The Winners & Losers in Bryza Case

By Harut Sassounian

As a result of successive political blunders by the Obama administration, Matthew Bryza was forced to abandon his ambassadorial post in Azerbaijan last week.

President Obama ignored repeated warnings that the candidate he was nominating as Ambassador to Azerbaijan in May 2010 had serious flaws. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee accused Bryza of having a pro-Azerbaijani bias and questionable ties to Azeri officials. The Senators were troubled by reports that foreign officials had given Bryza lavish gifts at his Istanbul wedding, during which the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan had served as a groomsman. In addition, the nominee’s Turkish-born wife Zeyno Baran was accused of conflicts of interest while working on Caspian energy issues at a Washington think tank. She had also antagonized the Armenian-American community by testifying against recognition of the Armenian Genocide at a Senate Subcommittee hearing.

When Pres. Obama failed to take these concerns seriously, Senators Barbara Boxer (Dem.-CA) and Robert Menendez (Dem.-New Jersey) had no choice but to place a hold on Bryza’s nomination, effectively blocking his confirmation. Obama then compounded his error by appointing Bryza as Ambassador to Azerbaijan in late 2010 without Senate approval. The President seemed oblivious to the potential damage to his own reputation, the prestige of the United States, and U.S.-Azeri relations, should the Senate not confirm Bryza’s nomination, forcing him to leave his post and return to Washington upon expiration of his 12-month appointment. Read more È

Mainstream Media – Actually On a Case?

In the previous article in this series, we provided a brief review of the long train of corruption cases in Chicago and Illinois, and how they provide valuable perspective for some compelling national and international issues. 
Earlier this week, we had two indications that some elements of the City that Works may actually be working in a good way, and on matters related to international terrorism, drug trafficking, corruption in the city, state, and federal governments, and even the events of September 11, 2001.

On November 1, the Chicago Tribune reported how the City of Chicago’s “Corporation Counsel,� Stephen Patton, responded to a question about a dispute over the authority of the City Inspector General, Joseph Ferguson.  Ferguson has faced noncompliance with subpoenas he has issued to the city.  New mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Corporation Counsel has argued to the State Supreme Court that the city has the authority to enforce these subpoenas, not the inspector general alone, and the city also holds sole authority to hire outside counsel in matters at issue. 

This article did not identify any of the specific cases for which subpoena demands had been rebuffed.  But the fact that the City Inspector General has been issuing them is alone room for optimism. Read more È

The Ultra Secret FBI Criminal Files in the Chicago Field Office

In the first edition of their series of reports on corruption in Chicago, University of Illinois professors Thomas Gradel, Dick Simpson and Andris Zimelis included a good discussion of the evolution of machine politics over time.  They looked at the period with Mayor Richard J. Daley (1955-1976), as well as an equally-lengthy interval with his son, Richard M. Daley, serving as mayor (1989-2011).  The earlier regime drew its authority primarily from entrenched ties with ethnic communities, while the latter evolved a more sophisticated set of relationships with a variety of supporters including unions, corporations, and other special interest groups.  The report from the University of Illinois professors was written in early 2009, on the heels of the indictment of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.  And after listing a long train of successful convictions, they concluded simply that “corruption continues unabated in city, county, suburbs and state today.� 

The authors have gone on to write four more updates to this report, which are all available here.  The fourth edition was released in early 2011, following the last Daley term and the passing of the torch to new Mayor Rahm Emanuel.  This fourth report listed over 340 city officials convicted in public corruption cases in the past few decades, with little sign of any slowing in recent years.  The authors listed cases of “bribery, patronage, contract rigging, conflict of interest, nepotism/family ties, clout, and theft,� noting that they were pervasive across a range of agencies.

Chicagoans can be thankful for some prosecutors, but the “City that Works� and the state and federal government functions dealing with it haven’t earned a presumption of innocence.  A careful, cautious and even cynical perspective is warranted when considering the prospects for reform under new Mayor Rahm Emanuel, especially in light of the strong ties that helped lay the basis for his political career in recent decades.

And while thinking about the Chicago political environment and its relevance for the case of Sibel Edmonds, it is useful to be careful about distinctions between the two main parties in our political system.  We have Democrats and Republicans, on the one hand, and the rest of us, on the other hand.  The long train of scandals and convictions such as those laid out by the University of Illinois professors have entrenched bi-partisan roots, with Democrats as well as Republicans breeding disenchantment and suspicion.  The Edmonds case reaches across party lines, as well. Read more È

Burrowing Into Some Rabbit Holes

Chicago has a lot of strengths, along with a deserved, well, reputation. The City of Big Shoulders?  Perhaps.  But legal and illegal corruption have long greased the wheels in the City That Works.  Chicago is joined at the hip with the State of Illinois, with no shortage of its own symptoms.  Paul Powell, an Illinois Secretary of State who passed away while in office in 1970, just before $800,000 in cash (nearly $5 million in today’s dollars, given the inflation since then) was found stuffed in a shoebox and other places in his hotel room, along with 49 cases of whiskey.  George Ryan, a former governor still in jail on corruption convictions.  And they don’t seem to learn.  Rod Blagojevich was elected to the governor’s seat after Ryan, and Blagojevich now stands to be sentenced following his conviction on corruption charges earlier this year.

The longer-term financial consequences arising when public institutions are used to fleece the public can be seen in the fiscal status of the City of Chicago, as well as the Land of Lincoln.  Last year, interest rates and credit default swap costs for Illinois state debt climbed above California, suggesting the market considered Illinois the worst credit quality among the 50 United States.

The latest nasty recession hasn’t helped, but long-festering inefficiency and corruption have been a major factor in financial deterioration.  A recent study led by Dick Simpson of the University of Illinois/Chicago estimated costs of $350 million a year in Chicago arising simply from waste, theft, patronage, nepotism and contract rigging.  And speaking of waste, an illuminating symbol comes from the cost of garbage disposal in Chicago.  A recent Wall Street Journal article reviewed the city’s finances, and found Chicagoans paying far higher costs per ton of garbage disposed than any other city in the country, nearly twice as much as the second highest.

 

In light of the environment, and the seeming inability of public institutions to reform after scandal after scandal, the prospects for ethical and cultural renewal in Chicago in the new administration led by Mayor Rahm Emanuel might best be viewed cautiously. 

Here’s another reason for caution on that score.

A 2009 article/interview published in The American Conservative summarized some of Sibel Edmonds’ testimony in a court case in Ohio.  This venue allowed her to speak about topics where this former FBI translator had been silenced by a dubious legal constraint called the ‘state secrets privilege.’  The 2009 article included shocking material about corruption and influence peddling.  And the city of Chicago was surprisingly prominent, given the scope of her material. 

Edmonds closed her 2009 article / interview with the following observations:

As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It’s an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing—in many cases, criminal activities. And the Obama administration has not only defended using the State Secrets Privilege, it has been trying to take it even further than the previous terrible administration by maintaining that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity. This is Obama’s change: his administration seems to think it doesn’t even have to invoke state secrets as our leaders are emperors who possess this sovereign immunity. This is not the kind of language that anybody in a democracy would use.

The other thing I noticed is how Chicago, with its culture of political corruption, is central to the new administration. When I saw that Obama’s choice of chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, knowing his relationship with Mayor Richard Daley and with the Hastert crowd, I knew we were not going to see positive changes. Changes possibly, but changes for the worse. It was no coincidence that the Turkish criminal entity’s operation centered on Chicago.

In our coming series, we are going crawl into a few of these rabbit holes.

# # # #

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

The Revered Bruce Fein & Foreign Lobby Dollars in the Form of Illegal Payment of Legal Bills

I’ve been meaning to write about this for weeks, and just got around doing it. Maybe the subconscious procrastination was due to the conscious sanitization of this news by venues like this. Maybe it was the dread of having to tackle one of the quasi media phony darlings like this guy. Or maybe it was the repressed exhaustion-frustration I went through a couple of years back with this. Okay, allow me to start with the fairly recent development reported ‘incompletely and badly’ by the New York Times:

Representative Jean Schmidt, Republican of Ohio, has been ordered by the House Ethics Committee to repay a Turkish-American group $500,000 for legal services it improperly paid for to help her pursue a defamation lawsuit and other legal proceedings against a Democratic opponent in the 2008 election.

As you can see, very consciously the Times avoids naming ‘that Democratic opponent.’ Because naming him, David Krikorian, would require some fact citing and more context-background on the case; the case they together with the rest of the mainstream media went out of their way to black out. And doing ‘that’ would God forbid bring up the long-blacked-out state secrets privilege in my case. And ‘that’ my dear friends, is something that has been forbidden to these stenographers in the media circus.

So let’s continue the no-coverage coverage of a very significant case involving Congresswoman Jean Schmidt and the twisted and rechanneled Turkish Foreign Lobby dollars:

The action by the House committee, disclosed Friday, did not come with a formal punishment, because ethics investigators concluded that Ms. Schmidt had been misled by her own lawyers from the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund about who was paying the legal bills.

Ms. Schmidt was ordered to amend her annual personal financial disclosure reports to acknowledge the gift from the Turkish Coalition of America, which actually paid the bills, and then reimburse the lawyers.

 The report above casually, and very quickly, glosses over one of the implicated, that is, directly implicated, parties in this case: Schmidt’s lawyer- the lawyer who supposedly, and intentionally, misled his client, and did so with a dollar amount not in the thousands, but actually half a million dollars. Ordinarily this slip by a government garbage disposal facility like the Times would not raise big flags. However, this lawyer is no ordinary lawyer. The lawyer in question here happens to be a famous, very public, high-profile and very deviously and shrewdly marketed man. The lawyer in this case is none other than deceivingly perceived Bruce Fein.  A man who has gotten very wealthy thanks to the foreign lobby, in this case the Turkish lobby in need of a man who knows the maze that gets the cheese to the congressional mice:

In 2007, Ayasli transferred $30 million in stock to fund a new endeavor, the nonprofit Turkish Coalition of America. The organization is headquartered in a Washington suite that has also been listed as the address for the Turkish Coalition USA PAC, the lobbying firm of Lydia Borland (who has represented the Turkish government), and the law firm of Bruce Fein and Associates (Fein comprises half of the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund).

…

In addition to the advocacy done through the ATC (which also funds trips to Turkey for congressional staff), a handful of its members–Citigroup, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Chevron, Textron, United Technologies, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which spent a combined $80 million lobbying Washington last year lobbied Congress directly on the genocide resolution and other issues important to Turkey; the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group, helped coordinate the effort.

…

Oh wait, Bruce Fein is married to Mattie Fein, the Republican candidate who ran against Jane Harman in 2010. Had she won, how would one go about calculating and deducting her campaign-donation  ‘gifts’ from her husbands million-dollar foreign lobby gifts? Isn’t it interesting? And as far as Turkey’s former partner lobby, the Israeli Lobby, this is where Bruce & his voluptuous wife stand when given the Zionism litmus test:

7. Would you support Israel taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?

The United States should support whatever Israel believes is justified by national security worries over Iran.

I know Mr. Fein has many pro-liberties fans out there who are mistaking him for ‘real;’ some consider him a real constitutionalist who stands for liberties and against secrecy. That’s very similar to those who fell for Obama the constitutionalist. Remember, Obama the author of a very constitutional book? Recall the beautiful words spoken and sold as pro liberties, pro change, anti secrecy and beyond? Well, you have a similar situation with Mr. Fein: he talks a good talk, and writes well. As for who Mr. Fein is: you are looking at a man long succumbed to foreign lobby and military industrial complex lobby dollars. You are looking at a man far more loyal to Israel and its lobby than to our nation. You actually have a man who believes any war would be justified for the sake of Israel. And in the latest Schmidt case you are looking at a man who helped funnel half a million dollar foreign ‘Bakshish’ to his congresswoman friend, and even indicted by the lame Congressional Ethics Committee as an attorney who intentionally misled his client. Read more È

They Say They Are…

Are the elections results of US presidential elections determined by 2% of the population? Can the five million or so Jewish population be counted as the US majority? Does the Israel lobby shape the majority of US voters’ decisions? Is Israel the main determinant of political elections’ results when it comes to high US public offices? I don’t know your take or answers to these questions, but we do have ‘theirs, on the record, loud and clear, and of course, delivered with hubris and cockiness:

Metzger to Obama: Release Pollard or lose reelection
By Jonah Mandel, Jerusalem Post

Chief Ashkenazi rabbi says he’s not making prophecy, just reflecting the feelings of US Jews who supported US president’s election.

Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger wants US President Barack Obama to know that unless he acts to release Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard, he will not be elected for a second time in November 2012.

“If Obama wants another term as president, he must immediately release Pollard,� the rabbi said on Saturday.
…

I don’t believe the above article is in need of any interpretation or explanation. It is pretty straightforward: Mr. President if you do A, we won’t let you get reelected, but if you do B, we will; yes, we have that much power and influence. The condition put on this one way negotiation has nothing to do with the topic I am discussing here. Period. In this case it is about Jonathan Pollard, the convicted Israeli spy who betrayed his nation and endangered lives. It could very well be about Iran: Mr. Obama you either attack or advocate for an attack on country X, and we’ll ensure you get reelected, or, stand against it, and lose your chance of getting reelected. Why? Because ‘we’ have that power. Because ‘we’ perceive country X as a threat to ‘us,’, and ‘we’ want you to put your nation at war for ‘us.’ 

Now you may say, ‘hey, that’s a ludicrous empty threat! Give or take two percent of the voting population can’t carry that level of influence over a United States President!’ And, you will be wrong; flat out wrong. It is true that the population of American adherents of Judaism was around 5 million, 1.7% of the total US population in 2007, and including those who identify themselves culturally as Jewish (but not necessarily religiously), around 6.5  million, 2.2% as of 2008. But who ever claimed that these things are all about size, and that only size matters?!!! If you don’t have the size you go about compensating for it; don’t you? Well, that’s exactly what ‘they’ have been doing, and doing successfully. How? In more than one way: Read more È

“Speaking Fee� is the New Name for Political Donation Laundering-Rechanneling (PDLR)

Political donation laundering-rechanneling (PDLR) is a business in its own right, whether it is for pre-election donations or post-election maintenance contributions.  In most cases, PDLR requires savvy strategists and planners, quick-witted implementers, friends and enablers in high-places, and a high degree of creativity, almost to the point of being artistic. However, once in a while, an extraordinary situation may present itself, where neither imaginative planning nor creative strategy is necessary, and where limitless dollars can be channeled to Candidate A or Public Servant B or Representative C in plain sight. Really! In the PDLR world they call this the Miraculous Human Funnel. For the last ten years Former President Bill Clinton has been PDLR’s continuous miraculous funnel, and what a funnel he’s been, indeed!

Since leaving the White House in 2000, the Hillary-Bill Clinton duo have expanded their wealth by more than 100 fold to over $110 million dollars. In 2000 the Clintons left the White House with an $11 million dollar debt and annual income of $358,000. But within eight years, through ‘speaking fees,’ books, and a maze of ‘mysteriously smart investments,’ the couple’s net-worth exceeded one hundred million dollars. When asked, when pressed a little (only ‘a little’ thanks to the extreme kindness of US mainstream media when it comes to the Clintons), they attribute their ‘great fortune’ to the demand for Bill Clinton as the ‘Orator Extraordinaire.’

You see, there’s always been a certain degree of demand for former US presidents’ speeches, at least for those in the last three decades, but never anything like the bewildering demand for Bill Clinton; not even close; both in terms of the dollars per speech and the quantity of invitations. But then again, there has never been a former president in a very special situation like this; one with a wife as a senator (serving on the Committee on Armed Services among others) and later as Secretary of State. With a wife in such positions, no wonder the great demand, whether it is China or Kuwait or Columbia; whether it is Goldman Sachs or Citigroup or Sakura! Who said ‘Talk is Cheap’! The top players in the PDLR business circuit call him the ‘miracle funnel boy. Here is one example:

Many of Bill Clinton’s six-figure speeches have been made to companies whose employees and political action committees have been among Hillary Clinton’s top backers in her Senate campaigns. The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid him $650,000 for four speeches in recent years. Its employees and PAC have given her $270,000 since 2000 — putting it second on the list of her most generous political patrons.

The banking firm Citigroup, whose employees and PAC have been Hillary Clinton’s top source of campaign donations, with more than $320,000, paid her husband $250,000 for a speech in France in 2004. Last year, it committed $5.5 million for Clinton’s Global Initiative to help encourage entrepreneurship and financial education among the poor.

…

Now interestingly, two-thirds of Bill Clinton’s speaking money came from foreign sources. Somehow, outside the United States clients are willing to pay even more to hear him speak! As for the timing ofthis foreign demand intensification: Read more È