Senator John McCain is suspected of having breached the Logan Act in 2008-Wikileaks Podesta Emails

[big campaign] Did McCain violate US law on the Colombia trip?

From:mwhelan@nsnetwork.org To: bigcampaign@googlegroups.com  Date: 2008-07-03 18:18 Subject: [big campaign] Did McCain violate US law on the Colombia trip?

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/07/mccains-undiplo.html McCain's UNdiplomatic missions Posted by Moira Whelan McCain's gaffe confusing Shia and Sunni in Iraq<http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/18/mccain-iran-al-qaeda/> is perhaps his most notable foreign travel experience of the campaign thus far. This week, McCain attempted to trump that by sliding into the news coverage of US hostages being released in Colombia just after he'd left. Trouble is that for John McCain, this trip, the release of hostages and what John McCain knew, could cause him more trouble than his infamous trip to Iraq. Couple that with questions about how he conducted himself on his trip to Canada, and it looks like the guy who wants to be diplomat-in-chief may be rather...undiplomatic. Just as John McCain was wheels up from Cartagena earlier this week, three US hostages were freed by the FARC after years in captivity. Good news, most certainly. However, at issue now is what John McCain knew, when he knew it, and whether or not he should have known it at all. John McCain took the trip south-billed as official Congressional travel--with his two colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. It's been reported <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/02/AR2008070203272.html> that prior to the trip, John McCain spoke to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at around 4pm and Uribe gave him some highlights of the operation to spring the hostages. When the Senators had dinner with Uribe that night, they were briefed on the operation but none revealed it because they said it was "classified." When McCain was asked about the operation once the hostages were freed, he revealed the fact that he'd been briefed, and praised the operation. Here's the problem, there's a law known as the Logan Act<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act> that reads: "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." The conversation with Uribe definitely qualifies as "correspondence or intercourse" and we have a "controversy" with the Colombian government because the United States has been on their back for years to get these hostages freed. To be sure, the trip itself was cleared by the US government, but that's different from State expressly allowing McCain to have a direct "classified" conversation with President Uribe about an ongoing controversy. If McCain was going to have private conversations with a foreign leader, the conversation itself would have to be cleared. John McCain's conversation with Uribe raises some serious questions that make more investigation necessary. Namely: * Was John McCain's conversation with Uribe classified? * Did McCain have prior approval for this conversation? * Did McCain's staff (or that of Liebermann's or Graham's) clear the content of the conversation with Uribe through the State Department? * Once McCain knew this information, did he-in good faith-make that information known to the State Department? When asked about it, McCain's aide reportedly said: "I don't think that there is an established protocol" for such briefings, said a McCain aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. " 'Protocol' is not a word I would associate with this." Perhaps there isn't protocol, but there are laws. And for someone who wants to have the top job of enforcing them, voters deserve to know the due diligence he did on this trip to ensure that he upheld the same laws that govern our diplomats. Questions are also circulating about McCain's recent trip to Canada . It too was billed as not being political but rather Senatorial. Therefore, he needs to act like a senator, and not as a presidential candidate. This is because according to the Hatch Act,<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939> US government resources and personnel cannot be used in support of political purposes. As the principal on the trip, McCain would have to adhere to these rules, and save the conversation about his campaign for his own plane, at his own events, and not those done on the taxpayer dime. However, in his remarks while in Canada, McCain repeatedly referred to his presidential campaign including in the trip's headline speech. <http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/Speeches/6925c6d4-93fe-4ff4-bfb0-bd1e1aed3c3b.htm> Diplomatic work by senators-be they running for President or not-is important. That said, it's also important that Senators set aside their own political interests while doing these trips, and pursue the facts tax payers have paid for them to go find. At very least, John McCain needs to be transparent about the steps taken by his staff to ensure that he's following both the spirit and the letter of the law when it comes to these trips. UPDATE: At writing, the general welcoming the hostages back to the United States and briefing on their care in a live press conference reveals that he found out yesterday from officials in Colombia about this operation. So...did John McCain know before the US government? H/T to a friend of Democracy Arsenal on this one. July 03, 2008 at 01:17 PM | Permalink<http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/07/mccains-undiplo.html> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group. To post to this group, send to bigcampaign@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to bigcampaign-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com E-mail ryan@campaigntodefendamerica.org with questions or concerns This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Petronas Block 310 offshore Johor likely to go to China, along with control of Middle Rocks

by Ganesh Sahathevan

It has been previously reported on this blog that  PM Najib may have handed the Luconia and Greater Sarawak oil and gas provinces to China and that the loss to Malaysia may exceed Badawi's USD 100 billion Brunei deal.

It now appears that as a result of Najib's Pedra Branca/Middle Rocks gambit which gives China effective control of the waters off south-east Johor, China may well gain control of Petronas Block 310. Being an "open" block, it does not have to be put out for auction,and while theoretically anyone can propose an exploration programme for the block, anyone who has had to deal with Petronas knows that "anyone" means a party favoured by the UMNO/BN government.

 

These are shallow water blocks and given that the market for oil services is still somewhat depressed it would be well within the means of the Johor Government to explore and possibly exploit the area on its own.There is no need for Chinese investment, at least at the early exploration stage.

END 

Hillary Clinton , the Brookings Institution & Douglas Paal :Their overt support for Najib Razak at the height of his 1MDB theft may have been a breach of the Logan Act.

Comment

Hillary Clinton said of the Brookings Institution  during the opening of a speech she gave at the think tank in September 2015:
“There are a lot of long-time friends and colleagues who perch here at Brookings”.

It has been reported that the relationship was close enough that   "these close allies and colleagues of the Clintons used their institution to smear Bernie Sanders’ policies as intangible throughout the primaries."

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Douglas Paal, the author of the Brookings publication below  in support of Malaysian PM Najib Razak, prior to the 2013 election,is a  well known US government intermediary in East and South East Asia, given his often overt support for politicians favoured by the State Department. Paal and the other author of this article, Jeffrey Bader, are both former senior State Department officials. 

Paal at least has always claimed to be acting independently , and this writer would be surprised if the State Department or any other US agency were to now claim that he was acting with authorization. as defined for the purposes of the Logan Act.

While the article appears to be directed at the Malaysian voter, its publication on a website most Malaysians would be unaware of suggests that it was meant for local US consumption.
Nevertheless, it does make explicit support for Najib Razak, even as he was stealing from his own 1MDB sovereign wealth fund, and investing that money in the US.


This article does appear to be the work of  a  private person or persons acting without authorization to "influence local and foreign government policy in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States".The Brookings Institution, Paal and Bader must wear the blame, if the Logan Act is to be applied consistently.

That the Brookings Institution has close ties to the Clintons raises questions about their involvement in any attempt to help Najib win the Malaysian election and/or conceal his theft.

END 

An American Perspective on Malaysia’s Elections: Preserving Najib Razak’s Gains

Jeffrey A. Bader and Douglas H. PaalWednesday, May 1, 2013

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has called national elections for May 5. This date is perilously close to the statutory deadline to hold the elections, suggesting he is concerned that the results may lead to his departure from office. Malaysia, the United States, and much of the world have a stake in the outcome.

The traditionally dominant party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), and its partners in the long-ruling Barisan Nasional coalition have experienced internal divisions. Ethnic preferences for Malays in government and the economy have alienated many Chinese, who are a minority (roughly 40 percent of Malaysia’s population) but economically dominant. Najib’s efforts at internal reform have threatened traditionalists associated with former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad. Younger, urban voters seem itching for change.

There is a strong challenge from an opposition coalition headed by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim. His Pakatan Rakyat coalition includes Chinese and Islamic parties and is close enough in some polls to win outright.

But many longtime observers believe the real election is within UMNO, between old warhorses associated with Mahathir and the reformists surrounding Najib. The argument is that if Najib cannot bring in a result that preserves UMNO’s two-thirds majority and capacity to rewrite the constitution, old-line leaders, possibly current Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, would displace Najib and stem reforms.

This is where the stakes need to be clearly stated. Under Mahathir, opposition to perceived residual Western colonialism was a rallying cry and a frequent and increasingly anachronistic theme. His successor, Abdullah Badawi, was less shrill but did not move significantly away from Mahathir’s policies. Najib has fundamentally repositioned Malaysia internationally. He has moved away from the old UMNO policy seeking to divide Asia from the United States and has seen the United States as an important partner for Malaysia and ASEAN.

Najib and his top officials have been forthright in speaking about democratic values in international forums such as the ASEAN Regional Forum. They have been critical of states such as North Korea and even Myanmar before reforms commenced there, something that would not have been countenanced in an earlier period when criticism was aimed solely at the West.

Najib has done all this as part of a strategy to retain domestic (Chinese) investment and attract foreign investment in order to accelerate Malaysia’s development. As a demonstration of his commitment to a more open Malaysian economy, he has joined the discussions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement with ten other nations.

After economic contraction in 2009, Malaysia’s GDP growth has rebounded to a robust 5 percent, led by double-digit export growth in 2010 and large FDI inflows in 2010 and 2011. Gross investment for 2012 was up 9 percent over the last year, with the fastest growth in private and domestic investment (up 22 percent and 55 percent, respectively). The current account surplus is expected to narrow in the near term, and employment growth is expected mostly in domestic-oriented sectors such as services, in line with Najib’s New Economic Model that aims to create more sustainable, equitable, high-income growth. The Asian Development Bank forecasts that Malaysia’s GDP will grow by 5.3 percent in 2013, accelerating a little to 5.5 percent next year. Malaysia’s strong performance under Najib stands in marked contrast to the ethnic preferences and frequent allegations of corruption and cronyism under Mahathir.

Domestically, Malaysia remains an impressive Muslim-majority nation with a democratic system, pluralism, and generally good standards for human rights protection. Najib has given a number of speeches in international settings denouncing terrorism in the Islamic world and indeed has preached formation of a league of moderate nations to fight terrorism.

Under Najib, Malaysia also has moved to significantly tighten its previously porous export-control system, which had made the country a transit point for shipment and financing of dual-use products going to Iran. Defense cooperation with the United States and others has been normalized, and it has not remained a forum for grandstanding against the West.

Najib has moved to dismantle one of the instruments of repression, the Internal Security Act inherited from the British when Malaysia became independent. Under his guidance the legislature has replaced the law, which provided the basis for lengthy detention without trial.

These are not just achievements for Najib’s leadership, but they are gains for Malaysia, the region, and the world.

As the election campaign unfolds, it will be interesting to see what issues UMNO and its Barisan National coalition and Anwar with his Pakatan Rakyat coalition use against each other (see the table below).

Barisan National (ruling coalition)  Coalition head: Najib Razak	Pakatan Rakyat (opposition)  Coalition head: Anwar Ibrahim
The Economy
Gradually increase the government’s 1Malaysia People’s Aid (BR1M) handouts to RM1,200 for qualified households and RM600 for qualified singles Enact a more broad-based tax system and gradually reduce personal and corporate tax rates	Maintain BR1M cash assistance if elected Broaden income tax band, raise the income floor for the 26 percent tax rate to RM400,000 from RM250,000
Bumiputera (Ethnic Malays and Indigenous Groups)
Promote and improve Bumiputera policies that favor ethnic Malay businesses Provide RM500 million in seed funding to the Indian community	Equally distribute economic assistance regardless of race Undertake an inclusive development platform that includes all ethnic groups
Transparent Government
Establish additional corruption courts Elevate officers of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to higher level	Introduce corruption elimination policy (DEBARAN) to free anticorruption institutions from political control and improve anticorruption prosecution Undertake electoral reform
Living Standards
Expand transport subsidies, education aid, food and housing assistance, public transportation, and rural infrastructure	Undertake similar populist policies, and raise minimum monthly income to RM4,000 by end of first term
Innovation
Enact the 2020 plan for high-income development based on innovation Attract RM1.3 trillion worth of investments and create 2 million new high-income jobs Channel investment to small and medium enterprises	Raise research and development expenditures to 5 percent of GDP Create a RM500 million national innovation fund Reshuffle tax incentives to give more assistance to small and medium industries
The Environment
Introduce financial incentives for renewable energy investment Voluntarily reduce emissions intensity of GDP by up to 40 percent by 2020 Pass stricter illegal logging laws	Halt work at the Lynas rare earth plant Review the implementation phases of the RAPID petrochemical project in Pengerang Reform logging regulation

Anwar has a mixed record. He earlier stood out as one of Malaysia’s leading progressive political figures and someone who creatively reconciled Islam and Western values. Since his imprisonment by Mahathir in 1998 on allegations of sodomy and a subsequent revival of similar charges in 2008 that was overturned in Malaysia’s courts, he has moved toward a closer alignment with Islamic politics. He has, for example, irritated women voters by suggesting that sharia law could be adopted by tradition-minded Malaysian states. Anwar nonetheless continues to be a strong public advocate of democracy and human rights and criticizes Najib as essentially continuing the more repressive policies of the Mahathir years.

Whether the winner is Najib or Anwar or the conservative forces within UMNO, Malaysians should consider seriously how to preserve the gains of the Najib era. 

Authors

Jeffrey A. Bader

Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, John L. Thornton China Center

G

Douglas H. Paal

Guest Speaker

Desperate to get Michael Flynn, the US intel community and DOJ have put at risk go-betweens throughout South East Asia:American Chambers Of Commerce exposed

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

United States Chamber of Commerce

It is fair to say that most if not all government agencies in South East and East Asia were not aware of the very existence of the Logan Act . Not that is until this week when it has been used to seek the resignation of President Trump's National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.

Now, as a result of his resignation ,or sacking ,for breaching that Act, government agencies in South East and East Asia would be aware that the US citizens who have or are acting as go-betweens providing back channels to the US Government may be in breach of their country's own laws. These would include those acting for US corporations whose business dealings often involve discussions about US and local government policy on any number of issues. Influencing or changing the relevant policy is a necessary part of such discussions.

The Logan Act states, in part:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The problem for US citizens who have or are acting as go-betweens in this region is this. First, none are likely to be doing so with "authority" and even if they are, it is not likely that the US Government is going to admit to it; go-betweens are used to sort out issues that are best kept of the record by the US Government.That is what US Chambers of Commerce, for example, are meant to do. That expediency is probably the reason why there have been no prosecutions under the act in its more than 200-year history.


The Justice Department's decision to threaten prosecution of Michael Flynn for breaching the Logan Act may not only have alerted governments in this region to the Act's existence, it also alerts them to an avenue of attack against US citizens that they have dealt with ,or are dealing with for the prosecution of Flynn suggests that the DOJ has now reversed the long standing policy to not enforce the Act. This may or may not be a valid conclusion, but US citizens threatened with exposure are likely to take the threat seriously, and give in to demands.

In this region where where government owned companies dominate the economy, and where media outlets are usually government owned or controlled, "correspondence or intercourse .. with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States", are likely to be the norm rather than the exception. Anyone who has dealt with the US Chambers Of Commerce in this region would understand what all that means.

END

Michael Flynn & The Logan Act-Did not the same occur in that well publicized case in '63,involving JFK, John Scalli ,and the KGB

NOTES
From the NPR:

If Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser, was trying to reassure the Russian ambassador about sanctions leveled by the Obama administration, then he may have broken the law.

That law is the Logan Act. It's gotten a lot of attention recently and is at the center of the scandal surrounding Flynn, who resigned Monday night after multiple reports were published noting that he had misled the vice president and others in the administration. Flynn categorically denied to Mike Pence, then vice president-elect, last month that he had discussed the sanctions.


The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.

But now read,from 1963:
That afternoon, however, the (Cuban Missile) crisis took a dramatic turn. ABC News correspondent John Scali reported to the White House that he had been approached by a Soviet agent suggesting that an agreement could be reached in which the Soviets would remove their missiles from Cuba if the United States promised not to invade the island

The above account is from the State Department's website, but Scalli and his friends told it differently :


In 1962, when Scali was a diplomatic reporter for ABC News, President John F. Kennedy disclosed the existence of offensive missile sites in Cuba and warned that if any were fired at the U.S., the nation would retaliate against Moscow, not Havana.

Two days later, Scali was contacted by Alexandr S. Fomin, a KGB official in Washington and a personal friend of Khrushchev.

"Is Kennedy serious? Would he really do that?" Fomin asked Scali. "You're goddamn right he would," Scali said, according to a friend, Warren Rogers.

Over lunch, Fomin outlined a proposal under which the Soviets would dismantle the Cuban missile bases if the American government would pledge not to invade Cuba.

Scali got the message to the President. The next day, Khrushchev added a stipulation to the proposal that the United States abandon its missile bases in Turkey. A furious Scali met Fomin to denounce a "dirty, rotten, lousy, stinking double-cross."

The United States ignored the Turkey-base proposal and concluded the negotiations through Scali.

However, Kennedy would not allow Scali to tell the story.

ABC planned to disclose the account after Kennedy's assassination, but the Los Angeles Times and its New York sister publication Newsday published the story first.

END

"Vice Pope" Cardinal Oscar's Soros funding-Has the Vatican Bank acted as conduit , is it in breach of international AML,CTF and KYC regulations?

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The Istituto per le Opere di Religione (IOR),commonly known as the Vatican Bank,operates as a single customer private banking service, only accepting deposits from organisations within the Vatican.

In its own words:
The purpose of the IOR is one that sets the Institute apart from any commercial financial service provider. It is to serve the global mission of the Catholic Church by way of protecting and growing its customers’ assets and providing them with dedicated worldwide payment services. 


Given the IOR's standing it is in a position to relay funds to almost any part of the world, and with little or no scrutiny. It is not likely to have to face the same questions about source  and use that secular commercial banks and their customers would encounter.

This then brings us to the matter of "Vice Pope" Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga ,his Soros funding, and their financing of  the "Catholic Spring " movement

That the Vatican has off-balance sheet funds is a matter that has now been acknowledged by the Vatican itself(see story below).

It is then not unlikely that Soros and others funding Cardinal Oscar diverted funding into the IOR accounts of one or more of these off-balance sheet funds, from where it could be easily transferred into subsidiary and external funds in any part of the world.

These transfers may well be illegal, for the actual source of funds may not be known.Hedge funds like George Soros's Quantum Funds exist to make money for highly secretive investors. Transferring money that originates from these types of  investors is likely to expose even IOR to breaches of international Know Your Customer (KYC)laws, and possibly Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CTF)laws. As many a bank has discovered, the fines imposed on those breaching these laws can run into the billions.

Of course, even if these laws have not been breached, there is the not so small matter of not disclosing and not accounting for funds in accordance with Canon Law, and of undermining the Church.
END 


Reference

Vice Pope" Cardinal Oscar's Soros funding and Cardinal Pell's discovery of secret off-balance sheet funds within the Vatican

by Ganesh Sahathevan

As reported yesterday
"Vice Pope" Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga does not deny being funded by George Soros,and working with the "Catholic Spring " movement

In the above story it was concluded that Oscar appears to be in charge of a slush fund financed by George Soros, which is intended to be used for purposes Oscar sees fit, which may include financing of a "Catholic Spring".

While that story was the result of an independent investigation by this writer
it does seem that the Vatican's Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, Cardinal George Pell, may have uncovered the existence of similar financial structures, even if he did not quite understand what it is he had uncovered.
In late 2014 Pell announced that he had " discovered that ...... some hundreds of millions of euros were tucked away in particular sectional accounts (of departments within the Vatican ) and did not appear on the Vatican's balance sheet."

What was even more interesting than that revelation was the reaction of the Vatican's Director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J, presumably acting under instructions from the  Vatican;s Secretary Of State  Cardinal Pietro Parolin:

It should be observed that Cardinal Pell has not referred to illegal, illicit or poorly administered funds, but rather funds that do not appear on the official balance sheets of the Holy See or of Vatican City State, and which have become known to the Secretariat for the Economy during the current process of examination and revision of Vatican administration, to acquire a more comprehensive knowledge of the latter in view of the planned rationalisation. It is indeed a sign and result of constructive cooperation between the various Vatican institutions.

Moreover, it was known and had been previously explained, also publicly by the Prefecture of Economic Affairs, that the consolidated balance sheets of the Holy See and Vatican City State, presented every year to the College of Cardinals, do not in any way encompass the totality of the numerous administrations under Vatican auspices, but only the main institutions of the Roman Curia and the State.

This statement was curious for Pell did not actually say that the accounts were "illegal".If anything Pell seemed not to understand that financial entities of any sort often have secret reserves, In fact, Pell concluded with some satisfaction that his discovery meant that the Vatican was well able to finance its activities:

“It is important to point out that the Vatican is not broke. Apart from the pension fund, which needs to be strengthened for the demands on it in 15 or 20 years, the Holy See is paying its way, while possessing substantial assets and investments.“In fact, we have discovered that the situation is much healthier than it seemed, because some hundreds of millions of euros were tucked away in particular sectional accounts and did not appear on the balance sheet. It is another question, impossible to answer, whether the Vatican should have much larger reserves.”

It does seem as if there is some concern within the Vatican that slush funds such as that which appear to be controlled by Cardinal Oscar ,  that ought to have been reported and accounted for as required by Canon Law, remain secret. Wikileaks and in time other publications are going to make that task  near impossible, and hence it is best that all concerned come clean,

END

PM Najib may have handed Luconia,Greater Sarawak oil and gas provinces to China: Loss to Malaysia may exceed Badawi's USD 100 billion Brunei deal

by Ganesh Sahathevan

It has been previously reported on this blog that PM Najib has probably handed over control of the Luconia Shoals to the Chinese Government.

Luconia Shoals Map



The cost to Malaysia of that handing over of control to China is illustrated in the map below, which shows the extent of  the Luconia Province which lies within the  Greater Sarawak  Basin.


'
(Source:Borneo’s Petroleum Plays,Rasoul Sorkhabi, PhD)


While much of the area has been awarded to Shell and others, much remains open.However,
given the territorial conflict that China has brought to bear on the entire South China Sea, it is not unlikely that current concession holders would simply surrender their exploration and production rights.
 While the area is not the easiest to explore nor the most prospective, technological advances (which are quite rapid) can change all that very quickly.Consequently the dollars lost probably exceed that which Najib Razak's predecessor Abdullah Badawi handed over to Brunei. Badawi's predecessor Mahathir Mohamad claims the Badawi give-away is worth USD 100 billion.That figure
has never been disputed by Badawi nor Najib.



(Source:Were Blocks L and M previously part of Malaysia, revisited)

END
.