
The delays , which blocked more than 85 percent of the $ 250 million Congress had appropriated to Ukraine last fiscal year , are a key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump of the presidency .
Shortly after the decision was released , several Democrats central to the impeachment inquiry highlighted it as further confirmation of improper behavior on the part of Trump and his allies .
“ President Trump ’ s conduct is all the more egregious because he was not withholding the funds for a policy reason at all , ” said Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) in a statement , “ but for the corrupt purpose of seeking foreign help in his reelection campaign.
” In a series of tweets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
called it a “ bombshell legal opinion ” that underscored the “ urgent need to obtain all relevant documents and hear from all key fact witnesses in order to ensure a fair trial.
” Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) , echoed the argument in reading parts of the decision at her weekly press conference , declaring , “ The White House , the administration—I ’ m saying this—broke the law.
” As the decision gained traction on Thursday , OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel disputed its conclusions .
“ We disagree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she told the New York Times , insisting in the face of the finding the White House broke the law that “ OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President ’ s priorities and with the law.
” On the contrary , the report found that OMB staff were solely concerned with Trump ’ s priorities , and not their responsibilities under the law .
“ The President has narrow , limited authority to withhold appropriations under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion ’ s release .
“ The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Trump administration broke the law by improperly withholding security assistance from Ukraine, according to a legal decision published Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, an independent congressional watchdog. While the White House Office of Management and Budget had told the GAO that it wanted to ensure the funding would not be spent “in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy,” auditors found that the blocking of nearly $214 million in military aid took place in defiance of the law and without an appropriate legal justification.
“The administration—I’m saying this—broke the law.”
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” read the decision, which was issued by GAO general counsel Thomas Armstrong. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”
That blunt determination comes on the same day House Democrats formally presented articles of impeachment to the Senate detailing how President Donald Trump corrupted foreign policy toward Ukraine for his personal gain. The Republican-controlled upper chamber will debate whether the president should be removed from office for his role in making Ukraine’s military aid contingent on the country launching a series of investigations into Trump’s political rivals. Last month, the Democratic-majority House impeached Trump on a largely party-line vote, determining that he abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and an energy company connected to his son Hunter.
Beginning in July, government auditors tasked with monitoring appropriations law found that OMB delayed its congressionally-mandated release of funds for Ukraine to the Pentagon nine times, as the White House claimed the hold was necessary “to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds.” Presidents have limited power to withhold funds approved by Congress, and must formally notify Congress of the reasons for any deferral. The Trump administration did no such thing. The delays, which blocked more than 85 percent of the $250 million Congress had appropriated to Ukraine last fiscal year, are a key part of Democrats’ case for stripping Trump of the presidency.
Shortly after the decision was released, several Democrats central to the impeachment inquiry highlighted it as further confirmation of improper behavior on the part of Trump and his allies.
“President Trump’s conduct is all the more egregious because he was not withholding the funds for a policy reason at all,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in a statement, “but for the corrupt purpose of seeking foreign help in his reelection campaign.”
In a series of tweets, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) called it a “bombshell legal opinion” that underscored the “urgent need to obtain all relevant documents and hear from all key fact witnesses in order to ensure a fair trial.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), echoed the argument in reading parts of the decision at her weekly press conference, declaring, “The White House, the administration—I’m saying this—broke the law.”
Speaker Pelosi on the GAO report: "The OMB, the White House, the administration broke— I'm saying this— broke the law … This reinforces again the need for documents and eye-witnesses in the Senate." pic.twitter.com/wbDl39RHHB — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 16, 2020
As the decision gained traction on Thursday, OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel disputed its conclusions. “We disagree with GAO’s opinion,” she told the New York Times, insisting in the face of the finding the White House broke the law that “OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law.”
On the contrary, the report found that OMB staff were solely concerned with Trump’s priorities, and not their responsibilities under the law.
“The President has narrow, limited authority to withhold appropriations under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974,” Armstrong said in a statement accompanying his opinion’s release. “The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons.”


motherjones--2020-01-16--Iranians Would Kindly Like Donald Trump to “Shut Up”

When Iran ’ s military admitted on Saturday that it had mistakenly shot down a civilian airliner , Ukraine Airlines Flight 752—killing all 176 of its mainly Iranian passengers and crew—Iranians started taking to the streets in shock , sadness , and outrage that , for many , at least temporarily overshadowed their anger toward the United States after it assassinated top Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani in an airstrike earlier this month .
Now in their sixth day of protests , demonstrators are condemning the killings and criticizing the government behind them , with some demanding the resignation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media show Iranians burning images of Khamenei and chanting slogans like , “ They lied when they told us it was America—our enemy is right here.
” Eyewitnesses claim that government militias are firing live ammunition at protestors .
These latest protests aren ’ t the first time Iranians have taken to the streets in recent months .
The country ’ s domestic politics have been volatile in recent years , particularly under President Donald Trump ’ s “ maximum pressure ” regime of military force and extreme sanctions .
In November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spontaneous rallies after a surprise hike in gas prices , furious with a government often seen as corrupt , incompetent , and invested in Middle East proxy wars at the expense of its citizens ’ welfare .
The uprisings are the results of an “ accumulation of crises ” in Iran , says Peyman Jafari , a researcher and historian at Princeton University ’ s Center for Iran Persian Gulf Studies .
Yet major political change , he says , won ’ t come until students , workers , and middle-class professionals fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unify their protests and demands .
To understand more about the motivations driving the rallies , and where they might lead , Mother Jones spoke at length to Jafari , who studies Iran ’ s history , social movements , and politics .
Could you give some background on the massive Iranian protests in November and December , and connect them to what ’ s going on now ?
The demonstrations in November were triggered by a socioeconomic issue : the rising of the fuel price .
The middle class had sympathy with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t join .
This time around , we had the crash of the airplane , of course .
And I think it brought two crises of the Islamic Republic together : what I call the crisis of legitimacy , because of the lying—it was not only the crash of the airplane , but also that the government didn ’ t tell the truth for three days , that ignited that wider demand of transparency , of democracy .
The other crisis linked to this event is the crisis of competency : these huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect its citizens , to provide public services , security , and so on .
Shooting down the airplane brought that to the fore—doing this , by mistake , cost 170-plus people their lives .
So this was a huge issue .
The constituency this time around is more middle class , more students .
More generally , there has been an accumulation of crises in Iran .
The crises of competency , of legitimacy , the socioeconomic crisis .
The current establishment has moved away from promises of social justice and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies since the 1990s .
Now we see flexibility in the labor market , lots of precarious jobs , subcontracting .
Wages are basically low .
Lots of strikes we see happening are about unpaid wages or low wages .
And then we have an environmental crisis , particularly in southern Iran , with drought and so on .
All these crises are converging , and the demands are affecting both the lower classes and the middle classes , which have seen a huge drop in their income .
So there is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ converging , but this will not happen automatically .
What you need is actually people , organizations , trade unions , NGOs , activist networks that can make these connections , that can formulate these kinds of demands .
Was there any overlap between Iranians who protested the Soleimani assassination and the people who demonstrated against the airplane attack or the gas price hike ?
Some people have been commenting that these protests mean Iranians were not united by the Soleimani assassination .
But it ’ s important to stress that Iran is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not monolithic .
These can be existing groups , parallel to each other .
Even more so , the same person can be against the assassination of Soleimani and be against corruption and authoritarianism in Iran .
I think the assassination of Soleimani crystallized a nationalism that is still very strong in Iran .
Those things can really exist simultaneously .
There ’ s a lot of Iran-related disinformation on social media , especially Twitter , Telegram , and Instagram , where accounts with few followers sometimes share unverifiable info about demonstrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be about disinformation as we try to make sense of these protests ?
Disinformation is being sent out by the Iranian government and by the US government , which also organizes a disinfo campaign .
You have these bots organized by very small but rich outside groups , such as the MKO [ an armed , US–backed opposition group ] and royalists , that create an echo chamber .
Trump was bragging about his tweet in Persian being the most retweeted Persian-language tweet .
But much of that retweeting happens by these bots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armies like the MKO .
Their activism , now , is basically tweeting .
They have these halls of aging activists sitting behind computers and sending out tweets all day long .
[ On Saturday , Trump issued his first Farsi tweet : “ To the brave and suffering people of Iran : from the beginning of my presidency , I have stood with you , and my government will continue to stand with you .
We are following your protests closely .
Your courage is inspirational.
” ] That ’ s definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire reality .
There are other Iranians on Twitter , on social media , both outside of and within Iran , who are very active and taking positions .
One should not dismiss those as not genuine .
There is lots of genuine activity .
Are distortions on social media a major concern within Iran , especially for protestors ?
In Iran , no .
In Iran , people , by this time , know where everything ’ s happening .
When Trump tweeted in Persian , a lot of Iranians ’ reaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You have instituted a travel ban .
You have targeted our cultural sites .
You have been sanctioning us.
” People are aware of that .
There ’ s of course the problem of the so-called fake news : which demonstrations are real , what ’ s speculation about shooting on demonstrations .
But that problem is really general .
My sense is that most people are aware and know how to go around that .
In the US , there ’ s been a lot of coverage of the video of protesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prominent Iranian university , being careful not to walk on US and Israeli flags that have been painted on the ground for propaganda purposes .
What do you think that clip tells us ?
People made a big deal of it , but it ’ s not new .
It ’ s happened in the last few years , but it ’ s become more politicized now .
My interpretation is that students were doing this because they basically wanted to give the middle finger to Iranian authorities , because this [ trampling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But this does not mean that they are blind to Israel or America ’ s foreign policies .
Many of those students are very critical of what is happening in Israel or what is happening with the economic sanctions .
Actually , that university is sanctioned by the US !
Its students haven ’ t been able to travel to the US to study .
But I think the point is that they are refusing to do it precisely because the government and local authorities are forcing them to .
What about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Supreme Leader Khamenei , which happened during the November protests and again this week ?
We also saw it in the 2009 protests .
There has been a growing critique of the Supreme Leader in wider sections of society , because he ’ s ultimately the person responsible for what is happening .
He takes credit for the good things , but doesn ’ t want to be held responsible for what ’ s going on now .
This is a sign of people demanding accountability from the leading figure in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a country of 80-plus million .
This has been done increasingly often , but not by everybody , of course .
On Twitter and elsewhere , Trump and the White House have been trying to involve themselves in these protests .
What consequences could that have for protestors in Iran ?
I think it has actually been totally counterproductive .
First of all , it is strengthening the authoritarian nature of the Islamic Republic , because it gives more power to the Revolutionary Guards .
It galvanizes and heartens the supporters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatened and think everybody opposing them is an agent of the United States .
After the assassination of Soleimani , we saw the Revolutionary Guards recruit directly from the ranks of young people to draw in new blood .
When we see the reemergence of protests , they will be confronted with increased , militarized repression by the government of Iran .
The second thing is , US economic sanctions cut off the oxygen for civil society in Iran .
I think strikes , which can really affect the government , are much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people will be more tempted to sit on the fence and not join the movement , because they are afraid of the [ economic ] consequences .
So no , I don ’ t think Trump should take credit for what is happening .
Even if there were to be a regime collapse because of this “ maximum pressure , ” the outcome of that will not necessarily be democratic under current conditions .
It could mean more chaos , civil war , the disintegration of Iranian civil society .
Even if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they did to Iraq in the 90s , disintegrating the social fabric , people will fall back on family links , tribal links , sectarian religious links , other groups , instead of institutions like the unions and associations and so on .
When the conditions become militarized , we really do see this shrinking space for these kinds of organizations .
In the last few days , at least two prominent Iranian news anchors have resigned over the plane crash lies .
Tehran ’ s main journalism association released a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What endangers this society right now is not only missiles or military attacks but a lack of free media.
” What kind of role has that kind of public resistance played ?
I think it is significant .
What this statement basically said was that we haven ’ t been telling the truth as journalists in the last few days , that this is outrageous , and that we should ignore the limitations set for us in the media and do our jobs as journalists .
I see this as a sign of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : associations of journalists , of teachers , of lawyers , particularly in the public sector .
They are demanding accountability .
What do you think Westerners generally don ’ t understand about these demonstrations ?
We should be careful of simplistic pictures .
Every time there is a protest or demonstration , there are voices that say the regime is collapsing .
I do think that since the 1990s , the social base of the state has really shrunk , and that ’ s a real trend .
But we are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It will still take a while .
We also don ’ t know what the nature of the transformation will be , whether it will come from internal changes and developments or a total collapse through mass protests and a revolutionary movement .
That ’ s one thing .
The other is that people in Iran , for the last 100 years , have been fighting a war on two fronts—against domestic dictatorship and against foreign domination—and that they are fusing these two struggles .
At one moment , they will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at another moment much more about foreign domination .
On a very small scale , we did see this in the last few weeks , with people in the streets against the assassination of Soleimani and then against repression and corruption .
It ’ s in the political culture of Iranians to combine these two struggles .
Are we missing anything else about the protests ?
To add one thing : we do see lots of women at the front of these mobilizations and demonstrations and protests .
If you look at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that ’ s excellent , and a picture of the future Iran .
The participation of women in the Islamic Republic in the political sphere has actually increased in the last few decades because of the expansion of education .
In the 1980s , participation of women in the labor market was decreasing and discouraged , but since the 1990s , it is encouraged .
But as women are participating , they are also realizing they are confronted with obstacles that limit their participation .
So there is a huge tension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political consciousness and activism and a will to take to the streets .
I think that ’ s really a hopeful development .
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When Iran’s military admitted on Saturday that it had mistakenly shot down a civilian airliner, Ukraine Airlines Flight 752—killing all 176 of its mainly Iranian passengers and crew—Iranians started taking to the streets in shock, sadness, and outrage that, for many, at least temporarily overshadowed their anger toward the United States after it assassinated top Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani in an airstrike earlier this month.
Now in their sixth day of protests, demonstrators are condemning the killings and criticizing the government behind them, with some demanding the resignation of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Videos on social media show Iranians burning images of Khamenei and chanting slogans like, “They lied when they told us it was America—our enemy is right here.” Eyewitnesses claim that government militias are firing live ammunition at protestors.
These latest protests aren’t the first time Iranians have taken to the streets in recent months. The country’s domestic politics have been volatile in recent years, particularly under President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” regime of military force and extreme sanctions. In November, tens of thousands of Iranians staged spontaneous rallies after a surprise hike in gas prices, furious with a government often seen as corrupt, incompetent, and invested in Middle East proxy wars at the expense of its citizens’ welfare.
The uprisings are the results of an “accumulation of crises” in Iran, says Peyman Jafari, a researcher and historian at Princeton University’s Center for Iran Persian Gulf Studies. Yet major political change, he says, won’t come until students, workers, and middle-class professionals fed up with economic struggle and political repression unify their protests and demands.
To understand more about the motivations driving the rallies, and where they might lead, Mother Jones spoke at length to Jafari, who studies Iran’s history, social movements, and politics.
Could you give some background on the massive Iranian protests in November and December, and connect them to what’s going on now?
The demonstrations in November were triggered by a socioeconomic issue: the rising of the fuel price. The middle class had sympathy with these protests, but really didn’t join. This time around, we had the crash of the airplane, of course. And I think it brought two crises of the Islamic Republic together: what I call the crisis of legitimacy, because of the lying—it was not only the crash of the airplane, but also that the government didn’t tell the truth for three days, that ignited that wider demand of transparency, of democracy.
The other crisis linked to this event is the crisis of competency: these huge grievances about the government not being able to protect its citizens, to provide public services, security, and so on. Shooting down the airplane brought that to the fore—doing this, by mistake, cost 170-plus people their lives. So this was a huge issue. The constituency this time around is more middle class, more students.
More generally, there has been an accumulation of crises in Iran. The crises of competency, of legitimacy, the socioeconomic crisis. The current establishment has moved away from promises of social justice and equality, and has introduced more neoliberal policies since the 1990s. Now we see flexibility in the labor market, lots of precarious jobs, subcontracting. Wages are basically low. Lots of strikes we see happening are about unpaid wages or low wages. And then we have an environmental crisis, particularly in southern Iran, with drought and so on.
All these crises are converging, and the demands are affecting both the lower classes and the middle classes, which have seen a huge drop in their income. So there is a chance of these [different protests] converging, but this will not happen automatically. What you need is actually people, organizations, trade unions, NGOs, activist networks that can make these connections, that can formulate these kinds of demands.
Was there any overlap between Iranians who protested the Soleimani assassination and the people who demonstrated against the airplane attack or the gas price hike?
Some people have been commenting that these protests mean Iranians were not united by the Soleimani assassination. But it’s important to stress that Iran is a large country, and it’s not monolithic. These can be existing groups, parallel to each other. Even more so, the same person can be against the assassination of Soleimani and be against corruption and authoritarianism in Iran. I think the assassination of Soleimani crystallized a nationalism that is still very strong in Iran. Those things can really exist simultaneously.
There’s a lot of Iran-related disinformation on social media, especially Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram, where accounts with few followers sometimes share unverifiable info about demonstrations and crackdowns. How concerned should we be about disinformation as we try to make sense of these protests?
Disinformation is being sent out by the Iranian government and by the US government, which also organizes a disinfo campaign. You have these bots organized by very small but rich outside groups, such as the MKO [an armed, US–backed opposition group] and royalists, that create an echo chamber.
Trump was bragging about his tweet in Persian being the most retweeted Persian-language tweet. But much of that retweeting happens by these bots, and through these online activist cyber armies like the MKO. Their activism, now, is basically tweeting. They have these halls of aging activists sitting behind computers and sending out tweets all day long. [On Saturday, Trump issued his first Farsi tweet: “To the brave and suffering people of Iran: from the beginning of my presidency, I have stood with you, and my government will continue to stand with you. We are following your protests closely. Your courage is inspirational.”]
That’s definitely part of reality, but not the entire reality. There are other Iranians on Twitter, on social media, both outside of and within Iran, who are very active and taking positions. One should not dismiss those as not genuine. There is lots of genuine activity.
Are distortions on social media a major concern within Iran, especially for protestors?
In Iran, no. In Iran, people, by this time, know where everything’s happening. When Trump tweeted in Persian, a lot of Iranians’ reaction was just, “Shut up. You have instituted a travel ban. You have targeted our cultural sites. You have been sanctioning us.” People are aware of that.
There’s of course the problem of the so-called fake news: which demonstrations are real, what’s speculation about shooting on demonstrations. But that problem is really general. My sense is that most people are aware and know how to go around that.
In the US, there’s been a lot of coverage of the video of protesting students at Shahid Beheshti University, a prominent Iranian university, being careful not to walk on US and Israeli flags that have been painted on the ground for propaganda purposes. What do you think that clip tells us?
People made a big deal of it, but it’s not new. It’s happened in the last few years, but it’s become more politicized now. My interpretation is that students were doing this because they basically wanted to give the middle finger to Iranian authorities, because this [trampling the flags] is imposed on them.
But this does not mean that they are blind to Israel or America’s foreign policies. Many of those students are very critical of what is happening in Israel or what is happening with the economic sanctions. Actually, that university is sanctioned by the US! Its students haven’t been able to travel to the US to study. But I think the point is that they are refusing to do it precisely because the government and local authorities are forcing them to.
What about the tearing up or burning of photographs of Supreme Leader Khamenei, which happened during the November protests and again this week?
We also saw it in the 2009 protests. There has been a growing critique of the Supreme Leader in wider sections of society, because he’s ultimately the person responsible for what is happening. He takes credit for the good things, but doesn’t want to be held responsible for what’s going on now. This is a sign of people demanding accountability from the leading figure in the government. But, again, Iran is a country of 80-plus million. This has been done increasingly often, but not by everybody, of course.
On Twitter and elsewhere, Trump and the White House have been trying to involve themselves in these protests. What consequences could that have for protestors in Iran?
I think it has actually been totally counterproductive. First of all, it is strengthening the authoritarian nature of the Islamic Republic, because it gives more power to the Revolutionary Guards. It galvanizes and heartens the supporters of the Islamic Republic, because they feel threatened and think everybody opposing them is an agent of the United States. After the assassination of Soleimani, we saw the Revolutionary Guards recruit directly from the ranks of young people to draw in new blood. When we see the reemergence of protests, they will be confronted with increased, militarized repression by the government of Iran.
The second thing is, US economic sanctions cut off the oxygen for civil society in Iran. I think strikes, which can really affect the government, are much more effective than demonstrations. But many people will be more tempted to sit on the fence and not join the movement, because they are afraid of the [economic] consequences.
So no, I don’t think Trump should take credit for what is happening. Even if there were to be a regime collapse because of this “maximum pressure,” the outcome of that will not necessarily be democratic under current conditions. It could mean more chaos, civil war, the disintegration of Iranian civil society. Even if the economic sanctions do [to Iran] what they did to Iraq in the 90s, disintegrating the social fabric, people will fall back on family links, tribal links, sectarian religious links, other groups, instead of institutions like the unions and associations and so on. When the conditions become militarized, we really do see this shrinking space for these kinds of organizations.
In the last few days, at least two prominent Iranian news anchors have resigned over the plane crash lies. Tehran’s main journalism association released a statement that said, in part, “What endangers this society right now is not only missiles or military attacks but a lack of free media.” What kind of role has that kind of public resistance played?
I think it is significant. What this statement basically said was that we haven’t been telling the truth as journalists in the last few days, that this is outrageous, and that we should ignore the limitations set for us in the media and do our jobs as journalists. I see this as a sign of the capacities of institutions in civil society: associations of journalists, of teachers, of lawyers, particularly in the public sector. They are demanding accountability.
What do you think Westerners generally don’t understand about these demonstrations?
We should be careful of simplistic pictures. Every time there is a protest or demonstration, there are voices that say the regime is collapsing. I do think that since the 1990s, the social base of the state has really shrunk, and that’s a real trend. But we are not on the verge of a collapsing regime. It will still take a while.
We also don’t know what the nature of the transformation will be, whether it will come from internal changes and developments or a total collapse through mass protests and a revolutionary movement.
That’s one thing. The other is that people in Iran, for the last 100 years, have been fighting a war on two fronts—against domestic dictatorship and against foreign domination—and that they are fusing these two struggles. At one moment, they will be much more about domestic repression, and at another moment much more about foreign domination.
On a very small scale, we did see this in the last few weeks, with people in the streets against the assassination of Soleimani and then against repression and corruption. It’s in the political culture of Iranians to combine these two struggles.
Are we missing anything else about the protests?
To add one thing: we do see lots of women at the front of these mobilizations and demonstrations and protests. If you look at the pictures, you will see them. I think that’s excellent, and a picture of the future Iran.
The participation of women in the Islamic Republic in the political sphere has actually increased in the last few decades because of the expansion of education. In the 1980s, participation of women in the labor market was decreasing and discouraged, but since the 1990s, it is encouraged. But as women are participating, they are also realizing they are confronted with obstacles that limit their participation. So there is a huge tension there which causes women to develop really a political consciousness and activism and a will to take to the streets. I think that’s really a hopeful development.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.


motherjones--2020-01-17--The Three Biggest Lies Trump and His Deputies Have Been Telling Us About Iran

Ever since the US drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , a top Iranian general , the Trump administration hasn ’ t been able to provide consistent , or even coherent , answers about the assassination .
Why did President Donald Trump decide to kill Soleimani ?
Was there really an “ imminent ” threat from Iran ?
Will this lead to war ?
For the time being , it appears that tensions between the United States and Iran are cooling off , but the aftermath of the strike that killed Soleimani—and Iran ’ s retaliatory strike on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown the lengths to which the administration is willing to go to justify its actions .
Since Soleimani was killed , Mother Jones has been keeping tabs on the misleading information and outright lies that Trump and members of his administration have peddled .
Here are the three most egregious ones : Soleimani was behind an “ imminent threat ” on four US embassies Shortly after Soleimani ’ s death—on January 3 in Iran and January 2 in the United States—several Trump administration officials claimed that he was killed to prevent a future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of State Mike Pompeo told CNN the Iranian general was “ actively plotting ” to “ take big action , as he described it , that would have put hundreds of lives at risk.
” Pompeo , who led the CIA before taking over at the State Department , said intelligence reports informed Trump ’ s ultimate decision .
“ The risk of doing nothing was enormous , ” he said .
“ Intelligence community made that assessment and President Trump acted decisively last night.
” Trump ’ s first extended remarks about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Soleimani , ” he wrote on Twitter , “ has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time , and was plotting to kill many more.
” The Pentagon vaguely hinted at some targets of this imminent attack but provided few further details .
“ General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region , ” read a January 2 statement defending the strike .
“ This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , administration officials neglected to provide any firm evidence to Congress or the public .
A classified briefing on Capitol Hill produced information “ no more detailed or revealing than what we ’ ve read in the news or seen on the TV , ” one senior House Democrat told Vox .
“ Instead , ” another Democratic lawmaker said , “ we got a historical overview of decades-long malign activities from Iran.
” But as the debate raged among lawmakers and journalists about the legality of Trump ’ s attack—in particular , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assassination ” —Trump offered more unverified details of Soleimani ’ s alleged plot .
On January 10 , he told Fox News that Soleimani was targeting four US embassies , including the one in Baghdad , which is the largest and most expensive diplomatic compound in the world .
At a White House briefing that same day , Pompeo said , “ We had specific information on an imminent threat , and those threats included attacks on US embassies.
” Secretary of Defense Mark Esper , tasked with defending the president on CBS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days later , couldn ’ t even make sense of Trump ’ s “ four embassies ” claim .
“ What the president said was he believed there probably and could ’ ve been attacks against additional embassies , ” Esper said , noticeably failing to confirm that any actual intelligence pointed to four embassies being under threat .
When pressed by host Margaret Brennan on whether specific evidence pointed to Trump ’ s claim , Esper said , “ I didn ’ t see one with regard to four embassies.
” After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report put the dagger through Trump ’ s weak justification for Soleimani ’ s death .
On January 13 , NBC News reported that the Iranian general had been in the Pentagon ’ s sights for eight months .
Pompeo , as CIA director , had pushed for Trump to kill Soleimani as far back as 2017 , but a strike against one of Iran ’ s most senior leaders was seen as too risky at the time .
Trump finally agreed in June to strike Soleimani “ if Iran ’ s increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American.
” When an Iran-backed militia fired rockets at a military base in Iraq , killing American contractor Nawres Hamid , Trump had the opening he needed and ordered the strike against Soleimani .
But the Iranian general was evidently not Trump ’ s only target .
On the same day of Soleimani ’ s death , US forces unsuccessfully tried to kill Abdul Reza Shahlai , a high-ranking member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps .
If Soleimani were truly the mastermind of some impending attack , it wouldn ’ t make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kill another Iranian leader .
The attempt on Shahlai ’ s life suggests the true aims of the strikes were not limited to deterrence .
Not even Trump seemed willing to keep this fiction alive after a while .
On January 13 , he tweeted that it “ doesn ’ t really matter ” whether Soleimani was plotting an imminent threat .
Soleimani was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks While various administration officials peddled misinformation related to the “ imminent threat , ” Vice President Mike Pence reached into the past for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series of tweets on January 3—one day after the strike—Pence asserted that Soleimani “ assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
” This , of course , is unequivocally false .
For starters , there were 19 hijackers on 9/11 , not 12 .
( Katie Waldman , Pence ’ s press secretary , quickly took to Twitter to clarify that the vice president meant that “ 12 of the 19 transited through Afghanistan ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were assisted by Soleimani.
” ) But there ’ s also no evidence to support Pence ’ s claim that Soleimani had any involvement with the 9/11 hijackers , who were al-Qaeda operatives and mostly from Saudi Arabia .
According to the 9/11 Commission report , while Iranian officials did allow al-Qaeda operatives to travel through Iran ’ s borders to Afghanistan without the proper visas or passport stamps , there was no mention of Soleimani ’ s name anywhere in the report .
The report concluded that there was no evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for what later would become the 9/11 attack ” or that the hijackers even knew what their mission was when they were traveling through Iran .
So there is no way that Soleimani knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and assisted the hijackers ’ travel through Iran to carry out their mission , as Pence ’ s tweet implied .
No US troops were harmed in Iran ’ s attack on two military bases in Iraq Four days after Soleimani ’ s death , Iran fired 12 ballistic missiles at two US military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States and Iran a step closer to the outbreak of war .
Early reports on January 7 were littered with incomplete information .
CNN reported that “ there are casualties ” among the Iraqis stationed at one of the bases ; three hours later , the network said there actually “ are no casualties among Iraqi security forces.
” At a press conference the following morning , Trump struck an upbeat tone , “ No Americans were harmed in last night ’ s attack by the Iranian regime , ” he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our soldiers are safe , and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.
” Trump ’ s remarks made it seem like US troops had been kept far out of harm ’ s way , thanks to “ an early warning system ” and the “ dispersal of forces.
” But that narrative quickly fell apart .
On January 13 , military officials at Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq told the Washington Post that “ several dozen ” US service members had been treated for concussions as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stretched on for more than an hour and a half , sources told the Post , leaving “ deep craters and the crumpled wreckage of living quarters.
” Contrary to Trump ’ s sunny assessment of a prepared US response , the newspaper concluded that “ the lack of serious casualties was at least partly due to luck.
” A CNN report the next day offered more details .
Soldiers were warned about the attack hours before it happened , but the base “ lacked the surface-to-air defenses to fend off a ballistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stationed there “ at the mercy of the downpour of missiles.
” One staff sergeant told CNN , “ I was 100 percent ready to die.
” On Friday , the Pentagon finally walked back Trump ’ s initial statement entirely .
The Wall Street Journal reported that 11 soldiers were being treated for concussion symptoms from the blast .
“ As a standard procedure , all personnel in the vicinity of a blast are screened for traumatic brain injury , and if deemed appropriate , are transported to a higher level of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spokesperson told the paper .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Ever since the US drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a top Iranian general, the Trump administration hasn’t been able to provide consistent, or even coherent, answers about the assassination. Why did President Donald Trump decide to kill Soleimani? Was there really an “imminent” threat from Iran? Will this lead to war?
For the time being, it appears that tensions between the United States and Iran are cooling off, but the aftermath of the strike that killed Soleimani—and Iran’s retaliatory strike on two US military bases in western Iraq—has shown the lengths to which the administration is willing to go to justify its actions. Since Soleimani was killed, Mother Jones has been keeping tabs on the misleading information and outright lies that Trump and members of his administration have peddled.
Here are the three most egregious ones:
Soleimani was behind an “imminent threat” on four US embassies
Shortly after Soleimani’s death—on January 3 in Iran and January 2 in the United States—several Trump administration officials claimed that he was killed to prevent a future attack or series of attacks. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN the Iranian general was “actively plotting” to “take big action, as he described it, that would have put hundreds of lives at risk.” Pompeo, who led the CIA before taking over at the State Department, said intelligence reports informed Trump’s ultimate decision. “The risk of doing nothing was enormous,” he said. “Intelligence community made that assessment and President Trump acted decisively last night.”
Trump’s first extended remarks about the killing reflected that same narrative. “Soleimani,” he wrote on Twitter, “has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more.” The Pentagon vaguely hinted at some targets of this imminent attack but provided few further details. “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” read a January 2 statement defending the strike. “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”
Despite the talk of an impending attack, administration officials neglected to provide any firm evidence to Congress or the public. A classified briefing on Capitol Hill produced information “no more detailed or revealing than what we’ve read in the news or seen on the TV,” one senior House Democrat told Vox. “Instead,” another Democratic lawmaker said, “we got a historical overview of decades-long malign activities from Iran.” But as the debate raged among lawmakers and journalists about the legality of Trump’s attack—in particular, whether it merited being called an “assassination”—Trump offered more unverified details of Soleimani’s alleged plot. On January 10, he told Fox News that Soleimani was targeting four US embassies, including the one in Baghdad, which is the largest and most expensive diplomatic compound in the world. At a White House briefing that same day, Pompeo said, “We had specific information on an imminent threat, and those threats included attacks on US embassies.”
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, tasked with defending the president on CBS’s “Face the Nation” days later, couldn’t even make sense of Trump’s “four embassies” claim. “What the president said was he believed there probably and could’ve been attacks against additional embassies,” Esper said, noticeably failing to confirm that any actual intelligence pointed to four embassies being under threat. When pressed by host Margaret Brennan on whether specific evidence pointed to Trump’s claim, Esper said, “I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies.”
After days of obfuscating answers, one bombshell report put the dagger through Trump’s weak justification for Soleimani’s death. On January 13, NBC News reported that the Iranian general had been in the Pentagon’s sights for eight months. Pompeo, as CIA director, had pushed for Trump to kill Soleimani as far back as 2017, but a strike against one of Iran’s most senior leaders was seen as too risky at the time. Trump finally agreed in June to strike Soleimani “if Iran’s increased aggression resulted in the death of an American.” When an Iran-backed militia fired rockets at a military base in Iraq, killing American contractor Nawres Hamid, Trump had the opening he needed and ordered the strike against Soleimani. But the Iranian general was evidently not Trump’s only target. On the same day of Soleimani’s death, US forces unsuccessfully tried to kill Abdul Reza Shahlai, a high-ranking member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. If Soleimani were truly the mastermind of some impending attack, it wouldn’t make sense for the US military to also kill another Iranian leader. The attempt on Shahlai’s life suggests the true aims of the strikes were not limited to deterrence.
Not even Trump seemed willing to keep this fiction alive after a while. On January 13, he tweeted that it “doesn’t really matter” whether Soleimani was plotting an imminent threat. While recounting the lead-up to Soleimani’s death during a private fundraiser later that week, he never even mentioned an imminent threat. Instead, Trump seemed more concerned with the way Soleimani spoke about the United States. “He was saying bad things about our country, like we’re going to attack, we’re going to kill your people. I said, ‘listen, how much of this shit do we have to listen to, right?'” Trump told donors, according to the Washington Post.
Soleimani was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks
While various administration officials peddled misinformation related to the “imminent threat,” Vice President Mike Pence reached into the past for this next bizarre claim. In a series of tweets on January 3—one day after the strike—Pence asserted that Soleimani “assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.”
This, of course, is unequivocally false. For starters, there were 19 hijackers on 9/11, not 12. (Katie Waldman, Pence’s press secretary, quickly took to Twitter to clarify that the vice president meant that “12 of the 19 transited through Afghanistan” and that “10 of those 12 were assisted by Soleimani.”) But there’s also no evidence to support Pence’s claim that Soleimani had any involvement with the 9/11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda operatives and mostly from Saudi Arabia. According to the 9/11 Commission report, while Iranian officials did allow al-Qaeda operatives to travel through Iran’s borders to Afghanistan without the proper visas or passport stamps, there was no mention of Soleimani’s name anywhere in the report. The report concluded that there was no evidence that Iran “was aware of the planning for what later would become the 9/11 attack” or that the hijackers even knew what their mission was when they were traveling through Iran.
So there is no way that Soleimani knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and assisted the hijackers’ travel through Iran to carry out their mission, as Pence’s tweet implied.
No US troops were harmed in Iran’s attack on two military bases in Iraq
Four days after Soleimani’s death, Iran fired 12 ballistic missiles at two US military bases in Iraq, bringing the United States and Iran a step closer to the outbreak of war. Early reports on January 7 were littered with incomplete information. CNN reported that “there are casualties” among the Iraqis stationed at one of the bases; three hours later, the network said there actually “are no casualties among Iraqi security forces.”
At a press conference the following morning, Trump struck an upbeat tone, “No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime,” he said. “We suffered no casualties. All of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.” Trump’s remarks made it seem like US troops had been kept far out of harm’s way, thanks to “an early warning system” and the “dispersal of forces.”
But that narrative quickly fell apart. On January 13, military officials at Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq told the Washington Post that “several dozen” US service members had been treated for concussions as a result of the strikes. The attacks stretched on for more than an hour and a half, sources told the Post, leaving “deep craters and the crumpled wreckage of living quarters.” Contrary to Trump’s sunny assessment of a prepared US response, the newspaper concluded that “the lack of serious casualties was at least partly due to luck.” A CNN report the next day offered more details. Soldiers were warned about the attack hours before it happened, but the base “lacked the surface-to-air defenses to fend off a ballistic missile assault,” leaving the troops stationed there “at the mercy of the downpour of missiles.” One staff sergeant told CNN, “I was 100 percent ready to die.”
On Friday, the Pentagon finally walked back Trump’s initial statement entirely. The Wall Street Journal reported that 11 soldiers were being treated for concussion symptoms from the blast. “As a standard procedure, all personnel in the vicinity of a blast are screened for traumatic brain injury, and if deemed appropriate, are transported to a higher level of care,” a US Central Command spokesperson told the paper.