Author: Ryan Grim

  • After members of the United Auto Workers walked off the job at midnight, Twitter stripped the union of its account verification without notice, according to a UAW official. The account, as of publication time, lacked verification. The move by Elon Musk, owner of the microblogging platform he is attempting to rechristen from Twitter to X, followed the union’s decision to strike the Big Three automakers on Thursday night after the car companies refused to ink a new contract with their unionized workers. 

    Class solidarity among the nation’s elite has long been a feature of the American political economy, and the move by Musk, the richest man on the planet, is in line with that sense of allegiance, even as he promotes himself as a populist friend of the working man. Musk is also the owner of a non-union automaker, Tesla. Wage increases won by union workers often trickle down, so to speak, to non-union workers, requiring even bosses like Musk to pay workers more from his share of profits. That gives Musk a direct financial incentive to help break the strike, even beyond whatever ideological affinity he may have with the capitalist class.

    A UAW official told The Intercept that the union’s account, which they paid for, was verified until Friday morning, when suddenly it wasn’t. The most recent entry for the UAW Twitter account in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, from September 9, confirms that the union was blue check verified. A request for comment from Twitter earned the auto-reply, “Busy now, please check back later.”

    Some 13,000 UAW workers are participating in what they’re calling their Stand Up Strike, which will roll out in phases if the so-called Big Three auto manufacturers — Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis (formerly Chrysler) — continue to resist workers’ demands. Like Tesla, many of the Big Three’s electric vehicle manufacturers are also non-union, a key sticking point in negotiations. 

    Following the 2007 and 2008 financial crisis, autoworkers agreed to radical concessions on everything from pensions to wages to health care in order to help Detroit emerge successfully from bankruptcy. The companies have since returned to extraordinary levels of profitability, with CEO pay and company profits climbing by 30 to 40 percent in recent years. UAW workers have demanded similar increases over the next four years, demands the companies have rejected even as they continue stock buybacks intended to pump up the share price and corresponding executive compensation. 

    General Motors CEO Mary Barra was expressly asked about the pay disparity in an interview on CNN on Friday morning. 

    “You’ve seen a 34 percent pay increase in your salary, you make almost $30 million; why should your workers not get the same type of pay increases that you’re getting leading the company?” asked CNN reporter Vanessa Yurkevich. 

    Barra responded to the unusually pointed line of questioning with typical platitudes: “When the company does well, everyone does well.”

    Musk, the Big Three automakers, and the UAW are all focused closely on the role organized labor will play in the production of electric vehicles and the batteries needed to power them. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, as a price for his support of Joe Biden’s climate agenda, insisted on stripping a provision that would have tilted the EV production playing field in favor of unions. Musk spoke out against the measure as well. 

    Tesla pays significantly lower wages than the Big Three, averaging $45 to $50 per hour versus $64 to $67 per hour, respectively. The company has led a slash-and-burn union-busting campaign in recent months.

    In February, Tesla fired at least 18 software employees at a plant in Buffalo, New York, after they announced plans to unionize. Then, in March, a federal appeals court found that Musk violated federal labor law when he tweeted a threat to employees’ stock options should they decide to unionize and that Tesla also broke the law when it fired a worker engaged in union organizing.

    “Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union,” Musk tweeted in 2018. “Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing?”

    In April, Tesla suffered another loss, this time in front of the National Labor Relations Board. The agency ruled that the company violated federal labor law when it forbade employees from discussing wages and working conditions.

    The post Automaker CEO Elon Musk Strips UAW Twitter Verification as Union Strikes Against Big Three appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The Department of Defense would be barred from providing assistance to Pakistan under a new amendment to the House of Representatives’ annual appropriations legislation. The measure, introduced by Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles, would cut off funds to Pakistan in the wake of an ongoing crackdown by the country’s military establishment and its civilian allies. 

    Related

    Secret Pakistan Cable Documents U.S. Pressure to Remove Imran Khan

    The Pakistani military and its allies have imprisoned the former prime minister, Imran Khan, and have held him behind bars despite the country’s High Court recently suspending a controversial sentence that barred him from running in upcoming elections. He is being held under the country’s Official Secrets Act — which is being enforced in apparent disregard for the Pakistani Constitution after being rejected by the nation’s president. Khan is charged with mishandling a secret government cable describing U.S. pressure to oust him from office. A hearing was held secretly in prison on Wednesday, with Khan’s detention extended to September 13, as the investigation continues. The Intercept recently published the contents of the cable, which was provided by a source in the Pakistan military. 

    Anti-military protests have rippled through the country in recent days amid anger at increasing energy prices that resulted from demands made by the International Monetary Fund. The IMF bailout was needed to counteract the capital flight and economic collapse that has accelerated in the wake of Khan’s ouster

    Pakistan has been the beneficiary of billions of dollars of U.S. military aid over the past two decades, mostly to support cooperation in the global war on terror and U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. During the Trump administration, the pipeline of annual Pentagon funding to the Pakistani military was slashed considerably, though the Department of Defense continues to provide other military support to the country. Military cooperation between Pakistan and the U.S. has increased again since Khan’s ouster, with the Pakistani military now emerging, by European accounts, as a significant supplier of military aid to Ukraine.

    “The U.S. has long forgiven the unforgivable with Pakistan in the name of geopolitical expediency, dating back Nixon and Kissinger’s complicity with Operation Searchlight and the Bangladeshi genocide. The Biden Administration and Secretary Blinken’s tepid non-response to the Pakistani military’s brutal crackdown on the political opposition and independent media is a disappointing continuation of this history and a betrayal of the rules-based democracy they claim to stand for,” said Nathan Thompson with the advocacy group Just Foreign Policy. “I’m glad to see members of Congress finally seeking to review and potentially end U.S. complicity in abuses by Pakistan’s military regime.”

    The amendment to the appropriations bill is an extreme long shot, but its introduction reflects increasing concerns about democratic backsliding in Pakistan across party lines. During the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act earlier this summer, Democratic Rep. Greg Casar of Texas pushed an amendment that would direct the State Department to study that backsliding, but it wasn’t ruled in order for a vote on the House floor. Ogles did not respond to a request for comment.

    Pakistan is currently being led by a caretaker civilian government backed by the military, with the timing of future elections currently uncertain. A readout of a State Department meeting between U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland and Pakistani Foreign Minister Jalil Abbas Jilani earlier this week stated that the U.S. and Pakistan had “discussed the importance of timely, free and fair elections in a manner consistent with Pakistan’s laws and constitution.”

    The post New GOP Measure Would Bar Pentagon Assistance to Pakistan appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The Biden administration pleasantly stunned health care reform advocates Tuesday by including short-acting insulin in its list of 10 drugs for which Medicare will negotiate lower prices, power vested in the White House by the Inflation Reduction Act. 

    The IRA was passed in the face of one of the heftiest barrages of lobbying in congressional history, with the pharmaceutical industry spending more than $700 million over 2021 and 2022 — several times more than the second- and third-ranking industries — much of it aimed at stopping the legislation, watering it down, or undermining its implementation. 

    The industry succeeded in narrowing the scope of the new law, with only 10 drugs eligible for negotiation in 2023. But the effort to stop the administration from using that authority to target blockbuster drugs failed spectacularly, as the White House list includes medications that seniors spend billions on in out-of-pocket costs alone, never mind the fees paid by Medicare itself. But it was the inclusion of the broad swath of ingredients and medical devices needed to make insulin that sets the White House move apart and which will likely have the most far-reaching impact. 

    “This was an unexpected victory in a long fight against an illegal cartel of three corporations who have raised their insulin prices in lockstep,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, referring to Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. “The inclusion of insulin in the list of negotiated drugs shows that the Biden White House isn’t fucking around.” Lawson’s organization has advocated for drug price negotiations for years, often drawing the ire of the White House and congressional leaders in the process.

    Joe Biden’s insulin category covers a wide variety of products, including Fiasp, Fiasp FlexTouch, and Fiasp PenFill — rapid-acting insulin products — as well as commonly prescribed insulin products NovoLog, NovoLog FlexPen, and NovoLog PenFill. Major insulin makers, under severe public pressure, have in recent months announced price cuts to their products, though they could unilaterally raise prices absent this government intervention. “We did not expect to see short-acting insulin on this list. We were caught a little off guard,” said Shaina Kasper, policy and advocacy director for T1International, an organization dedicated to defending the interests of diabetes patients. Broadly speaking, she said it was “the result of years of dogged organizing and advocacy by patients with diabetes and caregivers.”

    The IRA laid out specific criteria for which drugs could be included, and the White House went after the 10 that added up to the highest spending among drugs that met that criteria. Kasper said her organization will continue to push for executive action to drive down drug prices — the Biden administration has other authorities it could draw on — as well as legislation at the state and federal level.

    Among the 10 drugs are three other treatments for diabetes, including Jardiance, Januvia, and Farxiga. Eliquis and Xarelto, which deal with blood clots, made the list, as did Stelara and Enbrel, which treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Entresto, prescribed for heart failure, will also come under the Medicare knife. Imbruvica, a blood cancer medication, will similarly be targeted by the government scalpel, news coinciding with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s somber announcement that he was diagnosed with a treatable form of blood cancer. 


    Related

    Pfizer CEO Complains to Investors About Lower Drug Prices Under Inflation Reduction Act


    Price negotiations will begin this year and conclude in 2024 but will not go into effect until January 1, 2026. More drugs will be slowly rolled into the program. Next year, the White House will choose 15 more drugs to negotiate, per the IRA, and 15 the year after that. In each subsequent year, 20 new drugs will be added to the list. It is at once the definition of incremental progress, while representing a breakthrough victory against arguably the most powerful special interest in Washington.

    Democrats have been campaigning on allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices since making it a priority in the 2006 midterms — one of then-Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rahm Emanuel’s “Six for ‘06” – but traded it away in 2009 to win Big Pharma’s support for the Affordable Care Act. Former President Donald Trump claimed to be a supporter of the policy and negotiated with Democrats on a proposal after the party reclaimed the House in 2018, though no agreement was reached and Trump never implemented any serious executive action on the issue. Biden made it a priority as part of the Build Back Better Act, which became the IRA. The measure’s ability to cut the deficit helped win the support of Joe Manchin, who represents one of the states with the oldest residents in the country, West Virginia. 

    For those who take a medication that didn’t make the cut, it’s not all bad news, argued Stacie Dusetzina, a health services researcher at Vanderbilt University’s Department of Health Policy. The savings accrued by Medicare from the negotiations will go toward making the Part D drug benefit more generous as early as next year, cutting out-of-pocket costs for many seniors by thousands a year.

    The post Biden Administration Adds Insulin to Drug Price Negotiation List in Major Blow to Big Pharma appeared first on The Intercept.

  • The political crisis roiling Pakistan has morphed into a constitutional crisis. The dual crises were kicked into motion when former Prime Minister Imran Khan was removed from power last year and deepened with his recent imprisonment on corruption charges.

    Last week, the Pakistani authorities moved to charge Khan under Pakistan’s Official Secrets Act for his alleged mishandling of a classified diplomatic cable, known internally as a cipher. The March 7, 2022, cable had been at the center of a controversy in Pakistan, with Khan and his supporters claiming for a year and a half that it showed U.S. pressure to remove the prime minister. Khan publicly revealed the existence of the document in a late March 2022 rally. In April, Khan was removed by a parliamentary vote of no confidence.

    In the latest blow to the former prime minister, Pakistani authorities filed a First Information Report — an official allegation — charging that Khan and his associates were “involved in communication of information contained in secret classified document … to the unauthorized persons (i.e. public at large) by twisting the facts to achieve their ulterior motives and personal gains in a manner prejudicial to the interests of state security.”

    The official report, the first step to a formal indictment, alleged that Khan and members of his government held a “clandestine meeting” in mid-March 2022, shortly after the cable was sent, in a conspiracy to use the classified document to their advantage.

    Related

    How a Leaked Cable Upended Pakistani Politics — And Exposed U.S. Meddling

    Earlier this month, The Intercept reported on the contents of the secret cable, which confirmed U.S. diplomatic pressure to remove Khan. The document was provided to The Intercept by a source in the Pakistani military. The formal allegation against Khan makes no mention of The Intercept’s publication of the diplomatic cable.

    After the allegations about the cable were formally lodged against Khan this weekend, a wrinkle quickly appeared in the case. Pakistan’s legislature, widely believed to be acting as a rubber stamp for the military, recently approved changes to the state secrets law that Khan was being charged under. Pakistan’s sitting President Arif Alvi, though, denied on social media that he had authorized the signing of the amendments into law.

    “As God is my witness, I did not sign Official Secrets Amendment Bill 2023 & Pakistan Army Amendment Bill 2023 as I disagreed with these laws,” Alvi tweeted, referring to another controversial new piece of legislation granting the Pakistani military sweeping powers over civil liberties. “However I have found out today that my staff undermined my will and command.” 

    The additions to the Official Secrets Act specifically target leakers and whistleblowers, outlining new offenses for the disclosure of information to the public related to national security and effectively criminalizing any news reporting that the military deems to be against its interests. Khan is expected to be indicted soon under the new law.

    Alvi’s statement — that he had opposed the laws, but that his staff had apparently signed off on them without his consent — throws Pakistan into uncharted constitutional territory. Under normal circumstances, the country’s president is required to give final affirmation to any laws passed by Parliament.

    Imran Khan’s Imprisonment

    Khan is reportedly under pressure while in government custody. According to media accounts, he lodged complaints about surveillance in prison, as well as the inability to meet with lawyers and family members. And Khan’s wife has expressed fears that the former prime minister could be “poisoned” in jail.

    The former prime minister is currently serving a three-year sentence on corruption charges that his supporters say are politically motivated. As part of his punishment in that case, he has also received a five-year ban from politics, which is believed to be aimed at preventing Khan — the most popular politician in the country — from contesting elections slated for later this year.

    Meanwhile, the crackdown on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or PTI, Khan’s political party, continued. On Sunday, shortly after Khan was booked under the state secrets law, his former foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, was arrested under the same statute.

    Related

    Pakistan Confirms Secret Diplomatic Cable Showing U.S. Pressure to Remove Imran Khan

    In an interview with Voice of America last week, former Trump administration national security adviser John Bolton called for Congress to look into potential U.S. involvement in Khan’s removal. Bolton said that despite his differences with many of Khan’s policies, which included strident criticism of U.S. involvement in Pakistani domestic affairs, he opposed the crackdown by the military, saying “terrorists, China and Russia” could use the discord to their advantage.

    “I would be stunned if that’s exactly what they said,” Bolton said of the cable text published by The Intercept. “It would be remarkable for the State Department, under any administration, but particularly under the Biden administration, to be calling for Imran Khan’s overthrow.”

    The post Imran Khan Booked Under Pakistan State Secrets Law for Allegedly Mishandling Secret Cable in 2022 appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • For a year and a half, Pakistani politics has been gripped by word of a diplomatic cable said to describe U.S. State Department officials encouraging the removal of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan from power. Last week, The Intercept published the contents of the cable, known internally as a cypher, which revealed U.S. diplomats pressing for the removal of Khan over his neutral stance on the conflict in Ukraine.

    Since it was published, the response to the story from Pakistani and U.S. officials has been both defensive and contradictory.

    Pakistan’s leadership quickly began to question the authenticity of the document. Former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari — who is part of the political opposition to Khan — had gone public suggesting that the published cable was “inauthentic,” arguing that “anything can be typed up on a piece of paper.” Even so, he blamed Khan and said the former prime minister should be tried under Pakistan’s Official Secrets Act for potentially leaking classified documents.

    Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in the days after the cable was reported, told local media that the leak represented a “massive crime,” while hedging about whether its contents were true. Just days later, though, Sharif confirmed the document in an interview with The Guardian. “Khan said he had the [cable] but he had lost it,” Sharif, who handed over the government to a caretaker prime minister on Monday, said. “Now it has been published on a website.”

    Neither Sharif nor Bhutto Zardari have provided evidence of Khan’s involvement in the leak of the document, which was provided to The Intercept by a source inside the Pakistani military. On Wednesday, a month after it announced an investigation, the Pakistani government filed charges against Khan for mishandling and misusing the cable.

    Despite confirming the document’s authenticity, Sharif said that the cable — which quoted U.S. diplomats, furious with Khan for his alleged “aggressive neutrality” toward Russia, threatening Pakistan with “isolation” should he stay in power — did not represent a conspiracy against the former prime minister.

    The self-contradictory three-step move — to simultaneously question the document’s authenticity, blame Khan for leaking it in what amounts to a treasonous act, and then add that the substance of the cable is unremarkable — has characterized the Pakistani and State Department response over the past week.

    On the U.S. side, the State Department had previously dismissed claims by Khan that the U.S. had pressured him to be removed from power. After the disclosure of the leaked cable, State Department officials told The Intercept that they could not comment on the accuracy of a foreign government document but argued that the comments did not show the U.S. taking sides in Pakistani politics. “Nothing in these purported comments shows the United States taking a position on who the leader of Pakistan should be,” State Department spokesperson Matt Miller said in a statement to The Intercept.


    Related

    Secret Pakistan Cable Documents U.S. Pressure to Remove Imran Khan


    When pressed further on the document at a press briefing, Miller told a reporter, who asked whether the substance of the reported conversation in the cable was accurate, that the report was “close-ish.”

    Khan himself has reportedly been placed under escalating pressure while in prison; he is currently serving a three-year sentence for corruption charges that his supporters say are politically motivated. The campaign against Khan culminated in this week’s terror investigation for the cable leak.

    A widespread crackdown against his supporters continues, with thousands still languishing in detention over allegations of involvement in his political party and a series of anti-military demonstrations that took place in the country in May.

    The U.S. government, meanwhile, deemed the crackdown an “internal matter” for the Pakistani government, while continuing to engage the Pakistani military that is believed to have orchestrated Khan’s removal.

    The disclosure of the cable — and the revelation that Khan had been largely truthful in his depiction of its contents, including an accurate quote of a State Department official saying that “all would be forgiven” if Khan were removed from power — could reshape the course of Pakistan’s political crisis. The cable’s publication has already become a major topic of conversation in Pakistani media.

    Khan’s own political fate now largely depends on how far the present military-led government decides to pursue its vendetta against him and his supporters. The revelation of the cable’s contents and the divisions that the violent repression of Khan’s party have evidently opened inside the military establishment only further heightens a crisis that has gripped Pakistan since Khan was removed from power last year.

    The post Pakistan Confirms Secret Diplomatic Cable Showing U.S. Pressure to Remove Imran Khan appeared first on The Intercept.

  • The U.S. State Department encouraged the Pakistani government in a March 7, 2022, meeting to remove Imran Khan as prime minister over his neutrality on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to a classified Pakistani government document obtained by The Intercept.

    The meeting, between the Pakistani ambassador to the United States and two State Department officials, has been the subject of intense scrutiny, controversy, and speculation in Pakistan over the past year and a half, as supporters of Khan and his military and civilian opponents jockeyed for power. The political struggle escalated on August 5 when Khan was sentenced to three years in prison on corruption charges and taken into custody for the second time since his ouster. Khan’s defenders dismiss the charges as baseless. The sentence also blocks Khan, Pakistan’s most popular politician, from contesting elections expected in Pakistan later this year.

    One month after the meeting with U.S. officials documented in the leaked Pakistani government document, a no-confidence vote was held in Parliament, leading to Khan’s removal from power. The vote is believed to have been organized with the backing of Pakistan’s powerful military. Since that time, Khan and his supporters have been engaged in a struggle with the military and its civilian allies, whom Khan claims engineered his removal from power at the request of the U.S.

    The text of the Pakistani cable, produced from the meeting by the ambassador and transmitted to Pakistan, has not previously been published. The cable, known internally as a “cypher,” reveals both the carrots and the sticks that the State Department deployed in its push against Khan, promising warmer relations if Khan was removed, and isolation if he was not.

    The document, labeled “Secret,” includes an account of the meeting between State Department officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, and Asad Majeed Khan, who at the time was Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S.

    The document was provided to The Intercept by an anonymous source in the Pakistani military who said that they had no ties to Imran Khan or Khan’s party. The Intercept is publishing the body of the cable below, correcting minor typos in the text because such details can be used to watermark documents and track their dissemination.

    The cable reveals both the carrots and the sticks that the State Department deployed in its push against Prime Minister Imran Khan.

    The contents of the document obtained by The Intercept are consistent with reporting in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn and elsewhere describing the circumstances of the meeting and details in the cable itself, including in the classification markings omitted from The Intercept’s presentation. The dynamics of the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. described in the cable were subsequently borne out by events. In the cable, the U.S. objects to Khan’s foreign policy on the Ukraine war. Those positions were quickly reversed after his removal, which was followed, as promised in the meeting, by a warming between the U.S. and Pakistan.

    The diplomatic meeting came two weeks after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which launched as Khan was en route to Moscow, a visit that infuriated Washington.

    On March 2, just days before the meeting, Lu had been questioned at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing over the neutrality of India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan in the Ukraine conflict. In response to a question from Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., about a recent decision by Pakistan to abstain from a United Nations resolution condemning Russia’s role in the conflict, Lu said, “Prime Minister Khan has recently visited Moscow, and so I think we are trying to figure out how to engage specifically with the Prime Minister following that decision.” Van Hollen appeared to be indignant that officials from the State Department were not in communication with Khan about the issue.

    The day before the meeting, Khan addressed a rally and responded directly to European calls that Pakistan rally behind Ukraine. “Are we your slaves?” Khan thundered to the crowd. “What do you think of us? That we are your slaves and that we will do whatever you ask of us?” he asked. “We are friends of Russia, and we are also friends of the United States. We are friends of China and Europe. We are not part of any alliance.”

    In the meeting, according to the document, Lu spoke in forthright terms about Washington’s displeasure with Pakistan’s stance in the conflict. The document quotes Lu saying that “people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine), if such a position is even possible. It does not seem such a neutral stand to us.” Lu added that he had held internal discussions with the U.S. National Security Council and that “it seems quite clear that this is the Prime Minister’s policy.”

    Lu then bluntly raises the issue of a no-confidence vote: “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister,” Lu said, according to the document. “Otherwise,” he continued, “I think it will be tough going ahead.”

    Lu warned that if the situation wasn’t resolved, Pakistan would be marginalized by its Western allies. “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar,” Lu said, adding that Khan could face “isolation” by Europe and the U.S. should he remain in office.

    Asked about quotes from Lu in the Pakistani cable, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said, “Nothing in these purported comments shows the United States taking a position on who the leader of Pakistan should be.” Miller said he would not comment on private diplomatic discussions. 

    The Pakistani ambassador responded by expressing frustration with the lack of engagement from U.S. leadership: “This reluctance had created a perception in Pakistan that we were being ignored or even taken for granted. There was also a feeling that while the U.S. expected Pakistan’s support on all issues that were important to the U.S., it did not reciprocate.”

    “There was also a feeling that while the U.S. expected Pakistan’s support on all issues that were important to the U.S., it did not reciprocate.”

    The discussion concluded, according to the document, with the Pakistani ambassador expressing his hope that the issue of the Russia-Ukraine war would not “impact our bilateral ties.” Lu told him that the damage was real but not fatal, and with Khan gone, the relationship could go back to normal. “I would argue that it has already created a dent in the relationship from our perspective,” Lu said, again raising the “political situation” in Pakistan. “Let us wait for a few days to see whether the political situation changes, which would mean that we would not have a big disagreement about this issue and the dent would go away very quickly. Otherwise, we will have to confront this issue head on and decide how to manage it.”

    The day after the meeting, on March 8, Khan’s opponents in Parliament moved forward with a key procedural step toward the no-confidence vote.

    “Khan’s fate wasn’t sealed at the time that this meeting took place, but it was tenuous,” said Arif Rafiq, a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute and specialist on Pakistan. “What you have here is the Biden administration sending a message to the people that they saw as Pakistan’s real rulers, signaling to them that things will better if he is removed from power.”

    The Intercept has made extensive efforts to authenticate the document. Given the security climate in Pakistan, independent confirmation from sources in the Pakistani government was not possible. The Pakistan Embassy in Washington, D.C., did not respond to a request for comment.

    Miller, the State Department spokesperson, said, “We had expressed concern about the visit of then-PM Khan to Moscow on the day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and have communicated that opposition both publicly and privately.” He added that “allegations that the United States interfered in internal decisions about the leadership of Pakistan are false. They have always been false, and they continue to be.” 

    On July 14, 2023, in Kathmandu, Nepal. "Donald Lu," a diplomat in service and Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, wave towards media personnels upon his arrival at Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA).   During his visit to Nepal, Minister Lu is scheduled to meet with officials and ministers of the Government of Nepal. According to the US Embassy in Nepal, Lu will also meet with a representative of a member organization of the American Chamber of Commerce. (Photo by Abhishek Maharjan/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)
    ANKARA, TURKIYE - JULY 06: Pakistanâs Foreign Secretary Asad Majeed Khan is seen during an exclusive interview in Ankara, Turkiye on July 06, 2023. (Photo by Ozge Elif Kizil/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

    Left/Top: Donald Lu, a diplomat in service and assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, waves toward media personnel upon his arrival at Tribhuvan International Airport on July 14, 2023, in Kathmandu, Nepal. Right/Bottom: Pakistani Foreign Secretary Asad Majeed Khan is seen in Ankara, Turkey, on July 6, 2023. Photos: Photo: Abhishek Maharjan/Sipa via AP Images (left); Ozge Elif Kizil/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images (right)

    American Denials

    The State Department has previously and on repeated occasions denied that Lu urged the Pakistani government to oust the prime minister. On April 8, 2022, after Khan alleged there was a cable proving his claim of U.S. interference, State Department spokesperson Jalina Porter was asked about its veracity. “Let me just say very bluntly there is absolutely no truth to these allegations,” Porter said.

    In early June 2023, Khan sat for an interview with The Intercept and again repeated the allegation. The State Department at the time referred to previous denials in response to a request for comment.

    Related

    Imran Khan: U.S. Was Manipulated by Pakistan Military Into Backing Overthrow

    Khan has not backed off, and the State Department again denied the charge throughout June and July, at least three times in press conferences and again in a speech by a deputy assistant secretary of state for Pakistan, who referred to the claims as “propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation.” On the latest occasion, Miller, the State Department spokesperson, ridiculed the question. “I feel like I need to bring just a sign that I can hold up in response to this question and say that that allegation is not true,” Miller said, laughing and drawing cackles from the press. “I don’t know how many times I can say it. … The United States does not have a position on one political candidate or party versus another in Pakistan or any other country.”

    While the drama over the cable has played out in public and in the press, the Pakistani military has launched an unprecedented assault on Pakistani civil society to silence whatever dissent and free expression had previously existed in the country.

    In recent months, the military-led government cracked down not just on dissidents but also on suspected leakers inside its own institutions, passing a law last week that authorizes warrantless searches and lengthy jail terms for whistleblowers. Shaken by the public display of support for Khan — expressed in a series of mass protests and riots this May — the military has also enshrined authoritarian powers for itself that drastically reduce civil liberties, criminalize criticism of the military, expand the institution’s already expansive role in the country’s economy, and give military leaders a permanent veto over political and civil affairs.

    These sweeping attacks on democracy passed largely unremarked upon by U.S. officials. In late July, the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Michael Kurilla, visited Pakistan, then issued a statement saying his visit had been focused on “strengthening the military-to-military relations,” while making no mention of the political situation in the country. This summer, Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, attempted to add a measure to the National Defense Authorization Act directing the State Department to examine democratic backsliding in Pakistan, but it was denied a vote on the House floor.

    In a press briefing on Monday, in response to a question about whether Khan received a fair trial, Miller, the State Department spokesperson, said, “We believe that is an internal matter for Pakistan.”

    Political Chaos

    Khan’s removal from power after falling out with the Pakistani military, the same institution believed to have engineered his political rise, has thrown the nation of 230 million into political and economic turmoil. Protests against Khan’s dismissal and suppression of his party have swept the country and paralyzed its institutions, while Pakistan’s current leaders struggle to confront an economic crisis triggered in part by the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on global energy prices. The present chaos has resulted in staggering rates of inflation and capital flight from the country.

    Related

    In Secret Meeting, Pakistani Military Ordered Press to Stop Covering Imran Khan

    In addition to the worsening situation for ordinary citizens, a regime of extreme censorship has also been put in place at the direction of the Pakistani military, with news outlets effectively barred from even mentioning Khan’s name, as The Intercept previously reported. Thousands of members of civil society, mostly supporters of Khan, have been detained by the military, a crackdown that intensified after Khan was arrested earlier this year and held in custody for four days, sparking nationwide protests. Credible reports have emerged of torture by security forces, with reports of several deaths in custody.

    The crackdown on Pakistan’s once-rambunctious press has taken a particularly dark turn. Arshad Sharif, a prominent Pakistani journalist who fled the country, was shot to death in Nairobi last October under circumstances that remain disputed. Another well-known journalist, Imran Riaz Khan, was detained by security forces at an airport this May and has not been seen since. Both had been reporting on the secret cable, which has taken on nearly mythical status in Pakistan, and had been among a handful of journalists briefed on its contents before Khan’s ouster. These attacks on the press have created a climate of fear that has made reporting on the document by reporters and institutions inside Pakistan effectively impossible.

    Last November, Khan himself was subject to an attempted assassination when he was shot at a political rally, in an attack that wounded him and killed one of his supporters. His imprisonment has been widely viewed within Pakistan, including among many critics of his government, as an attempt by the military to stop his party from contesting upcoming elections. Polls show that were he allowed to participate in the vote, Khan would likely win.

    “Khan was convicted on flimsy charges following a trial where his defense was not even allowed to produce witnesses. He had previously survived an assassination attempt, had a journalist aligned with him murdered, and has seen thousands of his supporters imprisoned. While the Biden administration has said that human rights will be at the forefront of their foreign policy, they are now looking away as Pakistan moves toward becoming a full-fledged military dictatorship,” said Rafiq, the Middle East Institute scholar. “This is ultimately about the Pakistani military using outside forces as a means to preserve their hegemony over the country. Every time there is a grand geopolitical rivalry, whether it is the Cold War, or the war on terror, they know how to manipulate the U.S. in their favor.”

    Khan’s repeated references to the cable itself have contributed to his legal troubles, with prosecutors launching a separate investigation into whether he violated state secrets laws by discussing it.

    PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN - MAY 10: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party activists and supporters of former Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan, clash with police during a protest against the arrest of their leader in Peshawar on May 10, 2023. Khan appeared in a special court at the capital's police headquarters on May 10 to answer graft charges, local media reported, a day after his arrest prompted violent nationwide protests. Protesters burned tyres and vehicles to block the road. Security forces use tear gas to disperse the crowd. (Photo by Hussain Ali/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

    Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party activists and supporters of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan clash with police during a protest against the arrest of their leader in Peshawar on May 10, 2023.

    Photo: Hussain Ali/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

    Democracy and the Military

    For years, the U.S. government’s patronage relationship with the Pakistani military, which has long acted as the real powerbroker in the country’s politics, has been seen by many Pakistanis as an impenetrable obstacle to the country’s ability to grow its economy, combat endemic corruption, and pursue a constructive foreign policy. The sense that Pakistan has lacked meaningful independence because of this relationship — which, despite trappings of democracy, has made the military an untouchable force in domestic politics — makes the charge of U.S. involvement in the removal of a popular prime minister even more incendiary.

    The Intercept’s source, who had access to the document as a member of the military, spoke of their growing disillusionment with the country’s military leadership, the impact on the military’s morale following its involvement in the political fight against Khan, the exploitation of the memory of dead service members for political purposes in recent military propaganda, and widespread public disenchantment with the armed forces amid the crackdown. They believe the military is pushing Pakistan toward a crisis similar to the one in 1971 that led to the secession of Bangladesh.

    The source added that they hoped the leaked document would finally confirm what ordinary people, as well as the rank and file of the armed forces, had long suspected about the Pakistani military and force a reckoning within the institution.

    This June, amid the crackdown by the military on Khan’s political party, Khan’s former top bureaucrat, Principal Secretary Azam Khan, was arrested and detained for a month. While in detention, Azam Khan reportedly issued a statement recorded in front of a member of the judiciary saying that the cable was indeed real, but that the former prime minister had exaggerated its contents for political gain.

    A month after the meeting described in the cable, and just days before Khan was removed from office, then-Pakistan army chief Qamar Bajwa publicly broke with Khan’s neutrality and gave a speech calling the Russian invasion a “huge tragedy” and criticizing Russia. The remarks aligned the public picture with Lu’s private observation, recorded in the cable, that Pakistan’s neutrality was the policy of Khan, but not of the military.

    Pakistan’s foreign policy has changed significantly since Khan’s removal, with Pakistan tilting more clearly toward the U.S. and European side in the Ukraine conflict. Abandoning its posture of neutrality, Pakistan has now emerged as a supplier of arms to the Ukrainian military; images of Pakistan-produced shells and ammunition regularly turn up on battlefield footage. In an interview earlier this year, a European Union official confirmed Pakistani military backing to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s foreign minister traveled to Pakistan this July in a visit widely presumed to be about military cooperation, but publicly described as focusing on trade, education, and environmental issues.

    This realignment toward the U.S. has appeared to provide dividends to the Pakistani military. On August 3, a Pakistani newspaper reported that Parliament had approved the signing of a defense pact with the U.S. covering “joint exercises, operations, training, basing and equipment.” The agreement was intended to replace a previous 15-year deal between the two countries that expired in 2020.

    Pakistan's former Prime Minister Imran Khan (C) leaves after appearing in the Supreme Court in Islamabad on July 26, 2023. (Photo by Aamir QURESHI / AFP) (Photo by AAMIR QURESHI/AFP via Getty Images)

    Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan leaves after appearing at the Supreme Court in Islamabad on July 26, 2023.

    Photo: Aamir Qureshi AFP via Getty Images

    Pakistani “Assessment”

    Lu’s blunt comments on Pakistan’s internal domestic politics raised alarms on the Pakistani side. In a brief “assessment” section at the bottom of the report, the document states: “Don could not have conveyed such a strong demarche without the express approval of the White House, to which he referred repeatedly. Clearly, Don spoke out of turn on Pakistan’s internal political process.” The cable concludes with a recommendation “to seriously reflect on this and consider making an appropriate demarche to the U.S. Cd’ A a.i in Islamabad” — a reference to the chargé d’affaires ad interim, effectively the acting head of a diplomatic mission when its accredited head is absent. A diplomatic protest was later issued by Khan’s government.

    On March 27, 2022, the same month as the Lu meeting, Khan spoke publicly about the cable, waving a folded copy of it in the air at a rally. He also reportedly briefed a national security meeting with the heads of Pakistan’s various security agencies on its contents.

    It is not clear what happened in Pakistan-U.S. communications during the weeks that followed the meeting reported in the cable. By the following month, however, the political winds had shifted. On April 10, Khan was ousted in a no-confidence vote.

    The new prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, eventually confirmed the existence of the cable and acknowledged that some of the message conveyed by Lu was inappropriate. He has said that Pakistan had formally complained but cautioned that the cable did not confirm Khan’s broader claims.

    Khan has suggested repeatedly in public that the top-secret cable showed that the U.S. had directed his removal from power, but subsequently revised his assessment as he urged the U.S. to condemn human rights abuses against his supporters. The U.S., he told The Intercept in a June interview, may have urged his ouster, but only did so because it was manipulated by the military.

    The disclosure of the full body of the cable, over a year after Khan was deposed and following his arrest, will finally allow the competing claims to be evaluated. On balance, the text of the cypher strongly suggests that the U.S. encouraged Khan’s removal. According to the cable, while Lu did not directly order Khan to be taken out of office, he said that Pakistan would suffer severe consequences, including international isolation, if Khan were to stay on as prime minister, while simultaneously hinting at rewards for his removal. The remarks appear to have been taken as a signal for the Pakistani military to act.

    In addition to his other legal problems, Khan himself has continued to be targeted over the handling of the secret cable by the new government. Late last month, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah said that Khan would be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act in connection with the cable. “Khan has hatched a conspiracy against the state’s interests and a case will be initiated against him on behalf of the state for the violation of the Official Secrets Act by exposing a confidential cipher communication from a diplomatic mission,” Sanaullah said.

    Khan has now joined a long list of Pakistani politicians who failed to finish their term in office after running afoul of the military. As quoted in the cypher, Khan was being personally blamed by the U.S., according to Lu, for Pakistan’s policy of nonalignment during the Ukraine conflict. The vote of no confidence and its implications for the future of U.S.-Pakistan ties loomed large throughout the conversation.

    “Honestly,” Lu is quoted as saying in the document, referring to the prospect of Khan staying in office, “I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.”

    March 7, 2022 Pakistani Diplomatic Cypher (Transcription)

    The Intercept is publishing the body of the cable below, correcting minor typos in the text because such details can be used to watermark documents and track their dissemination. The Intercept has removed classification markings and numerical elements that could be used for tracking purposes. Labeled “Secret,” the cable includes an account of the meeting between State Department officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, and Asad Majeed Khan, who at the time was Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S.

    I had a luncheon meeting today with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Donald Lu. He was accompanied by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Les Viguerie. DCM, DA and Counsellor Qasim joined me.

    At the outset, Don referred to Pakistan’s position on the Ukraine crisis and said that “people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine), if such a position is even possible. It does not seem such a neutral stand to us.” He shared that in his discussions with the NSC, “it seems quite clear that this is the Prime Minister’s policy.” He continued that he was of the view that this was “tied to the current political dramas in Islamabad that he (Prime Minister) needs and is trying to show a public face.” I replied that this was not a correct reading of the situation as Pakistan’s position on Ukraine was a result of intense interagency consultations. Pakistan had never resorted to conducting diplomacy in public sphere. The Prime Minister’s remarks during a political rally were in reaction to the public letter by European Ambassadors in Islamabad which was against diplomatic etiquette and protocol. Any political leader, whether in Pakistan or the U.S., would be constrained to give a public reply in such a situation.

    I asked Don if the reason for a strong U.S. reaction was Pakistan’s abstention in the voting in the UNGA. He categorically replied in the negative and said that it was due to the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow. He said that “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.” He paused and then said “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar.” He then said that “honestly I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.” Don further commented that it seemed that the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow was planned during the Beijing Olympics and there was an attempt by the Prime Minister to meet Putin which was not successful and then this idea was hatched that he would go to Moscow.

    I told Don that this was a completely misinformed and wrong perception. The visit to Moscow had been in the works for at least few years and was the result of a deliberative institutional process. I stressed that when the Prime Minister was flying to Moscow, Russian invasion of Ukraine had not started and there was still hope for a peaceful resolution. I also pointed out that leaders of European countries were also traveling to Moscow around the same time. Don interjected that “those visits were specifically for seeking resolution of the Ukraine standoff while the Prime Minister’s visit was for bilateral economic reasons.” I drew his attention to the fact that the Prime Minister clearly regretted the situation while being in Moscow and had hoped for diplomacy to work. The Prime Minister’s visit, I stressed, was purely in the bilateral context and should not be seen either as a condonation or endorsement of Russia’s action against Ukraine. I said that our position is dictated by our desire to keep the channels of communication with all sides open. Our subsequent statements at the UN and by our Spokesperson spelled that out clearly, while reaffirming our commitment to the principle of UN Charter, non-use or threat of use of force, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, and pacific settlement of disputes.

    I also told Don that Pakistan was worried of how the Ukraine crisis would play out in the context of Afghanistan. We had paid a very high price due to the long-term impact of this conflict. Our priority was to have peace and stability in Afghanistan, for which it was imperative to have cooperation and coordination with all major powers, including Russia. From this perspective as well, keeping the channels of communication open was essential. This factor was also dictating our position on the Ukraine crisis. On my reference to the upcoming Extended Troika meeting in Beijing, Don replied that there were still ongoing discussions in Washington on whether the U.S. should attend the Extended Troika meeting or the upcoming Antalya meeting on Afghanistan with Russian representatives in attendance, as the U.S. focus right now was to discuss only Ukraine with Russia. I replied that this was exactly what we were afraid of. We did not want the Ukraine crisis to divert focus away from Afghanistan. Don did not comment.

    I told Don that just like him, I would also convey our perspective in a forthright manner. I said that over the past one year, we had been consistently sensing reluctance on the part of the U.S. leadership to engage with our leadership. This reluctance had created a perception in Pakistan that we were being ignored and even taken for granted. There was also a feeling that while the U.S. expected Pakistan’s support on all issues that were important to the U.S., it did not reciprocate and we do not see much U.S. support on issues of concern for Pakistan, particularly on Kashmir. I said that it was extremely important to have functioning channels of communication at the highest level to remove such perception. I also said that we were surprised that if our position on the Ukraine crisis was so important for the U.S., why the U.S. had not engaged with us at the top leadership level prior to the Moscow visit and even when the UN was scheduled to vote. (The State Department had raised it at the DCM level.) Pakistan valued continued high-level engagement and for this reason the Foreign Minister sought to speak with Secretary Blinken to personally explain Pakistan’s position and perspective on the Ukraine crisis. The call has not materialized yet. Don replied that the thinking in Washington was that given the current political turmoil in Pakistan, this was not the right time for such engagement and it could wait till the political situation in Pakistan settled down.

    I reiterated our position that countries should not be made to choose sides in a complex situation like the Ukraine crisis and stressed the need for having active bilateral communications at the political leadership level. Don replied that “you have conveyed your position clearly and I will take it back to my leadership.”

    I also told Don that we had seen his defence of the Indian position on the Ukraine crisis during the recently held Senate Sub-Committee hearing on U.S.-India relations. It seemed that the U.S. was applying different criteria for India and Pakistan. Don responded that the U.S. lawmakers’ strong feelings about India’s abstentions in the UNSC and UNGA came out clearly during the hearing. I said that from the hearing, it appeared that the U.S. expected more from India than Pakistan, yet it appeared to be more concerned about Pakistan’s position. Don was evasive and responded that Washington looked at the U.S.-India relationship very much through the lens of what was happening in China. He added that while India had a close relationship with Moscow, “I think we will actually see a change in India’s policy once all Indian students are out of Ukraine.”

    I expressed the hope that the issue of the Prime Minister’s visit to Russia will not impact our bilateral ties. Don replied that “I would argue that it has already created a dent in the relationship from our perspective. Let us wait for a few days to see whether the political situation changes, which would mean that we would not have a big disagreement about this issue and the dent would go away very quickly. Otherwise, we will have to confront this issue head on and decide how to manage it.”

    We also discussed Afghanistan and other issues pertaining to bilateral ties. A separate communication follows on that part of our conversation.

    Assessment

    Don could not have conveyed such a strong demarche without the express approval of the White House, to which he referred repeatedly. Clearly, Don spoke out of turn on Pakistan’s internal political process. We need to seriously reflect on this and consider making an appropriate demarche to the U.S. Cd’ A a.i in Islamabad.

    The post Secret Pakistan Cable Documents U.S. Pressure to Remove Imran Khan appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Key researchers who testified before the House subcommittee investigating the origin of Covid-19 virus last week misled Congress about the nature of a multimillion-dollar grant that was pending at the time they joined a critical conference with Drs. Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci in February 2020, according to National Institutes of Health documents. 

    The debate over the origin of the novel coronavirus has also evolved into a meta-debate over how the narrative supporting a natural emergence was initially crafted in the winter and spring of 2020. That inquiry focuses on a group of scientists who spoke confidentially with Collins and Fauci — then the heads of the National Institutes for Health and its sub-agency National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, respectively — in February and quickly began writing a paper that would set the tone for public understanding of the virus’s origin for a year or more. On the call, the scientists suggested they leaned toward a lab escape as the most likely scenario, but they made a U-turn later that day when they began drafting it. The paper eventually ran in Nature Medicine under the headline “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Fauci and Collins were kept in the loop on the preparation of the paper, and Fauci highlighted it to the public in order to dismiss the notion of a lab escape. 

    House Republicans convened a hearing last week on the conference call and the resulting paper, and one of the major sources of contention was the extent to which Fauci and Collins held financial sway over the scientists, who also had a grant application pending before the NIH. Democrats repeatedly characterized the argument in terms of a “bribe” being paid in exchange for a paper that exonerated a lab in Wuhan, China, that the NIH had been funding to do the kind of risky research that could spark a pandemic. Rather than a bribe, though, the question is one of leverage. 

    Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research, who testified at the hearing along with Bob Garry of Tulane University, preempted the charge in his opening statement, telling the committee he had no live fundraising requests before Fauci’s agency at the time of the call. “There is no connection between the grant and the conclusions we reached about the origins of the pandemic. We applied for this grant in June 2019, and it was scored and reviewed by independent experts in November 2019,” Andersen testified. “Based on the actual timeline of this grant, it is not possible that the merit-based federal grant awarding process was influenced by a call in February, 2020.”

    Democrats, including Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell, defended the integrity of the scientists. Under her questioning, Andersen reiterated that the grant application could not possibly have influenced his willingness to publicly entertain the chance that risky research at the Wuhan lab may have led to the pandemic. “If the grant were scored and reviewed as part of the NIH’s transparent merit-based process in November 2019, is there any way that the awarding of the grant could have been used as a bribe during the February 1, 2020 conference call?” Dingell asked.

    “Excluding the possibility that somebody is a time traveler, no, that is just not possible given the timeline,” Andersen insisted. Garry added: “I agree.”

    Both knew that was false. And newly uncovered messages indicate Andersen was keenly aware that perception of him among gain-of-function research advocates such as Fauci hinged on how he responded to the question of Covid’s origin. Andersen and Garry did not respond to requests for comment.

    Setting aside Dingell’s hyperbolic term “bribe,” the records she pointed to in her questioning undermine Andersen’s claim. It is true that by November, the grant had cleared the independent review process, but it was still pending final approval from the director, in this case Fauci. 

    The NIH is clear about its process. “Council recommends an application for funding. NIAID makes the final decision,” the agency explains. “The main NIAID advisory Council must recommend an application for funding before we can award a grant, although the Institute makes the final funding decision,” the agency goes on.

    The grant wasn’t finalized until May 21, 2020. In other words, it was on Fauci’s desk at the time of the conference call. Andersen’s lab announced the funding in a press release in August 2020, nine months after he claimed it was already finalized. The press release describes it as a “new $8.9 million grant.”

    Screenshot: The Intercept

    “The five-year grant, awarded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will establish the West African Emerging Infectious Disease Research Center, bringing together clinicians, epidemiologists, bioinformaticians and biologists from the United States, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Liberia and Senegal,” reports the press release.

    For Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and critic of Andersen’s, the timing put Fauci and Collins at an extraordinary advantage in their interactions with the scientists. Building the West African center had been a longtime goal of Andersen and Garry. “The post-Council administrative review stage plays an especially large role in proposals for multi-investigator center grants and program project grants, for which programmatic fit and programmatic balance are deemed as important as scientific impact,” Ebright told The Intercept. “Andersen and Garry had a proposal for a center grant in the post-Council administrative-review stage in January-May 2020, making them maximally susceptible to pressure from Fauci and Collins.”

    Ebright added that the pending grant proposal would not have needed to have been brought up explicitly on the call or in other conversations. “This would have been known to, and clear to, both the potential grantees (Andersen and Garry) and the potential grantors (Fauci and Collins) on the February 1, 2020 telecon, and would not need to be mentioned to be motivational,” he wrote in an email. 

    Indeed, Slack messages between Andersen and other scientists show Andersen was concerned that his inquiry into a potential lab leak could get him branded as a “crackpot” — a concern that had major professional implications given the status of the grant. The House Republican subcommittee investigating the pandemic’s origin accidentally released the messages following last week’s hearing.

    On February 2, the day after the conference call, and after they had written a first draft of the article that would dismiss the lab leak, Andersen and virologist Andrew Rambaut exchanged notes on Slack. At issue was criticism being directed at the eventual authors of the Proximal Origin paper — Andersen, Garry, and Rambaut among them — by virologists Christian Drosten, known as “Germany’s Fauci,” and Ron Fouchier, an advocate of gain-of-function research. They had both been on the call, with Fouchier making the case against speculating about a lab origin. Fouchier is a controversial figure in the field of virology for his hyper-risky research on bird flu and his aggressive hostility to restrictions on gain-of-function research.

    Fouchier elaborated his concerns in an email he sent after the call: He was nervous that the group, by even allowing for the remote possibility of a lab leak while elevating natural origin, would make it more difficult to do such risky research in the future. He helped draft the paper but ultimately urged it not be published. 

    Andersen understood their motivations. “Both Ron and Christian are much too conflicted to think about this issue straight – to them, the hypothesis of accidental lab escape is so unlikely and not something they want to consider. The main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely – it’s not some fringe theory,” Andersen wrote on Slack. “I don’t think we should reply back on the current thread as he effectively shut down the discussion there and I think will just lead to a shouting match – Christian and Ron made it clear that they think this is a crackpot theory.”

    Around the time of the call, a pre-print paper from obscure researchers was uploaded to a scientific platform laying out the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus appeared to have been engineered in a lab because of some similarities to the HIV virus. The paper was quickly withdrawn and is not today considered credible, but at the time it caused a stir. 

    It came up on Slack. “I just had a phone call from Mark Perkins at WHO who was asking me about the HIV paper – the [director general] had rung him and wanted to know if it was true. Told Mark it was complete bollocks and why it was. But twitter is going crazy,” Rambaut wrote on Slack.

    “Tony Fauci called me yesterday afternoon with the exact same question and I gave him the exact same answer,” Andersen responded, bolding the words. “It’s really disturbing we have to explain away that paper – it’s complete and utter bollocks. My fear is that the likes of Christian and Ron puts the question that’s being asked here into the same category – I’m pretty sure by now they think I’m a complete crackpot.”

    It’s unclear from Andersen’s wording if by “they” he meant Drosten and Fouchier, Fauci and Collins, or all of them, as they all aligned on the issue. The most plausible reading of the message is that Andersen is referring to Fauci and Collins, because in his prior sentence, he noted that Drosten and Fouchier were attacking the lab leak theory with as much fervor as others had attacked the HIV “bollocks.” 

    Andersen’s acknowledgment is crucial to understanding his mindset as he went from warning that the virus appeared to have emerged from a lab to claiming loudly the exact opposite. If Fauci believed Andersen was a “crackpot” who was skeptical of gain-of-function, or GOF, research, it’s reasonable to think such a belief would influence Fauci’s pending funding decision. Fauci was and remains an outspoken supporter of such research, even arguing a decade earlier that its benefits were worth the risk of a pandemic.

    Rambaut continued on the theme: “Ron had me clocked as an anti-GOF fanatic already. Although my primary concern is that these experiments are done in Cat 3 labs.”

    “Interesting,” Andersen responded. “I’m all for GOF experiments, I think they’re really important* – however performing these in BSL-3 (or less) is just completely nuts!” (Rambaut and Andersen were referencing biosafety level 3 laboratories.)

    He continued: “I have evolved a bit on this point [regarding the benefits of GOF research]. I used to think they’re really important, but I’m actually not so sure anymore. I thought it was really important that we understood whether e.g., avian influenza could be transmissible between humans – and importantly which steps (and how many) would need to be involved – but honestly I’m not sure that type of knowledge is at all actionable, while, of course, being exceptionally dangerous. It only takes one mistake.”

    Slack messages from Feb. 2, 2020.

    Slack messages from Feb. 2, 2020.

    Screenshot: The Intercept

    Andersen, returning to the question of Covid’s origin, repeated that “Natural selection and accidental release are both plausible scenarios explaining the data – and a priori should be equally weighed as possible explanations. The presence of a furin [cleavage site] a posteriori” — the furin cleavage site was the characteristic of the virus that the scientists thought was indicative of engineering or other lab origin —moves me slightly more towards accidental release, but it’s well above my paygrade to call the shots on a final conclusion.” 

    In fact, Andersen would be listed as the lead author on the conclusive paper. Rambaut responded by warning of the geopolitical fallout of such a claim. “Given the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possible distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content to with ascribing it to natural processes.”

    “Yup, I totally agree that’s a very reasonable conclusion,” Andersen responded. Although I hate when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstance. We should be sensitive to that.”

    Join The Conversation


    This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Ryan Grim.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The House of Representatives this week embarked on its semi-regular, bipartisan ritual of pausing legislative business to condemn critics of Israel and celebrate that nation’s virtues. The only twist is that a congressional resolution put up for a vote on Tuesday does less to hail Israel’s more benign qualities, this time focused on rebutting the reality that it is, in its present incarnation, a racist and apartheid state.

    The latest controversy began on Saturday evening in Chicago at the annual Netroots Nation convention, a gathering of progressive operatives and politicians. During a panel, protesters came for Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., urging her to support legislation that bars Israel from using U.S. funds to detain children. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., stood up to respond to the protesters and in doing so agreed with their claim that Israel is a “racist state.” 

    As Jayapal later told the New York Times’s Michelle Goldberg, she knew as she walked offstage that she’d stepped in it. The state may be stacked with proudly racist ministers, some of whom have previously been convicted of inciting racism and supporting terrorism against Arabs, and the state may legally treat different people under its control differently based on their religion and ethnicity — dubbed by Amnesty International to amount to apartheid — but bluntly calling it a “racist state” runs into a “thick lattice of taboos.”

    Jayapal quickly clarified her remarks, but a bipartisan group of her colleagues circulated a letter condemning her anyway and pushed for the resolution in response. The resolution is striking in its brevity: “Resolved by the House of Representatives, That it is the sense of Congress that the State of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state; Congress rejects all forms of antisemitism and xenophobia; and the United States will always be a staunch partner and supporter of Israel.”

    On Tuesday, nine Democrats voted no — Reps. Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, André Carson, Summer Lee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Delia Ramirez, Rashida Tlaib — and one, Betty McCollum, voted present. Jayapal voted for the resolution.

    Related

    A People-Powered Insurgency Threatened to Reshape the Democratic Party. Then Came AIPAC and Its Allied Super PAC, Democratic Majority for Israel.

    The pushback against Jayapal is an escalation of a confrontation initially aimed at Reps. Omar and Tlaib by Israeli government defenders, which expanded into a full-blown war on progressive candidates in Democratic primaries in 2022. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its ally, Democratic Majority for Israel, spent millions targeting progressive challengers who spoke out about Israel for blue seats. And that cycle, a number of progressive candidates eased — or in some cases sprinted — away from previous support of causes associated with Palestinian human rights. 

    But contra the chilling effect AIPAC may be having nationwide, one challenger to an incumbent Democrat in Houston is taking the polar opposite approach. Pervez Agwan is running against the AIPAC-endorsed Rep. Lizzie Fletcher as an “unapologetically progressive Dem” and criticizing Fletcher for taking money from AIPAC, hoping to turn any impending spending against him into a weakness for Fletcher. 

    “Republicans and establishment Democrats are too concerned with offending the Israel lobby who bankrolls their campaigns to be honest about what’s going on.”

    “To take money from a lobbying group that dictates your foreign policy, I think it’s completely unacceptable,” Agwan told The Intercept in an interview. “I do not think it’s OK to take money from a group that openly keeps an apartheid system and an open-air prison where people’s rights are violated.”

    Agwan saw the influence of AIPAC in the response to Jayapal’s remarks. “Representative Jayapal’s remarks are clearly being taken out of context by Democrats and Republicans alike who refuse to allow criticism of Israel and its actions because of their ties with groups like AIPAC,” he said. “In reality, Israel is an apartheid state that commits atrocities against native Palestinians on a daily basis. That is something that should absolutely be criticized but unfortunately, Republicans and establishment Democrats are too concerned with offending the Israel lobby who bankrolls their campaigns to be honest about what’s going on.”

    Agwan, a graduate of MIT who made his career in the clean tech industry, is running on a progressive platform, supportive of an expanded Green New Deal and Medicare for All. But as a candidate challenging Fletcher from the left, and particularly a Muslim one, Agwan has an additional obstacle to get past.

    In the 2022 cycle, AIPAC’s super PAC spent some $40 million, nearly all of it directed at defeating progressive Democrats in primaries. Agwan, who has raised $300,000 with eight months of campaigning still to go (in the quarter ending June 30, he reported raising $221,000), is running toward them. “Most people want the United States not to be sending aid to countries that violate human rights. And it starts with electing people that aren’t going to be bought off by any lobbying group. So I think Lizzie really needs to start shifting her stance, and she won’t do it, because she’s funded by AIPAC,” he said. 

    Fletcher has carved out a fairly standard pro-business, pro-Israel, socially liberal record as a Democrat. First elected to Congress in the 2018 blue wave, she beat a more progressive candidate in the primary, flipped a red seat blue, and quickly joined the New Democrat Coalition, the voice for the corporate wing of the party. A corporate attorney by training, she cast reliable Democratic votes in the House, and in 2020, she held onto her seat by a 3-point margin against her Republican opponent. 

    In 2018, she faced organized labor opposition to her candidacy based on her work as a partner at AZA Law, which largely represents employers and won a major case against local janitorial workers represented by the SEIU, who were predominantly immigrants. AZA Law boasted, in its effort to attract future business from employers, that it won the case in part by studying the social media feeds of the jury pool to make sure the jury was stacked with Donald Trump supporters.

    The case was ideologically motivated to destroy labor: PJS, the Fletcher firm’s client, was involved with Empower Texans, a right-wing group working to undermine organized labor in Texas. She won her race regardless; union power remains weak in Texas.

    In the 2022 cycle, her Texas district was redrawn to be deep blue; it now runs from the middle of Houston west, through the wealthy suburb of Bellaire and out to the increasingly diverse areas of Alief and Sugar Land. The new district is now the most diverse in Texas, with nearly three-quarters of the population nonwhite, according to Census data from 2020, which may in fact undercount the diversity. Three in 10 residents are Hispanic, 21 percent Black, and 22 percent Asian. She carried the deep-blue seat by nearly 30 points. In 2023, she was named chair of the New Democrat Coalition Trade Task Force. But while the redrawn seat may be safer for Democrats, it may not be safer for Fletcher.

    Agwan is Fletcher’s first primary challenger since winning office, and, with family spread from India to Pakistan, he shares a background with many of his potential constituents. Agwan said that his campaign is speaking for a broad base in the district that doesn’t feel represented.

    “This campaign isn’t about me going out there, it’s about a collective movement of people here in Houston, that are from these communities, that are from Arab American and Muslim American, and from Middle Eastern and from Palestinian communities. And we recognize the atrocities that are happening there that are funded by the American taxpayer dollar, but also being pushed on us by lobby groups like the ones you just mentioned,” he said, in response to a question about whether he’s nervous about spending from AIPAC or Democratic Majority for Israel. “So we’re not scared. We have to stand up because their presence in our democracy — for that matter any foreign lobby or corporate lobby’s presence in our democracy — is really diluting the power of the average American person.”

    The large Pakistani community, he said, is also concerned about democratic backsliding there amid the ongoing repression of the party of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Rep. Greg Casar of Austin recently introduced legislation to pressure the State Department on the unfolding turmoil, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who is running for mayor of Houston, is a founder of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus. “It’s very important that Pakistanis hold open, free and fair elections, and let the public decide, but [the military establishment] won’t,” said Agwan. “They won’t let Imran Khan even participate in an election. So as a congressman, I’d be the first to fight for that.”

    Fletcher, meanwhile, has been a consistent defender of Israel, even as it has come in for criticism among many of her rank-and-file colleagues. During the Israeli bombing campaign during the Gaza war of spring 2021, Fletcher’s statement condemned only Hamas and offered the requisite, “Israel has a right to defend itself against these attacks.”

    In her first year in Congress, Fletcher was faced with the choice of going on a delegation to Israel with AIPAC; going with J Street, which takes a more critical line toward the Israeli government and includes dissident voices in its trip; or to not go at all. She went on the AIPAC-sponsored trip.

    The vote on the congressional resolution comes as the House prepares to welcome Israel President Isaac Herzog for an address. Only a handful of members — including Reps. Omar, Tlaib, Bush, Ocasio-Cortez, and Bowman — have vowed to boycott.

    Among the most controversial questions facing candidates is BDS: a strategy of boycotts, sanctions, and pressure to divest either from Israel generally or companies doing business in the occupied territories. “I support ending all aid to and implementing economic sanctions on any foreign country that egregiously violates human rights,” Agwan said.

    The post As Democrats Line Up Behind Israel’s Right-Wing Government, One Progressive Candidate Says He Is Unafraid of AIPAC appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • House Republicans on the subcommittee probing the origin of the Covid-19 virus appear to have inadvertently released a trove of new documents related to their investigation that shed light on deliberations among the scientists who drafted a key paper in February and March of 2020. The paper, published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, was titled “The Proximal Origin of Sars-Cov-2” and played a leading role in creating a public impression of a scientific consensus that the virus had emerged naturally in a Chinese “wet market.”

    The paper was the subject of a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, which coincided with the release of a report by the subcommittee devoted to the “Proximal Origin” paper. It contains limited screenshots of emails and Slack messages among the authors, laying out its case that the scientists believed one thing in private, that lab escape was likely, while working to produce a paper saying the opposite in public. 

    The newly exposed documents include full emails and pages of Slack chats that were cropped for the report, exposing the “Proximal Origin” authors’ real-time thinking. According to the metadata in the PDF of the report, it was created using “Acrobat PDFMaker 23 for Word,” indicating that the report was originally drafted as a Word document. Word, however, retains the original image when an image is cropped, as do many other apps. Microsoft’s documentation cautions that “Cropped parts of the picture are not removed from the file, and can potentially be seen by others,” going on to note: “If there is sensitive information in the area you’re cropping out make sure you delete the cropped areas.”

    When this Word document was converted to a PDF, the original, uncropped images were likewise carried over. The Intercept was able to extract the original, complete images from the PDF using freely available tools, following the work of a Twitter sleuth

    All the files can be found here. A spokesperson for committee Republicans declined to comment. 

    Much of Tuesday’s hearing focused on a critical few days in early February 2020, beginning with a conference call February 1 that included the eventual authors of the paper and Drs. Anthony Fauci, then head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Francis Collins, then head of its parent agency, the National Institutes of Health. Later minutes showed that the consensus among the experts leaned toward a lab escape. Yet within days, they were circulating a draft — including to Fauci and Collins — that came to the opposite conclusion, the first draft of which had been finished the same day of the conference call. How and why that rapid turnaround occurred has been the subject of much debate and interrogation.

    The authors have said, and repeated during Tuesday’s hearing, that new data had changed their minds, but the new Slack messages and emails show that their initial inclination toward a lab escape remained long past that time. 

    Among the scientists testifying Tuesday was lead paper author Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research. In a Slack exchange on February 2, 2020, between Andersen and Andrew Rambaut of the University of Edinburgh’s Institute of Evolutionary Biology in the School of Biological Sciences, it becomes clear how seriously the authors took the hypothesis that Covid may have leaked from a lab, rather than emerged through natural means, before they ultimately became dedicated to publicly dismissing it. 

    “I believe RaTG13 is from Yuanan, which is about as far away from Wuhan as you can be and still be in China,” Andersen wrote, referring to a virus that produced Covid-like symptoms in miners in 2013, a strain that was later stored and researched at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. “What are the chances of finding a viruses that are 96% identical given that distance? Seems strange given how many SARS-like viruses we have in bats.” 

    Rambaut responded on Slack suggesting they back off such interrogation. “I personally think we should get away from all the strange coincidence stuff. I agree it smells really fishy but without a smoking gun it will not do us any good,” he wrote. “The truth is never going to come out (if [lab] escape is the truth). Would need irrefutable evidence. My position is that the natural evolution is entirely plausible and we will have to leave it at that. Lab passaging might also generate this mutation but we have no evidence that that happened.”

    Slack message from Feb. 2, 2020.

    Screenshot: The Intercept

    Still, said Rambaut, even though the truth would never emerge if a lab was responsible, the researchers had a responsibility, privately at least, to see what lessons could be learned to prevent a future lab escape. “I think it would be good idea to lay out these arguments for limited dissemination. And quite frankly so we can learn from it even if it wasn’t an escape,” he added.

    That same day, after having put together the first draft of the paper, Andersen responded to two colleagues who wanted to conclusively rule out the lab scenario: “The main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely–it’s not some fringe theory.” 

    But the paper they were drafting argued the opposite and would be used to label the possibility of a lab leak as a fringe conspiracy, confidently asserting, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”

    At Tuesday’s hearing, Andersen said repeatedly that Fauci and Collins had no role in influencing the paper. But Fauci’s shadow hangs over the conversation. “The idea of engineering and bioweapon is definitely not going away and I’m still getting pinged by journalists,” Andersen wrote on February 5, 2020. “I have noticed some of them starting to ask more broadly about ‘lab escape’ and for now I have just ignored them — there might be a time where we need to tackle that more directly head on, but I’ll let the likes of Jeremy [Farrar] and Tony [Fauci] figure out how to do that.” 

    Farrar, a British biomedical researcher, was not listed as an author on the paper but was frequently referred to by Democrats during the hearing as the “father” of it. In the messages, he is seen sharing drafts of the paper with Fauci and Collins and asking the authors for edits, at one point in mid-February asking that a lab scenario be downgraded in their paper from “unlikely” to “improbable” — a change that Andersen, the lead author, agreed to. 

    An email in the cache from Eddie Holmes, another one of the authors, alludes to “pressure from on high.” In reply to an email that isn’t included in the subcommittee’s report or the documents, Holmes writes, “Anyway, it’s done. Sorry the last bit had to be done without you…pressure from on high.” In previous exchanges, officials with the communications department at the NIH had been asking about the status of the submission. Taken as a whole, the messages undercut the claims that the NIH took a hands-off approach to the paper. 

    Email from Feb. 16, 2020.

    Screenshot: The Intercept

    The new documents also include a message from Nature — where the authors pitched the “Proximal Origin” paper before sending to Nature Medicine — explaining its rejection. Despite the paper leaning heavily toward a natural emergence and downplaying the potential of a lab leak, one Nature reviewer found that even leaving open the possibility of a lab escape would fuel conspiracy theorists, a Nature editor wrote to the authors. “Once the authors publish their new pangolin sequences, a lab origin will be extremely unlikely,” the reviewer had written.

    Andersen pushed back against the rejection, assuring the Nature editor that their project had started with the goal of beating back “conspiracy” theories, but that the data and evidence made it impossible. “Had that been the case, we would of course have included that — but the more sequences we see from pangolins (and we have been analyzing/discussing these very carefully) the more unlikely it seems that they’re the intermediate hosts,” Andersen responded in an email on February 20, 2020. “Unfortunately none of this helps refute a lab origin and the possibility must be considered as a serious scientific theory (which is what we do) and not dismissed out of hand as another ‘conspiracy’ theory. We all really, really wish that we could do that (that’s how this got started), but unfortunately it’s not possible given the data.”

    The group edited their paper further to more strongly dismiss the possibility of a lab leak for its later submission to Nature Medicine. The journal’s publication of the paper just a month later effectively ended debate for a year or more as to the origin of the pandemic. 

    The post House Republicans Accidentally Released a Trove of Damning Covid Documents appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The House oF Representatives is poised for a showdown over military intervention and U.S. foreign policy, unless the GOP blocks a sweeping set of amendments from a bipartisan group of lawmakers challenging the status quo.

    The amendments, submitted to the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, need approval from the House Rules Committee before they can be considered for a vote. The Rules Committee has 13 members, four of whom are Democrats and three of whom are Freedom Caucus Republicans, enough to approve an amendment acting in coalition. 

    One of the most direct challenges to the Biden administration is a bill led by Democratic Reps. Sara Jacobs and Ilhan Omar which would block the transfer of cluster munitions to Ukraine and all other countries. On Monday afternoon, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said he would sign on as a co-sponsor to the bill, championing it in the Rules Committee and giving it a stronger shot of making it to the floor for a vote. On Tuesday, Rep. Paulina Luna, R-Fla., co-sponsored the legislation, raising expectations among its backers that Rules Committee member Thomas Massie, R-Ky., will advocate for it to be ruled in order, which allows it a vote on the House floor.

    Other amendments in search of a floor vote or inclusion in the underlying bill restrict military cooperation with a variety of governments accused of human rights abuses, order the declassification of information about past U.S. participation in coups or the operation of death squads, or shift spending from weapons systems toward social programs for troops.

    This week’s NDAA fight in the Rules Committee and later on the House floor will be a fresh test for the new populist right — which has taken an isolationist turn away from the neoconservatism that previously dominated Republican orthodoxy — of whether their opposition to the global war machine is talk on a podcast or something capable of marshaling enough support to be a real threat to the military-industrial complex. Still, even with all three Freedom Caucus members on board, amendments hostile to American war policy would still likely need full Democratic support to get a floor vote, a difficult task in a divided party. Last week, 19 Democrats sent a letter to Biden objecting to the cluster munitions transfer, arguably the most significant objection from House Democrats to Biden’s Ukraine policy. But while it was a high number relative to previous efforts, 19 still represents less than one in 10 members of the House Democratic caucus.

    “During this year’s NDAA process we’ve seen broad bipartisan coalitions come together around a variety of policies challenging the Executive Branch’s expansive military and surveillance overreach — from preventing the transfer of cluster bombs and demanding war powers votes for Yemen and Syria to oversight over irregular warfare authorities, to limiting government purchases of data about Americans,” said Cavan Kharrazian, foreign policy adviser at Demand Progress, a progressive policy organization. “While we’re dismayed that many good amendments will likely not get floor votes, we are encouraged about the growing cross-ideological base challenging concerning national security policies.”

    Related

    With Ukraine’s Cluster Bombs Killing Its Own Citizens, Biden Readies Order to Send More

    In the past week, multiple U.S. allies including the United Kingdom and Spain have voiced opposition to the Biden administration’s support for sending cluster bombs to Ukraine. As The Intercept previously reported, these weapons are banned by over 100 countries and have already killed civilians when deployed by the Ukrainian military, which has obtained some cluster munitions from Turkey. Despite initial promises that only munitions with a low dud rate would be sent to Ukraine, subsequent statements suggest that some weapons being lined up for transfer could have a dud rate as high as 14.5 percent, leaving thousands of explosives primed and unexploded on battlefields across Ukraine. Russia has also used cluster munitions during its invasion — an act that former White House press secretary Jen Psaki suggested last year was a potential war crime.

    Jacobs and Omar’s amendment orders that “no military assistance shall be furnished for cluster munitions, no defense export license for cluster munitions may be issued, and no cluster munitions or cluster munitions technology shall be sold or transferred.” Gaetz, in declaring his support for the amendment on his podcast “Firebrand with Matt Gaetz,” said, “We have an opportunity with bipartisanship to stand against the warmongering bias. These cluster bombs will not end the war in Ukraine.”

    In a statement released last week, Omar wrote, “Our international coalition is strong because we’re united together and because we’re living up to our values — but sending cluster munitions defies these two tenets. Many of our partners don’t support this move with many having already banned cluster munitions from their stockpiles. We’ve seen Russia’s horrific use of cluster munitions in Ukraine — and we shouldn’t cede the moral high ground by criticizing their actions and then deciding to send cluster munitions ourselves.”

    Reining in U.S. Funding of Human Rights Abusers

    In another direct shot at U.S. war making capacity, Omar introduced legislation to repeal the Pentagon’s 127e program, which The Intercept previously exposed as a route by which the U.S. wages proxy war, sponsoring death squads or other irregular partner forces with hideous human rights records. While Omar’s legislation would ban the program, Jacobs has introduced a separate measure to curtail it by requiring the Pentagon to vet the groups it sponsors for credible allegations of human rights abuses and consider whether the alliance may damage U.S. interests. 

    Other efforts to amend the NDAA to rein in foreign military cooperation would curb assistance to countries accused of ongoing human rights abuses. These include a prohibition on military aid and security assistance to Azerbaijan offered by Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., proposed a narrower measure that restricts weapons transfers in order to put pressure on Azerbaijan to end its siege of Nagorno-Karabakh. Schiff is running for Senate in California, where the state’s Armenian American population wields substantial clout.

    Rep. Greg Casar, a first-term legislator who represents Austin, Texas, has quickly carved out space as a leading voice on foreign affairs; he introduced an NDAA amendment to instruct the State Department to examine and report on the democratic backsliding underway in Pakistan, as the country’s military establishment targets former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

    A measure by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., requires the Pentagon to report back on human rights abuses carried out by its allies before continuing certain military partnerships in Peru, where a left-wing populist president was recently forced out by the right-wing opposition.

    Ocasio-Cortez also introduced a measure requiring the CIA, Pentagon, and State Department to declassify information related to the U.S. government’s role in the Chilean coup that brought dictator Augusto Pinochet to power. 

    She also introduced a separate amendment that makes a similar demand related to the 1964 military coup in Brazil, additionally requiring the Pentagon to explain to Congress what its role there was, and what types of cooperation it offered the resulting dictatorship over the next two decades. Her third historical amendment orders the Pentagon to produce a report on its involvement with Colombian military repression from 1980 to 2000. Legislation from Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., orders the Pentagon to report back on any U.S.-funded foreign security services that have killed journalists in the last five years, an expansion of her probe into the killing of reporter Shireen Abu Akleh by U.S.-funded Israeli forces.

    Congressional Democrats have also proposed a number of Haiti-related NDAA amendments, with one ordering the Pentagon to submit a new report on its knowledge of the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in 2021. Another measure from Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., blocks any funds from being used to support military intervention on the island, which the U.S.-installed de facto prime minister Ariel Henry has called for.

    An amendment from Reps. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y., and Chuy Garcia, D-Ill., would block the use of military force in or against Mexico. 

    Reps. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., and Becca Balint, D-Vt., are attempting to amend the NDAA with conditional restriction on military aid to Uganda, a measure responding to a draconian new LGBTQ+ human rights law that punishes same-sex relationships with life in prison. Two different amendments offered by Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., seek to end military assistance to Guatemala and Honduras over human rights abuses, following a similar amendment from Bush that attempts to limit financial assistance to Cameroon’s military and law enforcement over related concerns. 

    Targeting the yet-to-be-settled war in Yemen, Reps. Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal, and Val Hoyle have all come out in support of a measure blocking the U.S. from assisting the Saudi war effort if it resumes hostilities against the Houthis. The amendment follows a related push from Reps. Ted Lieu, Gregory Meeks, and Dina Titus attempting to extend a moratorium on refueling aircraft participating in the war. Meeks is the top-ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

    Reps. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and Mark Pocan, D-Wis., are scrutinizing the accelerating violence taking place in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories in an amendment seeking a report from the Defense and State departments on the expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank. 

    Shifting Pentagon Funds to Social Programs

    Central to the populist critique of the U.S. military budget is the argument that needs at home are being sacrificed for the war effort. Several amendments flow directly from that sentiment. Casar and Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, are seeking to use excess funds from the enormous military budget to fund child care for active military personnel at home. Like families all across America, active duty military are facing an acute child care crisis, spurred by a lack of affordability and adequate funding for military daycare facilities.

    Even U.S special forces members struggle to find adequate family care as they balance rigorous training and dangerous deployments. If passed, the amendment would open up funds beyond the president’s budget request “to fund universal pre-kindergarten programs in schools operated by the Department of Defense Education Activity.”

    Another set of amendments seeks to use the NDAA to redirect military spending toward domestic programs under the auspices of national security. Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., introduced an amendment that would authorize the defense secretary to allocate tens of billions into public education and pre-K programs. “It is the sense of Congress that providing high quality public education for all is essential to national security and the ability of the United States to respond to major global challenges,” his legislation reads. Bowman also proposed an amendment scrutinizing military recruitment practices by requiring a report on how Defense Department agencies target students in high school

    Bush, meanwhile, has introduced an NDAA amendment that calls on the secretary of defense “to protect the future national security of the United States by investing in the housing system of the United States.”

    The post The Military-Industrial Complex Is Finally Facing Intense Bipartisan Scrutiny appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • In September 2016, building off the momentum of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, activists with the newly revitalized Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, rallied behind one of their own and elected Mike Connolly to the Massachusetts statehouse, knocking off incumbent Tim Toomey Jr., a Bay State institution who’d been in the office since 1992.

    As a state representative, Connolly, known around the region as Big Mike, has become a leading voice in the fight over rent control, housing for all, and social housing, authoring landmark eviction and foreclosure moratorium legislation at the beginning of the pandemic. Connolly has been a DSA member for seven years; he helped found the local Our Revolution chapter after the first Sanders campaign, was Massachusetts co-chair of the 2020 campaign, and served as a Sanders delegate.

    Just last week, the Cape Cod chapter of DSA invited Connolly to address their group on his housing justice agenda. This week, however, newly elected leaders of the Boston chapter of DSA introduced a resolution to expel Connolly from the organization — to be voted on at the Cambridge Community Center at 3 p.m. on July 23.

    The Boston DSA leadership published a list of charges against Connolly they claim proved he crossed a “red line” and leave him out of step with the organization’s socialist principles. Connolly, though, is vigorously defending himself, and a sizable portion of Boston’s progressive community has come out publicly in his defense. If Connolly survives the motion to expel, it may signal that factionally led expulsion efforts are losing steam inside the organization. 

    A member-based organization that works to build democratic socialism in the long term while making gains for the working class in the near term is necessarily going to grapple with questions of whether too much energy is going toward the former or the latter, or whether the two work in concert. Such debates often express themselves over whether to support candidates or politicians who align with many of the organization’s values but work in coalition with some who don’t. In 2021, a faction drew national attention by failing to expel New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman from the DSA, producing backlash among other members who argued the fight was a self-obsessed distraction and a hapless attempt to display political purity for purity’s sake. 

    In a nod to that fight, the DSA members pushing for Connolly’s expulsion noted in their resolution that in a September 2022 member survey, 76 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, “If a Boston DSA-endorsee has clearly crossed a red line, I would still want to see accountability even if it results in some public-facing ‘noise’ and/or ‘drama.’”

    What follows is the full list of the charges leveled at Connolly, along with responses he provided in an interview with The Intercept.

    1. Failure to engage with the chapter’s electoral endorsement process since 2016

    Connolly sought and received DSA endorsement in 2016. In the 2018 cycle, Connolly said, he actively participated in the endorsement process and spent more than 20 hours answering some 100 questions — some of them open-ended, requiring substantial elucidation. The process coincided with the height of the legislative session and a long-planned summer vacation; Connolly said he asked for an extension of roughly 48 hours beyond the deadline to finish the candidate questionnaire but was denied. In 2020 and 2022, he said, he heard nothing from DSA about the status of the endorsement process, and merely learned it was over when a list of endorsements was publicized. He did not face primary or general election competition in any campaign since 2016. 

    2. Endorsing, materially supporting, and making public statements praising politicians/political actors who are fundamentally opposed to socialist reforms

    • Endorsed Christine Barber over a DSA candidate in 2020.

    In 2020, Christine Barber was an incumbent state representative for Medford and Somerville and was challenged by DSA member Anna Callahan, whom she beat 58 to 42 percent. Connolly told The Intercept that he does not regret endorsing Barber and that, as he argued at the time in a meeting with leaders of Boston DSA, they were making a mistake by bucking serious, member-based immigrant worker groups who were rallying behind Barber. 

    Barber was the lead sponsor of a high-profile piece of legislation called the Work and Family Mobility Act, which, among other things, made drivers’ licenses available to all state residents — the top priority of immigrant rights groups in the state amid Trump’s xenophobic crackdown. Connolly noted, “I said to them, there’s a contradiction here, I believe, when this organization is saying we’re going to supplant our judgment for, for example, a people of color-led immigrant justice group that’s been working on this proposal.”

    Barber had also been a champion of rent control, casting one of roughly 20 votes for it in the entire chamber, Connolly noted. 

    • Endorsed Kevin Honan and Maura Healey.

    In 2022, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey ran for governor and faced no serious competition in the primary; her only opponent dropped out before gaining traction. Healey’s platform committed to lifting the statewide ban on rent control, a key step in combating skyrocketing rents and ensuring real affordable housing in Boston and around the state. While Healey is not a socialist, Connolly argued that it was in the interest of housing justice advocates to endorse her and then push to have her platform translated into law.

    Kevin Honan was the incumbent state representative who co-sponsored an eviction and foreclosure moratorium with Connolly at the start of the pandemic, a law that has been held up as a model across the country. Housing justice groups roundly endorsed Honan. 

    Though Honan’s primary opponent, Jordan Cameron Meehan, was a DSA member, he did not have the endorsement of the Boston DSA, which weakens the chapter’s charge against Connolly. Honan won by 8 percentage points. 

    • Used a DSA group chat (that of the Cambridge Neighborhood group) to solicit canvassers for Lydia Edwards’ Senate campaign.

    The chat, said Connolly, was his local one, which he’d been involved in for years, and all he did was let people know that, during a special election for an open Senate seat, a canvass for Lydia Edwards was happening. In his district, he said, 95 percent of his constituents voted for Edwards — though the race, which she won, was close. In that election, he said Edwards was far and away the superior of the two candidates, particularly on the issue of housing justice, a claim that even Edwards’s DSA critics from the left acknowledge. Once she was in office, she co-founded the Housing for All Caucus with Connolly. 

    Whatever the relationship was between Edwards and DSA members before, it has now fully collapsed. “The ‘let them eat cake’ wing of the left is so out of touch with the lived struggle of so many people,” she told the Boston Globe when asked about the effort to expel Connolly. “They will hold their breath for purity and throw a temper tantrum, while they are stably housed, food secure, and healthy.” Edwards dubbed the expulsion leaders “progressive white supremacists,” and when asked by the Globe to explain why, she said, “They are progressive. They also believe they know what is better for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, people of color) people. And whether they want to admit it, trusting your perspective of what is better for people of color than people of color telling you … is white supremacy.”

    • Twice supported Ron Mariano for State House Speaker

    Several leaders of Boston DSA urged Connolly to vote against Mariano for speaker in 2020, he said, but he told them there was nobody running against him, so he didn’t see the point. Other DSA-backed legislators either voted for Mariano or said they would have had they not missed the vote. After his vote, Connolly said, the DSA leaders told him they were disappointed, and he held a 90-minute meeting with them to hear their concerns and explain his rationale. Mariano ran unopposed in 2022, and Connolly voted for him again.

    • Praised Ed Augustus, former city manager for Worcester who championed corporate give-aways and housing policy which led to great amounts of gentrification and displacement.

    This charge, said Connolly, is “materially inaccurate.” The DSA resolution links to a Twitter post by Connolly that welcomes Augustus to his new role as secretary in the newly created Executed Office of Housing and Livable Communities. “I am excited to welcome incoming Secretary Augustus to this vitally important role! My hope is that he and the Healey Administration will pursue policies to guarantee housing to all residents of the Commonwealth,” wrote Connolly, going on to make the case for a broad social housing agenda. “As a member of the Joint Committee on Housing and a Co-Chair of the #HousingForAll Caucus, I can’t wait to get to work with Secretary Augustus!”

    Connolly argued that attacking Augustus out of the gate made no tactical sense, and that his statement was not “praise.” “All things being equal, I think we will accomplish more with Augustus if we welcome him to his new job rather than attack him before he’s even walked in the building,” Connolly said.

    This type of defense from Connolly doesn’t land with his more hardened detractors. In fact, it only inflames them further, seeing in it political hackery masquerading as knowing sophistication. “It’s one thing to (allow oneself to) be taken advantage of,” said one Boston DSA member and a sponsor of the expulsion resolution, Peter Berard, on Facebook. “It’s quite another to flaunt being taken advantage of by a group of people as gormless and transparent as Democratic Party hacks, to be publicly stymied and humiliated again and again, and then to self-present as canny realists. You don’t get to act like the mature, thoughtful party, you don’t get to lecture us on any reality. It’s like being lectured on basketball not by the Washington Generals, but by some team that the Washington Generals regularly ignominiously beat.”

    Boston DSA member Evan George, a longtime critic of Connolly’s, said that such disagreements on tactics shouldn’t sever a relationship, and taking up the fight against Connolly now distracts from the work they are doing on behalf of candidates currently in the field. “I have been very critical of multiple actions Mike has taken as a state representative, and my public criticism has strained my relationship with him many times in the years we have known each other,” said George in a public statement. “I have disagreed with his use of political endorsements and his willingness to support Democratic leadership in ways that I believe hurt the state of democracy here in Massachusetts. However, these have always been criticisms over tactics and my desire to apply pressure to our elected official’s ‘left’ so they do not so easily slide to the right.” 

    • Endorsed a Somerville City Councilor, Matthew McLaughlin, who has been openly hostile to DSA’s program and its members — and who has taken developer money.

    McLaughlin, Connolly argued, is a committed progressive who helped win Somerville for Bernie Sanders and has been a powerful ally on the housing justice fight. Asked about the claim of taking developer money, Connolly said he wasn’t sure. “I have no idea,” he said. “Matt is a working-class ward councilor, Iraq war vet, rock solid progressive, tireless canvasser for Bernie Sanders, the first of the current wave of socialists and progressives to be elected to the Somerville City Council, who has been deeply involved in fighting for justice in our community, including countless fights taking on real estate developers and landlords. I haven’t gone through his campaign finance report line by line, but the last thing anyone who is active in our community would think about Matt is that he’s in the pocket of anyone. Isn’t it up to the prosecution to provide the details of their evidence?”

    Boston DSA did not respond to a request for comment or backup on the claim of developer money. McLaughlin told The Intercept that he has a policy of not taking developer money, but that he also uses the fundraising platform ActBlue, so sometimes contributions come in and land in his treasury before he returns them. He added that the year Connolly endorsed him, McLaughlin was working closely with DSA to help elect its candidates to City Council, which he said ought to undercut their allegation. McLaughlin represents roughly 10,000 people on the City Council and said a highly competitive candidate will raise something like $40,000 total. 

    The bad blood between a handful of Somerville DSA members, McLaughlin, and other progressives in Somerville dates to an Our Revolution candidate forum in 2021. DSA members running the forum, after managing to take over Our Revolution, blocked a council candidate, Stephenson Aman, a Haitian American organizer who’d grown up in local housing projects, from participating. The local DSA had endorsed a different candidate. McLaughlin and others withdrew from the endorsement process and issued scathing statements in protest. “The movement’s failure to organize low-income neighborhoods after years of activism makes the exclusion of Stephenson, who grew up in affordable housing, all the more problematic,” McLaughlin said at the time. “While Stephenson was denied entry outright, the other candidates of color were the victims of blatantly biased questions meant to humiliate them and promote members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Boston chapter, most of whom are white.” 

    While the charge he’s in the pocket of developers is absurd, McLaughlin said, the resolution does get one thing right. “One thing that’s accurate in that statement is Matt McLaughlin is hostile to DSA members. They’re incredibly hostile people,” he said, making clear he was referring to individuals within the group and not the organization itself. “This is a small clique of people who have decided for everybody that this is who we are and what we’re about. They think they are the movement.”

    “The fact that I’m mentioned with the governor, the mayor of Boston, and the royal family” — see the final charge, further below — “just shows that this is someone from Somerville with an ax to grind,” he added.

    3. Public statements and legislative actions which are in substantial disagreement with the national political platform on Housing for All

    • Promoting “landlords for affordable housing” group

    From a tactical perspective, said Connolly, it is effective to have an organized group of landlords willing to testify on behalf of rent control and other housing policy reform items. One of his constituents who is a landlord, Melissa McWhinney, has organized other landlords to fight on behalf of tenant protections and for rent control. The entire concept of rent control leaves in place the landlord but merely regulates the rent. So as long as DSA remains an advocate for rent control, even as an intermediary step toward full socialization of housing, it must acknowledge the continued role of landlords, Connolly said. Rather than refuse landlord support, his political strategy is to split landlords into divided camps. 

    • Public statements in favor of “fair rate of return/operating income to landlords”

    Again, allowing a rate of return to landlords is a central element of any rent control policy, Connolly said. If DSA supports rent control, it supports a fair rate of return to landlords. The hangup over the landlord income is reflective of a lack of imagination among some advocates, he added, who should set their goals beyond mere rent control and toward social housing, which Connolly champions in the statehouse. “Don’t idolize rent control,” Connolly said.

    • Publicly advocated for a milquetoast version of rent stabilization that is out-of-step with what the chapter’s members have organized for.

    The city of Boston, after the 2021 election of Mayor Michelle Wu, produced a rent stabilization plan that included just cause for eviction, which has been an elusive goal for the socialist movement in cities like New York. But the plan allowed up to a 10 percent increase annually to rent, which some DSA members felt was too generous to landlords. The city needed state legislative approval for the plan, and ultimately Connolly and other DSA-backed legislators decided to support it. In the end, he said, it was preposterous to think that the state legislature would approve a plan to the left of Boston’s, so they decided to back it. 

    Connolly added that the repeated attacks on his housing policy agenda were “a real kick in the shins” because he grew up in public housing, is a lifelong renter, has never owned a home, and has been the champion and author of the most far-reaching housing legislation introduced in the state and probably the country. 

    4. Public statements which are in substantial disagreement with the national political platform on International Solidarity, Anti-Imperialism, and Anti-Militarism

    • Support and promotion of the British royal family’s greenwashing junket to Somerville.

    This charge refers to Connolly’s decision to attend an event held by Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, when they visited a green-focused co-working space in Somerville.

    Massachusetts Peace Action, the most active anti-imperialist organization in the area, has condemned this bullet, saying on Twitter that Connolly “is a leader for peace and justice and has proven it over and over again. We hope @Boston_DSA members will reject the ludicrous attempt to expel him. They should instead honor his work.”

    Connolly said that he stood on the floor above Harry and Meghan, looking down at them right near Bunker Hill, which he thought at the time was delicious symbolism. “There was sort of some element of me being a democratically elected representative of this district, having constituents invite me to witness their engagement with this royal couple — it felt to me like it was something good to do for those constituents who it was meaningful to,” he said. “It certainly is in no way, you know, any kind of support or endorsement for anything to do with the imperialism, colonialism, or all of the other shenanigans that have to do with the royal family.”

    The post Boston DSA Is Moving to Expel One of its Success Stories. Here Are the Charges Against Mike Connolly, and His Defense. appeared first on The Intercept.

  • A key Florida state government appointee of Ron DeSantis hosted a high-dollar fundraiser for the governor’s presidential campaign on Wednesday evening in The Villages, according to an invitation reviewed by The Intercept. The host, Gary Lester, is also a top executive at The Villages, a retirement community owned by a corporation with close ties to DeSantis.

    Lester, in sending his invitation to the high-dollar affair being held at a secret location, used his Villages Inc. email and instructed attendees to RSVP to his Villages assistant. 

    Lester was appointed by DeSantis last year to a five-year term on the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Aside from the incongruity of putting an official from one of the state’s largest developers on an environmental conservation commission, the fundraiser hosted by Lester represents a further blending of official state business with campaign fundraising.

    While DeSantis is presenting himself as capable of making good on his rival Donald Trump’s unfulfilled pledge to root out corruption in politics, DeSantis recently came under scrutiny when his administration was revealed to be pressuring state lobbyists to donate to his campaign. Ten Florida lobbyists told NBC News that at least four different DeSantis administration officials had been soliciting contributions from lobbyists with business before the governor and legislature, which some of them described as a “prisoner’s dilemma.” 

    The DeSantis administration did not respond to a request for comment, but officials there have previously insisted that administration staff do not lose their First Amendment rights to donate to DeSantis and raise money for him, though ethics experts have highlighted the blurry lines and the risk of an appearance of corruption.

    When DeSantis flew 48 Venezuelan asylum-seekers to Martha’s Vineyard last September, The Intercept reported that the flights had been contracted to an aviation firm with ties to top Florida GOP officials close to DeSantis. The firm, Vertol Systems, contributed to the campaigns of the Florida Legislature’s appropriations chief, who himself oversaw the budget containing the contract for the flights, as well as his DeSantis transportation-appointee father.


    Related

    How a Grassroots Revolt in the Iconic Retirement Community Ended With a 72-Year-Old Political Prisoner


    In January, The Intercept reported that Lester warned local county commissioners that if they bucked The Villages Inc. on a key tax break for further development, he could call DeSantis at any moment. “Just remember one thing,” Lester reportedly told one commissioner. “I’m a big person, you’re a little person. I can squash you anytime I want.” DeSantis eventually removed the commissioners from elected office, and they were prosecuted by a local Republican state attorney on extraordinarily dubious charges. Lester did not respond to a request for comment.

    The invitation lists a dinner and VIP reception for two as costing $13,200. Couples who skipped the VIP portion and only attended the dinner got in for just $6,600 total.

    “We didn’t drain it,” DeSantis said recently in New Hampshire, referring to Trump’s proverbial swamp. “It’s worse today than it’s ever been by far.” But it appears the only swamps being drained on DeSantis’s watch are ones that can be paved for development projects by his politically connected corporate allies. 

    The post DeSantis State Government Appointee Holds DeSantis Fundraiser in The Villages appeared first on The Intercept.

  • The U.S. Chamber of Commerce hosted Michael Morell, former acting director of the CIA, at a major gathering for corporate executives on Monday, according to a copy of the agenda obtained by The Intercept. The invitation to Morell — who spoke at the Association Committee of 100 in conversation with a top Chamber executive — is another sign of the increasingly warm ties between the Chamber of Commerce and the network of Democratic-aligned opponents of Donald Trump that the former president maligns as the “deep state.” 

    Morell is a controversial career official at the CIA who played a key role in the Bush-era torture program and the subsequent spying on the U.S. Senate done to thwart an investigation into what the administration had dubbed “enhanced interrogation.” Morell, after leaving the CIA, joined a private consulting firm, Beacon Global Strategies, linked to former allies of the Clintons. He endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016, warning that Trump was a threat to national security, and in 2020, he teamed with the Biden campaign to organize a letter arguing that Hunter Biden’s leaked laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

    It turned out the laptop’s journey from a Wilmington, Delaware, computer repair store to the New York Post was a Rudy Giuliani-led information operation — and that the laptop also happened to be real. The Morell letter was used by the Biden campaign to muffle coverage of the laptop and its contents. Joe Biden himself cited the letter in a debate with Trump. “There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant,” Biden said, though this is not true. The letter itself had been more cautious, adding the caveat that the signers “do not have evidence of Russian involvement.” 

    But the clear intent of the letter, to link the laptop with Russian election interference, was picked up in substance by the press. Morell himself later said he was contacted by Biden aide Antony Blinken, now secretary of state, and urged to help organize the letter. One motivation, he said, was to help elect Biden. 

    “There were two intents. One intent was to share our concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue,” Morell said. “And, two, it was to help vice president Biden.”

    Asked why, he added, “Because I wanted him to win the election.” As a result of Morell’s efforts, he has moved into the inner circle of Trump’s most despised adversaries, making his invitation to speak at the Chamber event another sign of the strained relationship between the Chamber and the MAGA wing of the Republican Party, which is otherwise known as the Republican Party. That the Chamber and the GOP are locked in such a battle is a stark departure from decades of political allegiance between the largest voice for big business in America and the party that represented those interests most vocally.

    Related

    House Republicans Plan to Investigate Chamber of Commerce if They Take the Majority

    The rift between the Trump wing of the party and the Chamber began during the 2016 campaign, during which the pro-business lobby did not get behind Trump soon enough, Trump later let the Chamber know. Trump and his allies felt further betrayed after Republicans moved through Congress a multitrillion-dollar tax cut, only to see the Chamber increasingly endorse Democrats in close House races. Senate Republicans such as Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas rarely miss an opportunity to lambaste the Chamber; House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., have made their refusal to meet with the organization conspicuous

    “The priorities of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have not aligned with the priorities of House Republicans or the interests of their own members, and they should not expect a meeting with Speaker McCarthy as long as that’s the case,” Mark Bednar, a spokesperson for McCarthy, told CNBC. 

    But Morell’s appearance also signals that big business has interests that go beyond Trump’s many grievances related to the 2020 election. Morell’s talk, according to a source, focused on the geopolitics of the U.S.’s ongoing confrontations with Russia and China — pocketbook concerns for the Chamber’s Association Committee of 100, which is made up of top corporate executives. His talk was moderated by John G. Murphy, a Chamber executive who leads international policy. “We don’t comment on the agenda or speakers at these events, but we always invite and hear from a variety of leaders and subject matter experts,” said Kasper Zeuthen, a spokesperson for the Chamber.

    The post U.S. Chamber of Commerce Invites Trump Bête Noire Michael Morell to Speak at Major Gathering appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • One of the first Wuhan researchers reportedly sickened with Covid in fall 2019, Ben Hu, was getting U.S. financial support for risky gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, according to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the transparency advocacy organization White Coat Waste Project.

    The funding came in three grants totaling $41 million, doled out by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NIAID, the agency then headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Hu is listed as lead researcher on the grants, all of which were initiated in 2019 and ran through at least 2021.

    The news that U.S. intelligence had learned that three Wuhan Institute of Virology lab workers had been hospitalized with Covid symptoms in November 2019, significantly before the outbreak at the city’s seafood market, was first reported by the Wall Street Journal in May 2021. But the revelation had curiously little impact on the broader debate over the origin of the pandemic, even as it would invalidate, if confirmed, the claim that the pandemic originated at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market when the virus allegedly jumped from an animal to a human. No such animal has been identified, but new reporting by Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi, sourced to three government sources familiar with a State Department investigation, has identified the three lab workers as Ben Hu, Yu Ping, and Yan Zhu.

    The NIAID grants list Hu as a lead investigator in the projects being funded. Hu is a top deputy to Shi Zhengli, known in the virology world as “batwoman” for her work extracting samples of viruses from bats in Chinese caves. The FOIA documents were first obtained by White Coat Waste in 2021 but given new relevance with the reporting of Hu’s involvement.

    The Times of London, meanwhile, also recently reported new details about activity in the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the run-up to the pandemic, similarly sourced to three investigators with the U.S. State Department. That report includes allegations about the Wuhan labs’ collaboration with Chinese military scientists, buttressing what had once been dismissed as a fringe conspiracy theory: that the virus was connected to bioweapons research. “In the lead-up to the pandemic, the Wuhan institute frequently experimented on coronaviruses alongside the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, a research arm of the People’s Liberation Army,” the Times reported. “In published papers, military scientists are listed as working for the Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, which is the military academy’s base.”

    Much of the focus of the Times investigation is on a virus found in a mine where workers were sickened in 2012, leading to hospitalizations and deaths. Another key question probed by the State Department investigators relates to a project proposed to the Pentagon by Shi and two collaborators, Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina, and Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance. The proposal, submitted to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, entailed inserting a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus. It was rejected, but speculation remains as to whether some of the research was conducted anyway.

    “The investigators spoke to two researchers working at a US laboratory who were collaborating with the Wuhan institute at the time of the outbreak,” the Times reported. “They said the Wuhan scientists had inserted furin cleavage sites into viruses in 2019 in exactly the way proposed in Daszak’s failed funding application to Darpa.” A key hallmark of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, is its furin cleavage site.

    Congress has mandated the U.S. government to declassify information related to the pandemic’s origin and the Wuhan Institute of virology by Sunday, June 18.

    Join The Conversation


    This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Ryan Grim.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Earlier this month, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., announced that a document in possession of the FBI that relates to Hunter and Joe Biden “has not been disproven and is currently being used in an ongoing investigation.” In the hands of conservative media and some leading Republicans, that double negative quickly transformed into affirmative proof of a criminal bribery scheme involving the Ukrainian natural gas company that had hired Hunter while his father was vice president.

    The idea that the charge has been proven is preposterous, but readers looking for details on the case have little place to turn outside of the conservative news outlets that have been making such claims. Yet if the FBI is telling Congress that it hasn’t disproved the allegation, it does raise serious questions: What exactly are the Bidens accused of doing? What is this document? And what has the FBI done to test the veracity of that evidence?

    What Is the Allegation?

    The charge is straightforward: If all the claims in the document are to be believed, a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, funneled $5 million to then-Vice President Joe Biden so that he would pressure Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma for corruption. Joe Biden did in fact successfully push the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor in March 2016, though as his defenders point out, getting the prosecutor fired was official U.S. policy.

    What Is the Document?

    The evidence in question is a so-called FD-1023, which the FBI produces to memorialize a tip or some other information provided to the agency by a confidential human source, or CHS. More or less anybody who walks into an FBI field office and provides information would have their claims documented in an FD-1023, which does not assess the credibility of the claim or otherwise couple it with analysis of existing information. In May, an FBI whistleblower came forward to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, alleging the existence of a damning FD-1023 involving Joe and Hunter Biden. Grassley made the claim public, but the FBI was initially reluctant to confirm the existence of the document. FBI Director Christopher Wray eventually did so.

    The House Oversight Committee asked for a copy of the document, and the FBI at first refused, saying releasing it to Congress would carry substantial risks but that members of Congress could view it in person at FBI headquarters.

    “Revealing unverified or possibly incomplete information could harm investigations, prejudice prosecutions or judicial proceedings, unfairly violate privacy or reputations, create misimpressions in the public, or potentially identify individuals who provide information to law enforcement, placing their physical safety at risk,” the FBI said in a statement. “Information from confidential human sources and members of the public is critical to the work of the FBI and we are also committed to protecting the confidentiality of anyone who comes forward.”

    The FBI later compromised, allowing members of the committee to view the document on Thursday in a highly secure Capitol Hill room known as a SCIF (short for “sensitive compartmented information facility”), with additional opportunity to view it Monday and Tuesday.

    What Does the Document Say?

    What we know about the document comes from public statements made by Grassley and Comer and leaks to the media, including The Intercept. The picture that emerges: The confidential human source reported to the FBI — which has reportedly deemed the source to be “highly credible” — in June 2020 that they had a conversation with a Ukrainian Burisma executive while Biden was vice president either in 2015 or 2016. The executive asked the source for help linking Burisma up with an American energy company, and the CHS asked why their help was needed if the company had Hunter Biden, who sat on the company’s board. The executive said Biden was “dumb” — he was in the trough of addiction at the time — and that he had paid $5 million to Hunter Biden and $5 million to Joe Biden through a variety of accounts that would take years to disentangle.

    Yet even if everything in the document is true, there is still an interpretation that would stop short of implicating Joe Biden: Hunter Biden could have been lying in order to extract more money from Burisma. The document does not (and cannot) answer the question of whether Hunter Biden told the company the truth about splitting the money with his father, or whether it was a way to shakedown additional money and appear more influential than he was. In that scenario, the Burisma executive would have believed he was bribing the vice president, yet his son would have pocketed the money. The Burisma executive reportedly told the CHS that he did not pay Joe Biden directly. He’d therefore have no way of knowing if Joe Biden got the money.

    In the past, Hunter Biden has shared money with his father, including paying bills at Joe Biden’s Wilmington home. In a text message Hunter Biden sent to his daughter Naomi in 2019, he hinted at some type of arrangement. “I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years,” Hunter Biden complained. “It’s really hard. But don’t worry, unlike pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary.”

    A Daily Mail tabulation of the former vice president’s finances identified a $5.2 million discrepancy between his tax returns and public financial disclosures.

    On the Senate floor Monday evening, Grassley said that he had read the document with minimal redactions and that it contained a claim that the Burisma executive also kept 15 recordings of conversations with Hunter Biden and two with Vice President Joe Biden as “a sort of insurance policy for the foreign national in case that he got into a tight spot.”

    The reference to the audio recordings, according to a source familiar with the document, is included in the version made available to Grassley, Comer, and Democratic ranking member Jamie Raskin of Maryland, but was redacted in the version made available to the rank-and-file committee members.

    Why Did It Take Until June 2020 for the Source to Reveal the Information?

    In January 2020, Trump ally Rudy Giuliani shared a trove of information related to Hunter Biden with the FBI. The bureau referred those documents to the Western District of Pennsylvania, which had previously been assigned to handle any incoming election-related information. While taking initial steps to verify Giuliani’s information, a search of FBI records turned up previous FD-1023s from the CHS, which included allegations made in 2017 and 2018 that mirrored some of what was in Giuliani’s cache, according to a source on the House Oversight Committee. The FBI then reached back out to the CHS to reinterview the source about their conversation with the Burisma executive, which produced the new FD-1023 in June 2020.

    What Do We Know About the FBI and Confidential Human Sources?

    The FBI has for years faced criticism over inadequate vetting of its confidential human sources.

    While the bureau maintains a sizable CHS program — shelling out an average of $42 million in payments to informants each year — it is overseen by an understaffed team of just a few individuals backlogged with requests to vet the credibility of existing CHSs, according to a 2019 Department of Justice inspector general audit. Since many CHSs have themselves been charged with serious crimes — often the basis of their cooperation — this can pose serious risks as to their reliability.

    The report drew particular attention to the bureau’s insufficient vetting of its long-term sources who can become overly familiar with their handlers and compromise their sense of objectivity. The audit cited as an example of the infamous case of mobster-turned-informant Whitey Bulger, who had grown so close to his FBI handler that he tipped him off prior to his arrest. The scandal spurred a review of the attorney general’s CHS guidelines, which now require the FBI to revalidate long-term CHSs at regular intervals. (The report found the FBI was not in compliance with these guidelines.)

    In the case of the FD-1023 involving the Bidens, the FBI initially cited source protection as a reason not to share the document with Congress.

    Yet the secrecy the FBI says is necessary to protect sources can also obscure the credibility of the source. Ironically, one of the sources at the heart of the now discredited Steele dossier, which included explosive allegations about then-candidate Donald Trump, was a confidential human source for the FBI. Igor Danchenko, the dossier’s primary subsource whom the U.S. government likewise deemed credible, continued to serve as a CHS from 2017 through 2020, with the FBI paying him over $200,000. Top Republicans, including Grassley, then a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, excoriated the bureau for its reliance on “unverified” allegations to launch their probe into Trump.

    The secrecy the FBI says is necessary to protect sources can also obscure the credibility of the source.

    Still, top Republicans are now citing exactly the kind of evidence — a confidential human source relaying the unverified allegations of a Ukrainian business executive — that they dismissed as unreliable when it came to Trump and the dossier.

    “The FBI created this record based on information from a credible informant who has worked with the FBI for over a decade and paid six figures,” Comer said last week.

    Last Wednesday, Comer unveiled a resolution to hold contempt of Congress hearings against Wray, a historically unprecedented course of action that the FBI complained was an “escalation” that was “unwarranted.” Comer walked back those plans after the FBI agreed to let members of the Oversight Committee review the FD-1023.

    For civil liberties advocates, the GOP’s recent interest in abuses by federal law enforcement is a welcome if late development.

    The FBI has “long abused this privilege to withhold information that’s merely embarrassing to the bureau. … It isn’t partisan politics but rather interest in protecting the FBI from criticism.”

    “The FBI has a long history of rebuffing, delaying, and refusing congressional requests for information,” Mike German, a former FBI special agent and fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program, told The Intercept. “Obviously, there are some good reasons to withhold information regarding active investigations, investigations not resulting in an indictment, grand jury investigations, and source identification, but they have long abused this privilege to withhold information that’s merely embarrassing to the bureau.”

    But the bureau’s lack of responsiveness to Congress is not a partisan tendency.

    “Sen. Grassley has been most aggressive in publicizing these complaints, but the FBI refuses to cooperate with Democratic members’ requests too,” German said. “It isn’t partisan politics but rather interest in protecting the FBI from criticism.”

    What’s Next?

    In probing Wray about what steps the FBI has taken to check out the information provided in the FD-1023 — much of which can be tested against bank records or by attempting to obtain the alleged audio recordings — House Republicans say they have been told only that the evidence is part of an ongoing investigation.

    The FD-1023 makes reference to two other FD-1023s, according to a committee source. On Monday, Comer vowed that he will gain access to additional FBI documents related to the matter. Wray has agreed to allow Comer and Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, to view them privately, though he has not agreed to open it up to all committee members.

    Records like these could provide fodder for additional subpoenas, like the one Comer sent to a Biden family associate Monday for testimony around his knowledge of the family’s business deals abroad.

    Comer also said that the committee will be creating new legislation compelling senior elected officials’ family members to disclose more information regarding foreign transactions.

    “Moreover, in order to prevent financial transactions from being structured in a way to evade oversight, the Committee is examining whether certain reporting requirements,” Comer wrote in a letter attached to the subpoena, “including any new reporting requirements for senior elected officials’ family members, should extend for a period of time after a President or Vice President leaves office.”

    Democrats are highly skeptical that the Trump administration possessed actionable and damning information against Joe Biden but didn’t use it during the 2020 campaign, while Republicans charge the FBI covered up the evidence to protect Biden. Raskin has argued that Republicans should train their fire on the previous administration because it was the Trump FBI that shut down the investigation. The FBI did indeed close its investigation into the claims made by Giuliani in 2020, but a separate investigation into Hunter Biden is ongoing. 

    There is some dispute over whether the FD-1023 ever moved from the Giuliani probe to the Hunter Biden one. Wray told Grassley that the document was related to an ongoing investigative matter, according to Grassley spokesperson Taylor Foy. Yet Democrats who have viewed the document said the FBI has told them the investigation into the allegations contained in the document was closed in 2020 after the bureau concluded there wasn’t sufficient evidence to justify continuing with it. 

    Former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr, meanwhile, told Fox News that the investigation into the specific allegations contained in the FD-1023 was never closed. Rather, Barr said, the evidence was assessed not to be disinformation and forwarded on to the Delaware prosecutor probing Hunter Biden, an investigation that remains ongoing — frustratingly so for Barr. “I think it’s time to fish or cut bait and find out what actually happened in that investigation,” he said. 

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Tuesday dismissed Grassley’s claim of audio recordings between the Burisma executive and Vice President Joe Biden. “It’s malarkey,” she said.

    The post What Does the FBI Have on Hunter and Joe Biden? appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • A broad swath of leftist leaders from around the world warned in a letter Wednesday that “a soft coup” is underway in Colombia, accusing the country’s opposition of illegally working to remove President Gustavo Petro and many of his key allies from power. 

    The letter is signed by the former Colombian President Ernesto Samper; Gleisi Hoffmann, head of the Workers’ Party, the current ruling party of Brazil under Lula da Silva; Rafael Correa, the former president of Ecuador; former Spanish President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero; and the former heads of opposition parties around the world, including Jeremy Corbyn of the United Kingdom and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a former French presidential candidate. 

    “Ever since the election of the country’s first progressive government,” the letter reads, “Colombia’s traditional powers have been organizing to restore an order marked by extreme inequality, environmental destruction, and state-sponsored violence.” The letter comes in defense of a Petro administration facing a cascading series of struggles.

    Petro, a former guerilla, swept to power in June 2022 pledging peace deals with the country’s remaining rebels, along with a robust domestic policy agenda. But he lacked a majority in Congress and created a coalition with rival parties that included ceding control of some ministries. His health care reform effort was shot down by Congress, and the peace deals remain elusive. His top aides recently resigned after getting caught up in a bizarre scandal in which state resources were used to surveil a nanny they suspected of having stolen money. The scandal deepened with the release this weekend of audio of the top aides bickering and threatening to release damaging information related to Petro’s campaign. 

    Petro said that he has nothing to fear from the ongoing investigations, though the group of progressive leaders are less sanguine about the politics. “[T]hey are deploying the combined institutional power of the country’s regulatory agencies, media conglomerates, and judiciary branch to halt its reforms, intimidate its supporters, topple its leadership, and defame its image on the international stage,” the group of more than 400 international progressives warns.

    In January, nine members of Congress, led by Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., penned a letter to Francisco Palmieri, chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia, expressing concern about the security of Vice President Francia Márquez. Explosives had recently been discovered near her home. The letter was also signed by Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.; Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz.; Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Jim McGovern, D-Mass.; Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; Mark Pocan, D-Wis.; Cori Bush, D-Mo.; and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. 

    The Wednesday letter took particular aim at the opposition’s use of the offices of inspector general and attorney to target Petro and his allies. Those investigations could lead to the expulsion of party members from Parliament or even the removal of Petro, the letter warned, adding that “established legal precedent at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights” insists that administrative bodies lack such power. One senator, Wilson Arias, for instance, is being investigated for “slandering” the police as a result of critical comments he made about them in 2021. 

    Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli, a Colombia human rights advocate at the Washington Office on Latin America, said that many of the investigations appeared to be an abuse of power. “The Attorney General is abusing his power to undermine the Petro government’s policies,” she told The Intercept. “The motivations of the Inspector General to open up cases against members of the Historic Pact are questionable.”

    The scandal involving Petro’s top aides, she said, has been overblown by the media but did raise questions about why he allowed Armando Benedetti, one of the top aides who recently resigned, to run his campaign.

    “The reaction of the opposition and media outlets in relation to the scandal involving Benedetti and [Laura Sarabia] Sanabria is overblown,” she said. “It appears they were waiting for a reason to push forward a campaign to discredit the Petro government. At the same time, Benedetti has a problematic history and it is hard to understand why Petro would have him run his presidential campaign.”

    The full letter: 

    Ever since the election of the country’s first progressive government — led by President Gustavo Petro, Vice President Francia Márquez and the Historic Pact in Congress — Colombia’s traditional powers have been organizing to restore an order marked by extreme inequality, environmental destruction, and state-sponsored violence.

    Now, less than one year from the inauguration of the Petro government, they are deploying the combined institutional power of the country’s regulatory agencies, media conglomerates, and judiciary branch to halt its reforms, intimidate its supporters, topple its leadership, and defame its image on the international stage.

    From the Offices of the Inspector General and the Attorney General respectively, Margarita Cabello and Francisco Barbosa are actively targeting members of the Historic Pact with investigations that may result in the suspension, dismissal and disqualification of members of Congress such as Senator Alex Flórez, Senator Alexander López, House President David Racero, Representative Susana Gómez, lead peace negotiator María José Pizarro — and even President Petro himself.

    In the case of Senator Wilson Arias, for example, Cabello — a close ally of former President Álvaro Uribe who served as Justice Minister under the previous administration of Iván Duque — has filed charges for suspension from the Senate for the “crime” of speaking out against police violence during the 2021 national protests: a flagrant violation of the established legal precedent at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that prevents administrative bodies like the Office of the Inspector General from removing elected officials from office.

    Meanwhile, former generals, colonels, and members of the Colombian military have not only proclaimed their opposition to President Gustavo Petro — but even marched outside Congress to call for a coup d’etat against his government.

    The goal of this coordinated campaign is clear: to protect the interests of Colombia’s traditional powers from popular reforms that would raise wages, improve healthcare, protect the environment, and deliver ‘total peace’ to the country.

    We, the undersigned, call on friends of the Colombian people and allies of democracy everywhere to stand up against these insidious tactics and prevent the advance of a soft coup in Colombia.

    Join The Conversation


    This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Ryan Grim.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Imran Khan became Pakistan’s prime minister through a most unusual route. As he explained in an interview on Sunday night, Khan was for decades the nation’s most famous cricketer, before transitioning into the world of philanthropy, building hospitals and supporting universities. From there, he moved into politics, founding a party — the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or PTI — and sweeping into power in 2018. But he had a slim majority, and was ousted in a no-confidence vote by 2022. 

    Since then, he and his party have been the target of a relentless crackdown by the nation’s military, which has ruled the country directly or indirectly for decades. 

    Khan was arrested on May 9, 2023, by the military, and held for four days before the Supreme Court ruled his detention illegal. Protests erupted nationwide, some turning violent, and the military establishment responded by arresting most of Khan’s senior leadership and forcing them to resign from the party under pressure. Thousands of rank-and-file party workers have also been jailed. 

    Khan, meanwhile, is holed up in his home in Lahore, sifting through some 150 charges of corruption and other offenses that have been leveled at him — charges he and his supporters dismiss as politically motivated. Yet Khan remains a popular political figure heading into elections that are scheduled for October.

    He joined me last night to discuss his career, the political crisis facing Pakistan, and his diminishing hope for a negotiated resolution. What follows is a condensed version of our conversation; the transcript has been edited for clarity. Audio of the interview will be published tomorrow on my podcast Deconstructed

    Ryan Grim: Since you left office, you’ve been the target of an assassination attempt and a nationwide crackdown on your party, the PTI. Last month while sitting in a courtroom, you were hauled out and jailed by the military. For American viewers who haven’t been following this closely, can you tell us what happened that day and what led up to it?

    Imran Khan: I had gone there to get bail, and before leaving my house, I had recorded a video message saying, “Look if you want to arrest me, just bring a warrant and then take me.” There was a huge problem the 12th of March. There was a 24-hour attack on my house … which was illegal because all I had to do was give a surety bond that I would appear in court, and they couldn’t arrest me. But they refused to take the bond, and they kept attacking my house, and it was an awful situation. A lot of people got injured; a lot of our workers got injured trying to stop them from abducting me.

    So before leaving for Islamabad, I gave a statement, “Don’t do this again.” … I mean, it was a commando action. They beat up everyone who was in that registry office in the High Court. My [inaudible] were hit on the head, bleeding. I was then taken by all these commandos, really — they were there supposed to be Rangers, but they looked really scary. And then I was taken in jail.

    “The entire senior leadership is in jail. The only way they can get out of jail is if they say that they’re leaving my party.”

    The reaction was always going to be against the military. It was abduction, and later the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful. So there was this reaction in the streets. And as a result of that reaction, this crackdown has taken place where over 10,000 of my workers already in jail. Anyone to do with my party is picked up on a daily basis. And the rest of the party’s in hiding. The entire senior leadership is in jail. The only way they can get out of jail is if they say that they’re leaving my party.

    RG: Now, The Intercept recently reported that the military has ordered news outlets across the country not to cover you at all. How effective has that ban been? Have you heard directly from the media about those orders? What’s the effect been on Pakistan public opinion?

    IK: Well, the ban was [there] ever since I was ousted from power. And the then-army chief admitted afterward that it was him who thought I was dangerous for the country, and he engineered that conspiracy to get me out. So since then, most TV channels weren’t allowed to show me. And there were a couple of stations that would show me. And as a result, their ratings went very high. So about three, four months back, they went after those two channels, they shot one of them, they put the head of the channel in jail, the channel called BOL [News], the chief executive was put into jail. The channel then stopped showing me, and both the channels which were showing me, stopped showing me. No live coverage at all. This went to another level. Now my name is not allowed to be mentioned on television, on any electronic media or print media.

    “My name is not allowed to be mentioned on television, on any electronic media or print media.”

    RG: In the aftermath of your ouster, you suggested that the United States likely played some role in your removal or approved it. But you seem to have kind of downplayed that suggestion since then; why is that? And what do you think was the primary driver of your removal?

    IK: On the 6th of March 2022, there was a meeting between the Pakistani ambassador and the U.S. Under Secretary of State Don Lu. In that meeting, the meeting was recorded, and a cipher was sent to the Foreign Office and me. In the cipher, it said that Donald Lu [was] telling the ambassador that Imran Khan had to be removed as prime minister in a vote of no confidence; otherwise, there will be consequences to Pakistan. [The State Department did not offer any comment to The Intercept before publication.] The next day, 7th of March, was the vote of no confidence. So at the time, I thought it was really a U.S.-led conspiracy. Already, the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan was meeting those people who then defected from my party. So the U.S. Embassy was already meeting these people, the ones who jumped ship first. And then the moment the vote of no confidence came, then there were about 20 people who deserted my party, and the government fell.

    At the time, I thought it was U.S.-led. Later on, I discovered that it was the army chief, who actually fed the U.S. — he had a lobbyist in the U.S. called [former Pakistan ambassador to the U.S.] Husain Haqqani, hired by my government without me knowing it, who was actually telling the U.S. that I, Imran Khan, was anti-American and actually, the army chief was pro-American. [Haqqani told The Intercept and other news outlets that Khan’s claim is false.] So later on, we discovered that it was actually engineered from here because I had a perfectly good relationship with the Trump administration. So I couldn’t work out what had gone wrong. But then we discovered that it was the army chief who actually engineered this feeling that I was anti-American, in the U.S.

    RG: What do you think did go wrong? If you could go back to 2018 and give yourself a few pieces of advice just after your election, what would you tell yourself to do differently or nothing at all?

    IK: I would have gone back to the public. If I had not got a big mandate, you cannot make reforms. And I would not have taken government because what subsequently turned out was, I just could not bring the powerful under the law — and the powerful mafias that control Pakistan for so many years. I did not have the strength. They would undermine me. They would weaken my party. They would approach my party members. So I was always trying to keep my government together, and so that was the biggest mistake. And then I became over-reliant on the army, on the army chief, because the army is the most organized institution in Pakistan. It’s entrenched. I mean, it’s ruled directly or indirectly for almost 70 years. So I became more reliant on them, on the army chief. And the army chief was not interested in rule of law. He was not [inaudible] the powerful making money and siphoning money out of the country. So I failed. So that’s what I would have done differently.

    RG: You were criticized during your tenure as prime minister for cracking down on dissent and for suppression of free speech. As you look at what’s now happening to you, do you feel differently about the way that you approach dissent?

    IK: Now talking about the media, you cannot compare what is going on right now. I mean, you just have to look back: Our government was criticized by the media more than any other government. We didn’t even have a honeymoon. And it’s because the powerful media also is in the hands of the powerful, the vested interests who did not want to change. So the moment I would go for change, they would attack me. So firstly, the media was completely free. I mean, what is happening now you can’t compare. They’re shutting down media houses. One of our best investigative journalists was hounded out of Pakistan and then assassinated in Kenya. Today, the second best investigative journalist: now disappeared for 17 days, no one knows where he is. And then some of the top anchors or journalists would disappear and be mistreated and then beaten up. This sort of thing has never happened in my time. And now, of course, there is total censorship, we are back to the days of military dictatorship. But [Pervez] Musharraf’s dictatorship doesn’t even compare to what’s going on right now.

    RG: And is there anything concrete that you would urge the Biden administration or the United States to do to defend democracy now in Pakistan?

    IK: What I do think that the Biden administration must speak out are what are the professed Western values: democracy, constitutionalism, rule of law. Custodial torture is banned everywhere, which is going on in Pakistan right now, as I speak. My people have been subjected to torture. Our senator was tortured. One of my staff, he was picked up and tortured. So speak out against custodial torture, but most of all, fundamental rights. … So that’s all we expect: The U.S. being the guardian of Western values, they should just speak out about what their professed values are. The same things when they talk about China and when they talk about Russia, what’s happening in Hong Kong. I mean, much worse is happening right now in Pakistan.

    RG: How were you treated during your detention?

    IK: I was [detained for] four days, I wasn’t mistreated. I was just completely shut off from what was going on. I didn’t even know what was happening. All the street protests and the few buildings — there was arson in these buildings — I knew nothing about it until I was produced in front of the Supreme Court. But I wasn’t mistreated. I mean, I was mistreated in the way I was picked up and then taken into custody in that time, but once I was there, no, there was no mistreatment.

    RG: Were you interrogated? Were there any any threats, direct or veiled, made about your future role in Pakistani politics?

    IK: You know, this country knows me for 50 years. I mean, for 20 years, I was a leading sportsman in this country. And cricket is the biggest sport, and I was captain for 10 years. So I was in the media for a long time. And then I went into philanthropy and built the biggest charitable institutions, which are cancer hospitals, and the university, so people know me for a long time. They know that I’m not going to back down. But what they’re doing is — they have clearly stated to me, the establishment, that whatever happens, “You’re not going to be allowed to get back into power.”

    So what they’re doing now is, they are dismantling the party. But dismantling the biggest political party, the only federal party in Pakistan, is dismantling a democracy. And actually, that’s what’s going on. All the democratic institutions, the judiciary. I mean, the judiciary today is totally impotent in stopping this violation of fundamental rights. We went to the Supreme Court. According to the Constitution, the election in Punjab — the biggest province, which is 60 percent of Pakistan —was supposed to be held on the 14th of May. The government refused. So I mean, even the Supreme Court orders are not listened to. The judges give people bail, the police fix them up on some other cases. So this total violation of fundamental rights which is going on, I think this is — it’s all an attempt to weaken me and my party to the point that we will not be able to contest the elections. Because all the opinion polls show that we will win a massive majority in elections. Out of the 37 by-elections, my party has swept 30 of them, despite the establishment helping the government parties. So therefore, they know that in a free and fair election, we will just sweep. Hence, all these efforts are being made to completely dismantle my party and weaken it to the point that it will not be able to contest elections.

    RG: And this is a dark moment for your country, for your party, as you said, and for you yourself personally. But I’m curious: What are you looking forward to? In a best-case scenario, what’s the path out of this crisis?

    IK: It’s like a crossroads. One road is leading back to the bad old days of military dictatorship. Because that means, you know, we will regress the whole movement for democracy, which gradually evolved over a period of time. Our media really struggled valiantly for their freedom, and we had one of the freest medias. And then our judiciary was always subservient to the executive. But in 2007, [it] started a movement called the “Lawyer’s Movement,” and for the first time the judiciary asserted its independence. So the whole pillars of democracy now are being rolled back. The whole evolution, the steady move toward a democratic country is now all at stake. So either we allow this to go where it is going, an emerging military dictatorship. The other is, you know, we all try and all the democratic forces get together and strive for getting back to rule of law, democracy, and free and fair elections.

    RG: And as you confront this potential long term military dictatorship, how does it make you think back on your own support of the military and the coup of Pervez Musharraf, or having the military’s indirect support in your own election? Do you feel like there was a way to accomplish that without the military, or is Pakistan in a situation that reform is only possible through that institution?

    IK: Well, you know, just to make a correction: Mine is the only party that was never manufactured by the military. People’s Party, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, he served a dictator for eight years before he formed his party. The second party is [Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz]. The head of PMLN was actually nurtured by Gen. Zia-ul-Haq’s dictatorship. I mean, he was a nonentity. So he was actually a product of his military dictatorship.

    Mine is the only party for 22 years, from scratch I started, and actually broke through the two-party system. In the 2018 election, the army didn’t oppose me. But they didn’t help us in winning the election. The elections weren’t rigged, because it should be now obvious. Now despite the army, the establishment standing behind this government, we’ve swept 30 out of 37 by-elections. And all the opinion polls show that we are way ahead of everyone, almost 60 to 70 percent rating.

    “Our thought process has evolved to the point now, where there’s a consensus in Pakistan that a bad democracy is better than a military dictatorship.”

    And the other thing I want to say is, how is it different? When Ayub Khan, the first military dictator, took over, the majority of the population backed him, because at that time, we were very insecure and the army was the bastion of security. When Zia-ul-Haq deposed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the second military dictator, half the population supported him. Half the vote was for Bhutto, but half the vote went against him. When Gen. Musharraf wound up our democracy in 1999, he had 80 percent rating in Pakistan, because he came on an anti-corruption platform. But this is a unique time in Pakistan: Almost the entire country is standing now for democracy. There are no takers for military dictatorship anymore. So it’s a unique situation, because our thought process has evolved to the point now, where there’s a consensus in Pakistan that a bad democracy is better than a military dictatorship.

    RG: It feels like the military may see this crisis and this conflict as existential for them. That given what you’ve said, that the country, the population, has now turned against them, if they lose power, they may be pushed off the stage entirely. And so cornered, that may explain some of the reaction that you’re seeing. So how do you navigate that situation: Where they currently have you literally and politically surrounded, but if you escape, they face an existential crisis?

    IK: Well, you see, when I was in … power, I recognized that, you know, you can’t wish away the military. You have to work with them, because they’ve been entrenched for 70 years, directly or indirectly, they’ve ruled this country. So I worked with the army chief. And apart from the fact that he would not, he did not understand what rule of law meant, or didn’t want to understand — apart from that, we had a working relationship. When and why he decided to pull the rug under my feet, I still don’t know, at what point he decided that I was dangerous to the country. But in the last six months he conspired to get rid of me, why he decided to change horses, because he backed the current prime minister who was facing massive corruption cases. And so why he decided to do that? I think, my hunch is that he wanted an extension, and the current prime minister had promised him that. I guess that’s the reason. But really, he’s the best — he would know why. I don’t know why.

    So my point is the way Pakistan has been run — a hybrid system — it just cannot be run like this anymore. We are now facing the worst economic crisis in our history. And my point is that — I’ve offered talks to the military, to the army chief. But so far, there is no response. My point is that the hybrid system cannot work any longer. Because if a prime minister has the public mandate and the responsibility to deliver, he must have the authority. He can’t have a situation where he has the responsibility, but the authority, most of the authority lies with the military establishment.

    So a new equilibrium has to be made. You have to have some sort of an arrangement, where certain issues just have to be delivered in Pakistan. Pakistan cannot do without rule of law now, because we cannot get out of this economic mess unless we attract investment. But investment from abroad, that just does not come to a country where people do not have confidence in their justice system and the legal system and their contract enforcement. And therefore, Pakistanis go and invest in Dubai and in other countries, but they don’t invest in this country. We have 10 million Pakistanis [overseas]. If we could only get 5 percent of them investing in this country, we wouldn’t have any problems. But they do not have faith in our justice system. We are, out of the 140 countries in the rule of law index, Pakistan is 129. So with that a lack of rule of law, I’m afraid the country’s survival is at stake. So hence, a new equilibrium has to be made with the military establishment.

    RG: Final question: I know you said that you believe that the driver of your ouster was clearly internal and not driven from the outside. But I’m also curious, given that the U.S. expressed its private approval for you to be pushed out of office through a no confidence vote. I’m wondering what it was that you think drove the United States to that position. Do you think it had something to do with your willingness to work with the Taliban, after the Taliban took over in Afghanistan? Do you think it has something to do with the war in Ukraine? Or what is your read of the geopolitics that would have led the United States to go from supportive to willing to see you thrown out?

    IK: Well, for a start, you know, the war — the Trump administration acknowledged that I was the one who consistently kept saying there was not going to be a military solution in Afghanistan. It’s because I know Afghanistan. I know the history. And the province, the Pashtun province: Remember Afghanistan is 50 percent Pashtun, but the Pashtun population is twice as much in Pakistan. And my province where I first got into power is the Pashtun province bordering Afghanistan. So I kept saying there would not be any military solution. Trump administration acknowledged it. And they finally — when he decided to do the withdrawal, he understood there was not going to be a military solution. But I think this was taken wrong by the Biden administration; they somehow thought I was critical of the Americans, and I was sort of pro-Taliban. It’s total nonsense. It’s just simply that anyone who knows the history of Afghanistan just knows that they have a problem with outsiders. So the same happened with the British in the 19th century, the Soviets in the 20th century. Exactly the same was happening with the U.S. But it’s just that no one knew that. And so I think that was one reason.

    Secondly, I was anti the war on terror in Pakistan. Because remember, Pakistan — Pakistan, first of all, in the ’80s, created the mujahideen, who were conducting a guerrilla warfare against the Soviets. So it was from Pakistani soil. And we told them that doing jihad — jihad means fighting foreign occupation — you’re heroes, we encouraged it.

    Now come 10 years later, once the Soviets had left, the U.S. lands in Afghanistan. So I kept saying, look, let’s stay neutral. The same people who all the groups you have told and all along the border belt of Afghanistan, the Pashtuns, you’ve told that this was heroism to fight foreign occupation. How are you going to tell them that now that the Americans are there, it’s terrorism? So that’s what happened. The moment we joined the U.S. war on terror, they turned against us. 80,000 Pakistanis died in Afghanistan. No ally of U.S. has taken such heavy casualties as Pakistan did. And in the end, we couldn’t help the U.S. either, because we were trying to save ourselves. There were 40 different militant groups, at one point, working against the government. Islamabad was like under siege, there were suicide attacks everywhere. So all investment dried up in Pakistan, we had no investment coming in the country. Our economy tanked.

    So I think my opposition to the war on terror also was perceived as being anti-American, which it’s not, it’s just being nationalistic about your own country. And with the Taliban, when the Taliban took over, frankly, whichever government is in Afghanistan, Pakistan has to have good relationship with them. We have a 2,500-kilometer border with them. We have 3 million Afghan refugees here. And when the [Ashraf] Ghani government, before that I went to Afghanistan, Kabul, to meet him. I invited him to Pakistan, we tried our best to have good relationship with them. So whoever is in power in Afghanistan, Pakistan has to have good relationship, because at one point, during the previous government, there were three different terrorist groups using Afghan territory to attack Pakistan — the ISIL, Pakistani Taliban, and the Baloch Liberation organization — three different groups were attacking us. So therefore, you need a government in Afghanistan, which would be helpful. So it was not pro-Taliban. It’s basically pro-Pakistan, as anyone who cares about his country would make those decisions.

    RG: I know I said that was the last question, but I wanted to give the last word to you because every one of these interviews that you do now, with the posture of the military toward you, could be your last before an arrest or even worse. And so given that, is there any message broadly that you’d like to share, either with the United States or with the world?

    IK: Well, you’re right. I mean, there’ve been not one but two assassination attempts on me. And a third one, which I preempted, luckily, and then there are 150 cases against me, although most of them are bogus cases. But now they’ve started military courts. And the military courts is just because the normal judiciary just gives me bail, because of the frivolous cases. Now, I think they will try me in a military court to jail me, so that I’m out of the way.

    But the point is, it is not good for not just the region around Pakistan, not just for Pakistan. But I think, a country of 250 million people, it is very important that there’s stability here. Stability is only going to come through free and fair elections, because only a stable government with a public mandate then can start making the difficult decisions, reforms, structural changes, to actually get Pakistan back on the track.

    Any weak government, which does not have the support of the people, is going to struggle. So the need for Pakistan to be stable is free and fair elections, democracy, rule of law, constitutionalism. That’s the road for Pakistan toward stability. And where we are headed right now is exactly the opposite. And what the world can do is — and the Western world — speak about the values that are preached by them, which is exactly what we are trying to do, which is democracy and rule of law and fundamental rights, human rights. So everything is being violated right now. And while I think no other country can fix a country from within — it’s only we [who] can fix the country from within — but they can speak out of the violations that are going on in this country, of what the West professes to be their values.

    The post Imran Khan: U.S. Was Manipulated by Pakistan Military Into Backing Overthrow appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The Pakistani military invited the owners of the country’s major media organizations to Islamabad this week for a secret meeting to discuss coverage of the ongoing political and constitutional crisis, Pakistani journalists familiar with the gathering told The Intercept. The invitation was not one that could be refused, and the message was equally direct: Cease all coverage of former Prime Minister Imran Khan amid his ongoing clash with the military.

    Following the meeting, which has not been previously reported, top editors at news organizations across Pakistan issued directives to their journalists to pause coverage of Khan, said the Pakistani journalists, who requested anonymity for fear of their safety. An inspection of Pakistani media sites reveals a stark change. Earlier this week and every day for years before, Khan was a leading subject of coverage. He has effectively vanished from the news. The ban was confirmed by more than a half-dozen Pakistani journalists.

    “They have lots of levers to hurt media companies.”

    Khan is at the center of a political crisis that has paralyzed Pakistani cities, prompted clashes and riots targeting the all-powerful military, and seen tens of thousands of his political supporters sent to prison. You wouldn’t know that from reading the Pakistani press today, even as he continues a campaign against an attempt by the military to exclude him and his party from contesting upcoming elections.

    The recent crisis began when Khan was hit with corruption charges, which he and supporters of his political party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or PTI, claim to be a political exercise aimed at excluding him from politics.

    Khan, a former cricket player and philanthropist, has become Pakistan’s most popular politician by galvanizing public anger against the country’s dynastic political parties. He served as prime minister from 2018 to 2022, when he was removed from office by a coalition of opposition parties. While his original rise to power was widely believed to have been patronized from behind the scenes by the military itself, after falling out with military leadership, Khan has become a fierce opponent of their domineering role in politics.

    In Pakistan, there is no bigger story than the battle between Khan and the military, which has played out in spectacular fashion, including the extrajudicial arrest of Khan from inside a courtroom, sparking nationwide protests and, eventually, a Supreme Court order to free him. Khan is also the No. 1 driver of ratings and web traffic to news organizations — until Thursday, when he virtually disappeared from the national news media. (The Pakistani Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

    The explicit directive from the military was not delivered in writing, said sources. A more vaguely worded order was issued by Pakistan’s Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, which oversees television stations, barring coverage of “hate mongers, rioters, their facilitators and perpetrators.” The directive does not name Khan, but its meaning is clear. On May 9, following Khan’s arrest, protests erupted around the country, with some leading to arson. Khan has called for an independent inquiry into the cause of the arson and has suggested the military may have carried it out as to create a pretext for the resulting crackdown.

    Related

    Imran Khan’s Ousting and the Crisis of Pakistan’s Military Regime

    The PTI’s U.S. Twitter account condemned what it called censorship. “Trying to keep Imran Khan off the media is censorship and curtailment of media freedom by the imposed regime in Pakistan,” the party said.

    BBC’s Caroline Davies reported that sources at two different Pakistani TV stations had said they were under orders not to mention Khan, even in the ticker tape running along the bottom.

    In the wake of the military’s imposed blackout over Pakistani media, Khan has taken to Western press and social media platforms like Twitter to try and get his message out. Even these platforms have not escaped censorship: Many Pakistani social media users have reported being contacted by the military over their posts and asked to remove them, lest they find themselves in prison as thousands of other supporters of Khan’s party have over the past several weeks.

    Thousands of Khan’s loyalists have been imprisoned in recent weeks, and most of his party leadership has similarly been jailed, released only on the condition they publicly resign from the party. Several high-profile former officials have recently been forced to give bizarre press conferences following their arrests in which they announce their resignation from the PTI and, often, politics in general.

    The post In Secret Meeting, Pakistani Military Ordered Press to Stop Covering Imran Khan appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The FBI has reopened an investigation into Australian journalist Julian Assange, according to front-page reporting from the Sydney Morning Herald

    The news that the FBI is taking fresh investigative steps came as a surprise to Assange’s legal team, given that the U.S. filed charges against the WikiLeaks founder more than three years ago and is involved in an ongoing extradition process from a maximum security prison in the United Kingdom so that he can stand trial in the United States. 

    Assange is charged under the Espionage Act with obtaining, possessing, and publishing classified information that exposed U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, crimes that themselves have gone unpunished. 

    The Morning Herald reporting also comes amid heightened hopes in Australia that a resolution to the case, which has raised serious press freedom issues in the U.S. and abroad, was near at hand. The country’s ruling party has spoken in defense of Assange, as has the nation’s opposition party leader. In early May, a cross-party delegation of influential Australian lawmakers met with the U.S. Ambassador Caroline Kennedy, urging that a deal be struck to return Assange to Australia before U.S.-Australian relations were harmed further by the prosecution. 

    The U.S. has otherwise complicated its relationship with Australia in recent weeks even as it seeks closer ties in order to compete with China in the region. Australia spent weeks preparing for Joe Biden to make a major visit to the nation in May, only to see him cancel the trip at the last minute to fly back from Japan to continue with debt ceiling negotiations. And this week, the U.S. also warned Australia that some of its military units may be ineligible to cooperate with U.S. forces due to their own alleged war crimes in Australia. It is not lost on the Australian public that Assange is being prosecuted for uncovering and publishing evidence of U.S. war crimes. 

    In May, the Morning Herald reported, the FBI requested an interview with Andrew O’Hagan, who was brought on more than 10 years ago to work as a ghostwriter on Assange’s autobiography. The FBI may have thought he would be cooperative because O’Hagan’s relationship with Assange soured; O’Hagan publicly criticized Assange as narcissistic and difficult to work with and published an unauthorized version in the London Review of Books instead. But O’Hagan told the Morning Herald he was not willing to participate in his prosecution. “I might have differences with Julian, but I utterly oppose all efforts to silence him,” he said.

    In 2010 and 2011, in conjunction with major papers around the world, WikiLeaks published leaked documents and videos related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, evidence of war crimes, and other documents that exposed corruption on a grand scale. The disclosures helped trigger the Arab Spring, popular revolts against dictators across the Middle East and North Africa. 

    The Obama administration considered prosecuting Assange but decided they couldn’t overcome “the New York Times problem”: They couldn’t figure out, in other words, how to prosecute him but not the Times. 

    The case is now under the zealous guidance of Gordon Kromberg, a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, though the reopening of the investigation suggests the government has doubts that its case will hold up in court. 

    A coalition of major newspapers around the world has urged the Biden administration to drop charges against Assange. Yahoo News reported that the Trump administration considered ways to kidnap or assassinate the journalist. 

    The U.S. State Department was not immediately able to comment.

    Update: June 1, 2023, 12:25 p.m.
    The original headline of this story said the FBI has reopened a case “against Assange,” though the precise target of the FBI’s new investigation is not publicly known. The FBI relayed to O’Hagan that it wanted to interview him about his participation in Assange’s autobiography.

    The post FBI Reopens Case Around Julian Assange, Despite Australian Pressure to End Prosecution appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The war in Yemen looks like it’s coming to an end. U.S. media reported on Thursday that a cease-fire extending through 2023 had been agreed to, but those reports also included Houthi denials. On Friday, Al Mayadeen, a generally pro-Houthi Lebanese news outlet, reported optimism from the Houthi side that the deal is real and the war is winding down. Reuters later on Friday matched Al Mayadeen’s reporting, confirming that Saudi envoys will be traveling to Sana’a to discuss the terms of a “permanent ceasefire.”

    What’s startling here is the apparent role of China — and complete absence of the U.S. and President Joe Biden — in the deal-making.

    “Biden promised to end the war in Yemen. Two years into his presidency, China may have delivered on that promise,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “Decades of militarized American foreign policy in the Middle East have enabled China to play the role of peacemaker while Washington is stuck and unable to offer much more than arms deals and increasingly unconvincing security assurances.”

    “Biden promised to end the war in Yemen. Two years into his presidency, China may have delivered on that promise.”

    The U.S. always backed Saudi Arabia to the hilt and vociferously opposed the Houthis, who are backed by Iran. Now China has extracted concessions from the Saudis that made the cease-fire talks possible. The Saudis seem like they are fully capitulating to the Houthi demands, which include opening the major port to allow critical supplies into the country, allowing flights into Sana’a, and allowing the government to have access to its currency to pay its workers and stabilize the economy. Reasonable stuff.

    “The Saudi concessions — including a potential lifting of the blockade and exit from the war — demonstrate that their priority is to protect Saudi territory from attack and focus on economic development at home,” said Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, which has been working for an end to the war in Yemen for years. “This diverges from the approach preferred by many Washington foreign policy elites who continued to hope that the Saudi war and blockade could force the Houthis to make concessions and cede more power to the U.S.-backed Yemeni ‘government.’”

    The Yemen deal is undergirded by another China-brokered deal for rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. On Thursday, the Iranian and Saudi foreign ministers met in Beijing to finalize an agreement that reinstates direct flights between Riyadh and Tehran, reopens embassies, and expands commercial cooperation.

    “The full scope of this appears to have been unlikely without the Saudi-Iranian normalization brokered by China,” Parsi said. “Whether China played a crucial role in the Yemeni dimension is unclear. Beijing will, however, get some credit for it because of its role in bringing Riyadh and Tehran together.”

    U.S. policy toward the Yemen conflict has been so hostile to peace it managed to do the impossible: make Saudi Arabia appear reasonable in comparison. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the U.S. is deeply frustrated at how reasonably various parties are behaving:

    In an unannounced visit to Saudi Arabia earlier this week, CIA Director William Burns expressed frustration with the Saudis, according to people familiar with the matter. He told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that the U.S. has felt blindsided by Riyadh’s rapprochement with Iran and Syria—countries that remain heavily sanctioned by the West—under the auspices of Washington’s global rivals.

    This is all part of a larger program of Chinese diplomacy — as opposed to U.S. saber-rattling — in the Middle East. The Iranian minister of foreign affairs said publicly that he also held an expansive, two-hour meeting with his French counterpart while she was also in China. The meetings come ahead of a planned regional summit that will be organized by China and include both Saudi Arabia and Iran.

    With the Saudis no longer backing militants in the Yemen war, those rump factions won’t have much capacity left to fight, though there will still probably be some clashes before a final peace is reached. Some observers said the U.S. could still aid efforts to bring the war to its ultimate close.

    “Now is the time for the United States to do everything it can to support these negotiations to finally end the war and support robust humanitarian funding to address the suffering of the Yemeni people,” said Hassan El-Tayyab, the legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. “If Washington rejects regional power-sharing and obstructs a world in which other nations have a vested interest in peace, it risks jeopardizing America’s own economic and security interests and its international reputation. Now is the time to prioritize and reap the benefits of diplomacy, not reject those who advocate for it.”

    The way the war is ending also underscores just how illegitimate the U.S.-backed “government” of Yemen has been the last several years. In reality, it’s a group of exiles living in hotels in Riyadh, fully propped up by and under the thumb of Saudi Arabia. For a while, Saudi Arabia was referring to it in official documents as “the Legitimate Government of Yemen,” though it did no actual governing and had no legitimacy outside its hotel.

    The exiled “government” is now led by the “Presidential Leadership Council,” and look at how the news was delivered to the “Legitimate Government of Yemen,” according to Al Mayadeen: “The sources stated that Riyadh informed the Presidential Leadership Council of its decision to end the war and conclude the Yemeni file permanently.” Such was the ignoble end of the U.S.-recognized government of Yemen.

    “The Saudis are smart to cut their losses, end their complicity in this human rights nightmare, and refocus their attention to their own economic development.”

    “While the Houthis are a deeply flawed movement, it is both immoral and ineffective to try to counter them by pushing tens of millions of Yemenis to the brink of starvation,” said Sperling. “The Saudis are smart to cut their losses, end their complicity in this human rights nightmare, and refocus their attention to their own economic development.”

    The Chinese may find, however, that running a constellation of satellites is harder than it looks and that brokering peace may be more difficult than keeping it. This week, Iran-allied groups in Lebanon launched airstrikes on Israel in response to a raid on Jerusalem’s holy Al Aqsa Mosque by Israeli police. Israel, which has moved increasingly closer to Saudi Arabia, responded to the rockets by attacking both Gaza and Lebanon. President Xi Jinping will have no shortage of disputes to work out at his upcoming summit.

    The post To Help End the Yemen War, All China Had to Do Was Be Reasonable appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., is circulating a letter among her House colleagues that calls on the Department of Justice to drop charges against Julian Assange and end its effort to extradite him from his detention in Belmarsh prison in the United Kingdom.

    The letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Intercept, is still in the signature-gathering phase and has yet to be sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

    The Justice Department has charged Assange, the publisher of WikiLeaks, for publishing classified information. The Obama administration had previously decided not to prosecute Assange, concerned with what was dubbed internally as the “New York Times problem.” The Times had partnered with Assange when it came to publishing classified information and itself routinely publishes classified information. Publishing classified information is a violation of the Espionage Act, though it has never been challenged in the Supreme Court, and constitutional experts broadly consider that element of the law to be unconstitutional.

    “The Espionage Act, as it’s written, has always been applicable to such a broad range of discussion of important matters, many of which have been wrongly kept secret for a long time, that it should be regarded as unconstitutional,” explained Daniel Ellsberg, the famed civil liberties advocate who leaked the Pentagon Papers.

    The Obama administration could not find a way to charge Assange without also implicating standard journalistic practices. The Trump administration, unburdened by such concerns around press freedom, pushed ahead with the indictment and extradition request. The Biden administration, driven by the zealous prosecutor Gordon Kromberg, has aggressively pursued Trump’s prosecution. Assange won a reprieve from extradition in a lower British court but lost at the High Court. He is appealing there as well as to the European Court of Human Rights. Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, who has been campaigning globally for his release, said that Assange’s mental and physical health have deteriorated in the face of the conditions he faces at Belmarsh.

    Tlaib, in working to build support, urged her colleagues to put their differences with Assange the individual aside and defend the principle of the free press, enshrined in the Constitution. “I know many of us have very strong feelings about Mr. Assange, but what we think of him and his actions is really besides the point here,” she wrote to her colleagues in early March. “The fact of the matter is that the [way] in which Mr. Assange is being prosecuted under the notoriously undemocratic Espionage Act seriously undermines freedom of the press and the First Amendment.”

    “In the future, the New York Times or Washington Post could be prosecuted when they publish important stories based on classified information.”

    Tlaib noted that the Times, The Guardian, El País, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel had put out a joint statement condemning the charges, and alluded to the same problem that gave the Obama administration pause. “The prosecution of Mr. Assange, if successful, not only sets a legal precedent whereby journalists or publishers can be prosecuted, but a political one as well,” she wrote. “In the future, the New York Times or Washington Post could be prosecuted when they publish important stories based on classified information. Or, just as dangerous, they may refrain from publishing such stories for fear of prosecution.”

    So far, the letter has collected signatures from Democratic Reps. Jamaal Bowman, Ilhan Omar, and Cori Bush. Rep. Ro Khanna said he had yet to see the letter but added that he has previously said Assange should not be prosecuted because the charges are over-broad and a threat to press freedom. Rep. Pramila Jayapal is not listed as a signee but told a Seattle audience recently she believes the charges should be dropped. A spokesperson for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that she intends to sign before the letter closes.

    Chip Gibbons, policy director for Defending Rights & Dissent, said that the relative silence from Congress on the Assange prosecution has undermined U.S. claims to be defending democracy abroad. “In spite of the rhetoric about opposing authoritarianism and defending democracy and press freedom, we really haven’t seen a comparable outcry from Congress — until now,” said Gibbons, whose organization has launched a petition calling on the Justice Department to drop charges. “Rep. Tlaib’s letter isn’t just a breath of fresh air, it’s extremely important for members of Congress to be raising their voices on this, especially those from the same party of the current administration, at this critical juncture in a case that will determine the future of press freedom in the United States.”

    A significant number of Democrats continue to hold a hostile view of Assange, accusing him of publishing material that was purloined by Russian agents from the inbox of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. The indictment, however, relates to his publication of government secrets leaked by Chelsea Manning more than a decade ago. “In July 2010, WikiLeaks published approximately 75,000 significant activity reports related to the war in Afghanistan, classified up to the SECRET level, illegally provided to WikiLeaks by Manning,” the indictment reads. “In November 2010, WikiLeaks started publishing redacted versions of U.S. State Department cables, classified up to the SECRET level, illegally provided to WikiLeaks by Manning.”

    The U.S. government has made the general claim that Assange’s publication of classified information put sources and allies of the U.S. in harm’s way, though the government has been unable to provide any example of that. Meanwhile, the U.S. government itself has left thousands of Afghan civilians, who collaborated with the U.S., to their fates after the withdrawal from Afghanistan, raising questions about the sincerity of their lamentations over the security of those who work with the U.S.

    The word “publish” appears more than two dozen times in the superseding indictment of Assange, in which he is accused of “having unauthorized possession of significant activity reports, classified up to the SECRET level [and] publishing them and causing them to be published on the Internet.”

    The full letter is below.

    Dear Colleague:

    I’d like to invite you to join me in writing the Dept. of Justice to call on them to drop the Trump-era charges against Australian publisher Julian Assange. 

    I know many of us have very strong feelings about Mr. Assange, but what we think of him and his actions is really besides the point here. The fact of the matter is that the in which Mr. Assange is being prosecuted under the notoriously undemocratic Espionage Act seriously undermines freedom of the press and the First Amendment. 

    Defendants charged under the Espionage Act are effectively incapable of defending themselves and often are not allowed access to all the evidence being brought against them, or even to testify to the motivation behind their actions. The information that Mr. Assange worked with major media outlets like the New York Times and the Guardian to publish primarily came from the documents leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning. These documents exposed a number of extremely serious government abuses including torture, war crimes, and illegal mass surveillance.

    Mr. Assange’s prosecution marks the first time in US history that the Espionage Act has been used to indict a publisher of truthful information. The prosecution of Mr. Assange, if successful, not only sets a legal precedent whereby journalists or publishers can be prosecuted, but a political one as well. In the future, the New York Times or Washington Post could be prosecuted when they publish important stories based on classified information. Or, just as dangerous, they may refrain from publishing such stories for fear of prosecution.

    The New York Times, The Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel have taken the extraordinary step of publishing a joint statement in opposition to the indictment, warning that it “sets a dangerous precedent, and threatens to undermine America’s First Amendment and the freedom of the press.” They are joined in their opposition to Mr. Assange’s prosecution by groups like the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists. Numerous foreign leaders have also expressed their concern and opposition, including Australian PM Albanese, Mexican President AMLO, Brazilian President Lula da Silva, and parliamentarians from numerous countries including the UK, Germany, Brazil, and Australia.

    If you have any questions or would like to sign on to this letter, please contact Rep. Tlaib’s Policy Advisor Andrew Myslik at Andrew.Myslik1@mail.house.gov. Thank you for your partnership in defending the freedom of the press and the First Amendment.

    Sincerely,

    Rashida Tlaib
    Member of Congress

     

    Dear Attorney General Merrick Garland,

    We write you today to call on you to uphold the First Amendment’s protections for the freedom of the press by dropping the criminal charges against Australian publisher Julian Assange and withdrawing the American extradition request currently pending with the British government.

    Press freedom, civil liberty, and human rights groups have been emphatic that the charges against Mr. Assange pose a grave and unprecedented threat to everyday, constitutionally protected journalistic activity, and that a conviction would represent a landmark setback for the First Amendment. Major media outlets are in agreement: The New York Times, The Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel have taken the extraordinary step of publishing a joint statement in opposition to the indictment, warning that it “sets a dangerous precedent, and threatens to undermine America’s First Amendment and the freedom of the press.”

    The ACLU, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Defending Rights and Dissent, and Human Rights Watch, among others, have written to you three times to express these concerns. In one such letter they wrote:

    “The indictment of Mr. Assange threatens press freedom because much of the conduct described in the indictment is conduct that journalists engage in routinely—and that they must engage in in order to do the work the public needs them to do. Journalists at major news publications regularly speak with sources, ask for clarification or more documentation, and receive and publish documents the government considers secret. In our view, such a precedent in this case could effectively criminalize these common journalistic practices.”

    The prosecution of Julian Assange for carrying out journalistic activities greatly diminishes America’s credibility as a defender of these values, undermining the United States’ moral standing on the world stage, and effectively granting cover to authoritarian governments who can (and do) point to Assange’s prosecution to reject evidence-based criticisms of their human rights records and as a precedent that justifies the criminalization of reporting on their activities. Leaders of democracies, major international bodies, and parliamentarians around the globe stand opposed to the prosecution of Assange. Former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatovic have both opposed the extradition. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called on the U.S. government to end its pursuit of Assange. Leaders of nearly every major Latin American nation, including Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and Argentinian President Alberto Fernández have called for the charges to be dropped. Parliamentarians from around the world, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia, have all called for Assange not to be extradited to the U.S.

    This global outcry against the U.S. government’s prosecution of Mr. Assange has highlighted conflicts between America’s stated values of press freedom and its pursuit of Mr. Assange. The Guardian wrote “The US has this week proclaimed itself the beacon of democracy in an increasingly authoritarian world. If Mr. Biden is serious about protecting the ability of the media to hold governments accountable, he should begin by dropping the charges brought against Mr. Assange.” Similarly, the Sydney Morning Herald editorial board stated, “At a time when US President Joe Biden has just held a summit for democracy, it seems contradictory to go to such lengths to win a case that, if it succeeds, will limit freedom of speech.”

    As Attorney General, you have rightly championed freedom of the press and the rule of law in the United States and around the world. Just this past October the Justice Department under your leadership made changes to news media policy guidelines that generally prevent federal prosecutors from using subpoenas or other investigative tools against journalists who possess and publish classified information used in news gathering. We are grateful for these pro-press freedom revisions, and feel strongly that dropping the Justice Department’s indictment against Mr. Assange and halting all efforts to extradite him to the U.S. is in line with these new policies.

    Julian Assange faces 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one charge for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.  The Espionage Act charges stem from Mr. Assange’s role in publishing information about the U.S. State Department, Guantanamo Bay, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of this information was published by mainstream newspapers, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, who often worked with Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks directly in doing so. Based on the legal logic of this indictment, any of those newspapers could be prosecuted for engaging in these reporting activities. In fact, because what Mr. Assange is accused of doing is legally indistinguishable from what papers like the New York Times do, the Obama administration rightfully declined to bring these charges. The Trump Administration, which brought these charges against Assange, was notably less concerned with press freedom.

    The prosecution of Mr. Assange marks the first time in U.S. history that a publisher of truthful information has been indicted under the Espionage Act. The prosecution of Mr. Assange, if successful, not only sets a legal precedent whereby journalists or publishers can be prosecuted, but a political one as well. In the future the New York Times or Washington Post could be prosecuted when they publish important stories based on classified information. Or, just as dangerous for democracy, they may refrain from publishing such stories for fear of prosecution.

    Mr. Assange has been detained on remand in London for more than three years, as he awaits the outcome of extradition proceedings against him. In 2021, a U.K. District Judge ruled against extraditing Mr. Assange to the United States on the grounds that doing so would put him at undue risk of suicide. The U.K.’s High Court overturned that decision after accepting U.S. assurances regarding the prospective treatment Mr. Assange would receive in prison. Neither ruling adequately addresses the threat the charges against Mr. Assange pose to press freedom. The U.S. Department of Justice can halt these harmful proceedings at any moment by simply dropping the charges against Mr. Assange.

    We appreciate your attention to this urgent issue. Every day that the prosecution of Julian Assange continues is another day that our own government needlessly undermines our own moral authority abroad and rolls back the freedom of the press under the First Amendment at home. We urge you to immediately drop these Trump-era charges against Mr. Assange and halt this dangerous prosecution.

    Sincerely,
    Members of Congress

    CC: British Embassy; Australian Embassy

     

    The post Congressional Effort to End Assange Prosecution Underway appeared first on The Intercept.

  • Two months after teaming up with the Indian government to censor a BBC documentary on human rights abuses by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Twitter is yet again collaborating with India to impose an extraordinarily broad crackdown on speech.

    Last week, the Indian government imposed an internet blackout across the northern state of Punjab, home to 30 million people, as it conducted a manhunt for a local Sikh nationalist leader, Amritpal Singh. The shutdown paralyzed internet and SMS communications in Punjab (some Indian users told The Intercept that the shutdown was targeted at mobile devices).

    While Punjab police detained hundreds of suspected followers of Singh, Twitter accounts from over 100 prominent politicians, activists, and journalists in India and abroad have been blocked in India at the request of the government. On Monday, the account of the BBC News Punjabi was also blocked — the second time in a few months that the Indian government has used Twitter to throttle BBC services in its country. The Twitter account for Jagmeet Singh (no relation to Amritpal), a leading progressive Sikh Canadian politician and critic of Modi, was also not viewable inside India.

    Under the leadership of owner and CEO Elon Musk, Twitter has promised to reduce censorship and allow a broader range of voices on the platform. But after The Intercept reported on Musk’s censorship of the BBC documentary in January, as well as Twitter’s intervention against high-profile accounts who shared it, Musk said that he had been too busy to focus on the issue. “First I’ve heard,” Musk wrote on January 25. “It is not possible for me to fix every aspect of Twitter worldwide overnight, while still running Tesla and SpaceX, among other things.”

    Two months later, he still hasn’t found the time. Musk had previously pledged to step down as Twitter CEO, but no public progress has been made since his announcement.

    While Modi’s suppression has focused on Punjab, Twitter’s collaboration has been nationwide, restricting public debate about the government’s aggressive move. Critics say that the company is failing the most basic test of allowing the platform to operate freely under conditions of government pressure.

    “In India, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media companies have today become handmaidens to authoritarianism,” said Arjun Sethi, a human rights lawyer and adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center. “They routinely agree to requests not just to block social media accounts not just originating in India, but all over the world.”

    Punjab was the site of a brutal government counterinsurgency campaign in the ’80s and ’90s that targeted a separatist movement that sought to create an independent state for Sikhs. More recently, Punjab was the site of massive protests by farmers groups against bills to deregulate agricultural markets. The power struggles between the government and resistance movements have fueled repressive conditions on the ground.

    “Punjab is a de facto police state,” said Sukhman Dhami, co-director of Ensaaf, a human rights organization focused on Punjab. “Despite being one of the tiniest states in India, it has one of the highest density of police personnel, stations and checkpoints — as is typical of many of India’s minority-majority states — as well as a huge number of military encampments because it shares a border with Pakistan and Kashmir.”

    “Punjab is a de facto police state.”

    Modi’s Hindu nationalist government has justified its efforts to arrest followers of Amritpal Singh by claiming that he was promoting separatism and “disturbing communal harmony” in recent speeches.

    In late February, Singh’s followers sacked a Punjab police station in an attempt to free allies held there. The Indian media reported that the attack triggered the government’s response.

    In the void left by Twitter blocks and the internet shutdown across much of the region, Indian news outlets, increasingly themselves under the thumb of the ruling government and its allies, have filled the airwaves with speculation on Singh’s whereabouts. On Tuesday, Indian news reports claimed that CCTV footage appeared to show Singh walking around Delhi masked and without a turban.

    The Modi administration has told the public a story of a dangerous, radical preacher who must be stopped at any cost. Efforts by dissidents to contextualize Modi’s crackdown within his increasingly intolerant and authoritarian nationalism have been smothered by Twitter.

    “People within Punjab are unable to reach one another, and members of the diaspora are unable to reach their family members, friends, and colleagues,” Sethi told The Intercept. “India leads the world in terms of government imposed blackouts and regularly imposes them as a part of mass censorship and disinformation campaigns. Human rights defenders documenting atrocities in Punjab are blocked, and activists in the diaspora raising information about what is happening on the ground are blocked as well.”

    Modi’s government tried to throttle Twitter even before Musk’s takeover. Twitter India staff have been threatened with arrest over refusals to block government critics and faced other forms of pressure inside the country. At the time that Musk took charge of the company, it had a mere 20 percent compliance rate with Indian government requests. Following massive layoffs that reduced 90 percent of Twitter India’s staff, the platform appears to have become far more obliging in the face of government pressure, as its actions to censor its critics now show.

    Musk, who has consistently characterized his acquisition of Twitter as a triumph of free speech, has framed his compliance as mere deference to the will of governments in countries where Twitter operates. “Like I said, my preference is to hew close to the laws of countries in which Twitter operates,” Musk tweeted last year. “If the citizens want something banned, then pass a law to do so, otherwise it should be allowed.”

    “The main thing that the Indian government is trying to accomplish is to protect the reputation of Modi.”

    Critics say that Musk’s policy of deferring to government requests is dangerous and irresponsible, as it empowers governments to suppress speech they find inconvenient. And a request from the executive branch is not necessarily the same thing as an order from a court; under previous ownership, Twitter regularly fought such requests from government officials, including those in the Modi administration.

    As the manhunt for Singh and his supporters continues, large protests have broken out in foreign countries with large Punjabi diasporas, including a protest in London that resulted in the vandalism of the Indian Embassy. Despite this backlash, Modi appears to be pressing ahead with internet shutdowns.

    “The main thing that the Indian government is trying to accomplish is to protect the reputation of Modi,” said Dhami. “They have a zero tolerance for anything that harms his reputation, and what triggers them most of all is a sense that his reputation is being attacked.”

    The post Elon Musk’s Twitter Widens Its Censorship of Modi’s Critics appeared first on The Intercept.

  • Jeff Thomas, a model and social media influencer who was recently in a long-term relationship with billionaire Peter Thiel, said he spent much of his time with the tech mogul working to persuade him away from his increasingly aggressive pursuit of a culture war — a war that Thomas warned was blowing back on their community.

    “I don’t side with him on a lot of political things, but I understand him,” Thomas told me in an interview last November. “I’m trying to influence him in ways to show him my heart, and show him how it affects myself, certain individuals, himself.”

    Thomas said that he felt like he had made strides with Thiel, though his effort was cut short earlier this month, on March 8, when he died tragically. His death is being investigated as a possible suicide, according to a Miami Police Department report and sources who have been contacted by the police for information. Miami police have been in contact with Thiel, and will interview him as part of the probe, two sources with knowledge of the investigation said.

    Thiel did not respond to texts or phone calls requesting comment. Most of the people The Intercept spoke to during this reporting have requested anonymity, citing Thiel’s relentless and successful effort to obliterate Gawker in retribution for outing him in the 2000s.

    Thomas had met Thiel back in 2015 or 2016 at Coachella, he told me, where Thiel threw one of his legendary parties. “I was wondering why he was being affiliated with someone like Trump, and investing in him, if he’s gay,” Thomas said. But his own father was a Republican, Thomas said, and he grew up in Texas, so felt that he knew how to reach people who thought differently.

    In 2017, Thiel married investment banker Matt Danzeisen. Thomas and Thiel eventually struck up a relationship in the early stages of the pandemic. But it wasn’t a typical relationship. Thomas described himself as being in a “kept” situation that made him uncomfortable. “It was stressful, he wanted me to get the nicest car, the nicest house. He wanted to kind of show his power, to kind of show that he had me in his dollhouse,” he said. “It’s not like I was his boyfriend, really, I was just kind of his friend that was there for him when he needed, you know, whatever he needed.”

    But Thomas justified it to himself as a fair trade. “If I’m gonna give up the relationships I have and give up my dreams right now, during Covid, or dating other guys or pursuing people, then I’m going to get a $300,000 car and I’m going to get a $13 million home [on Franklin Avenue in Hollywood Hills]. So those are the things that I see fit for me to give up my freedom,” he said.

    I spoke with Thomas while doing reporting for a profile of Thiel, which is ongoing. (If you knew Thomas or have any other information to share, send me a message on Signal or WhatsApp at 202-368-0859, or by email to ryan.grim@theintercept.com.) Thomas also spoke with several Democratic and progressive activists who are working to expose what they see as Thiel’s hypocrisy. The activists provided recordings of interviews with Thomas to The Intercept. Some of the quotes in this story come from that audio.

    Thomas figured that the relationship, and the house he was living in — a mansion at 8517 Franklin Avenue in Hollywood Hills listed at $13 million — could be a step toward a career in real estate. “It was something to do during the pandemic. I was kind of over my one bedroom apartment,” he said. “I did real estate in New York, and I was considering getting my license and doing investment — flipping homes and doing investment properties in LA and I figured that this could be maybe one of my first in my portfolio. … I knew I wasn’t going to be in it for the long run.”

    Several of Thomas’s friends in Los Angeles said they often saw Thiel at Thomas’s home, and also saw Thomas at Thiel’s nearby home on Metz Place. (Unrelatedly, before Thomas moved in, the home was owned by leading figures in the bizarre NXIVM sex cult that was rolled up in 2021, according to property records.)

    The parties Thiel and Thomas threw could get raucous, and Thiel himself would sometimes do the recruiting. Thiel, or someone using his Facebook account, reached out to one University of California, Los Angeles grad student, despite having no friends in common, and invited him to a party at Thiel’s house, describing the poolside scene. “Hot guys at a pool sounds like pretty idyllic gay activity to me,” the student responded, according to screenshots of the conversation obtained by The Intercept. They moved to a WhatsApp conversation using Thiel’s phone number.

    “Well, it doesn’t stay idyllic too long,” Thiel’s account said, “but always lots of fun,” adding later, “Yeah, we know how to have some no holds barred gay fun.”

    To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, there’s nothing wrong with no-holds-barred gay fun, and, indeed, the ability of consenting adults to engage in whatever private, victimless behavior they choose is one measure of a just society. It’s also what Thiel has been spending heavily to oppose.

    Thiel, one of the biggest funders of Republican candidates in 2022, bankrolled a massive super PAC that backed Ohio Senate candidate and Thiel protégé J.D. Vance, called “Protect Ohio Values PAC.” He also put millions into Saving Arizona PAC, to support Blake Masters. Both candidates ran heavily on culture war issues, portraying themselves as fighting for an America with traditional conservative values against the libertine coastal elites.

    “My, you know, former boss and mentor Peter Thiel is gay. I went to his wedding,” Masters said. “I wish him well. I don’t think the Supreme Court should have decided that case that way. … Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

    Thiel’s account, meanwhile, told the UCLA student he had little regard for most swaths of America in a direct message: “Feel like the only places in US are LA and NYC and Miami … and maybe SD and DC and Chicago … but that’s really it.”

    “I told him to stay out of politics,” Thomas said. “And he did, and so he didn’t support Trump in 2020. He stayed out of it. I was like, OK, great. So I did my part, I influenced him to stay out of it.”

    Thiel backed Trump in 2020 but was conspicuously less supportive than in 2016, when he famously spoke at the Republican National Convention. “I felt like I did something. And then he started getting back into politics and supporting Trump again and all that other stuff. And I’m just like, well fuck, there’s only so much I can do and say to influence somebody.”

    Toward the end of last year, Thomas was hyping himself up to make an exit. “I don’t think it’s very satisfying, to be honest, to be kept,” Thomas said in October. “I saw the spark in me fade away, and it was toxic, and it was unhealthy, and I’ve had multiple talks with myself this year, about getting out of it, and I’ve actually discussed to him about it, like, I can’t do this anymore. You know, my mental health is at risk.”

    Thomas moved out of the Franklin Avenue house and to Miami, though he and Thiel stayed in touch. Thomas attended a New Year’s Eve party at Thiel’s Venetian Island compound on Biscayne Bay.

    Thomas’s friends and family are sorting through the wreckage. “He didn’t talk much about Peter at all other than I knew he was living in a house owned by him,” said a longtime friend who knew him from Texas and also moved to Los Angeles. (Thiel does not own the property.) “I know that in November he had to leave that house, but he didn’t ever go into the details of his relationship with Peter.”

    She had just texted with Thomas the Sunday before he died, she said, sharing the messages with The Intercept. He was excited about her upcoming baby shower. “I know what everyone who has experienced this says, but he did not seem like he was thinking about killing himself,” she said. “He RSVP’d to a baby shower in Dallas in May in LA and said how he was excited to be there.”

    “The last time I talked to him in depth about his feelings was shortly after his birthday party in May,” she added. The party, according to an invitation, was at the Franklin Avenue home in Los Angeles. “We had talked about how he was having a hard time in a relationship. I’m not sure which relationship but he was having general anxiety about it.”

    Thomas said the relationship with Thiel wore on him. “He knew I was a strong person, but there’s only so many times you can be strong and for how long, until, you know, you’re just not strong enough anymore,” he said. “I was honest with my family about the relationship. … I thought I was doing what I could to help secure my safety and be OK when it actually did the opposite of putting me into a position of something I couldn’t carry emotionally or physically or mentally.”

    Matthew Thomas, Jeff’s stepfather who adopted and raised him, declined to be interviewed, saying, “I know the whole story, and I’ve talked to Peter a lot.”

    The Daily Mail has published at least four articles on Thomas’s death, though has not mentioned his relationship with Thiel. In one article, the paper quotes his agent speculating he may have fallen to his death taking a selfie, though the agent was not present and there is no evidence to corroborate that. Thomas’s friends hope the Miami police investigate his death thoroughly.

    Thomas’s brother, Skylar Ray Thomas, suggested the death was suicide in a Facebook post. “As you have followed through the years, Jeff traveled the world and lived life to the fullest,” his brother wrote. “What you may not know, is Jeff struggled with addiction and mental health challenges, which ultimately led to his tragic passing. While Jeff’s struggles were difficult, we want to remember him for the kind and caring person he was. He had a contagious sense of humor, a love for music, art and family, and a passion for helping others. He touched the lives of so many people, and his memory will live on in our hearts forever.”

    The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline offers 24-hour support for those experiencing difficulties or those close to them, by chat or by telephone at 988.

    The post The Death of Peter Thiel’s “Kept” Romantic Partner Is Being Investigated as a Suicide appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The Obama administration’s ambassador to Syria, a leading voice in favor of aggressively confronting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the time, is now backing an effort by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., to force U.S. withdrawal from the country within 180 days.

    Robert Ford argues in a letter to Congress in support of Gaetz’s legislation that the U.S. mission has no clear objective. “After more than eight years of military operations in Syria there is no definition of what the ‘enduring’ defeat of ISIS would look like,” Ford writes in the letter, which was obtained by The Intercept and confirmed as authentic by Ford. “We owe our soldiers serving there in harm’s way a serious debate about whether their mission is, in fact, achievable.”


    On Tuesday evening, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, or CPC, circulated a message to its membership urging a yes vote, producing a serious bipartisan coalition. “This measure to remove unauthorized deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Syria unless a specific statutory authorization is enacted within six months is largely consistent with previous bipartisan efforts led by CPC Members to terminate such unauthorized military presence within one year, for which 130 House Democrats voted yes last year,” read the message to members.

    The resolution is scheduled for a vote Wednesday afternoon.

    An original version of Gaetz’s measure offered just 15 days for troops to leave Syria, but he amended it to six months in the hope of drawing real support. The new measure, a war powers resolution that is privileged on the House floor, would allow troops to stay longer if Congress debated on and authorized the intervention.

    Gaetz’s introduction of the resolution, particularly with such a short timetable that would doom it to lopsided defeat, kicked off a flurry of lobbying to try to turn it into a bipartisan coalition, involving progressive groups like Just Foreign Policy and Demand Progress and conservative ones such as FreedomWorks, Concerned Veterans for America, and Citizens for Renewing America. The speed with which it is coming to the floor leaves little time for grassroots mobilization. “The CPC has been leading on this front and nothing has changed. I wish Gaetz worked more closely with the coalition of groups that have been working on this and the CPC,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., deputy chair of the CPC, who worked with Gaetz to get the legislation to a place where Democrats could back it. “Nonetheless, I am a yes on the resolution.” Gaetz did not respond to a request for comment.

    Ford had previously supported a 2021 legislative push by New York Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman, whose amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act would have given the U.S. one year to exit Syria. Bowman’s measure won the support of 21 Republicans and roughly half of the Democratic caucus. Despite the rise of an anti-interventionist wing of the GOP, the votes to oppose American adventures overseas continue to come largely from Democrats. In July 2022, Bowman pushed for another floor vote, this time picking up 25 Republicans and winning the Democratic caucus 130-88.

    In 2019, Gaetz and a handful of other Republicans backed President Donald Trump’s push for an end to the U.S. presence there and were joined by Omar and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who bucked their party to back Trump’s proposed withdrawal. But like Trump’s Afghanistan withdrawal, he never actually did it, losing the internal power struggle to supporters of a continued occupation.

    Opposition to U.S. intervention in Syria has been bipartisan since the earliest days of the crisis. In 2013, Daily Kos and HuffPost ran whip counts ahead of a vote called for by Obama to authorize the use of force, pressuring progressives to vote no. HuffPost tallied 243 members of Congress planning to vote no or leaning no before Obama pulled the legislation from the floor.

    In 2014, Ford resigned his position, frustrated that the Obama administration was not providing enough support to the opposition to, at minimum, force al-Assad to the negotiating table. The need to minimize U.S. involvement undermined the purpose of that involvement, he argued. In other words, go big or go home — and Ford is now arguing that U.S. troops ought to go home and that the Gaetz measure is a vehicle to help make that happen. “And remember that ‘go big’ offers no guarantee of success,” he said when I asked if the idiom appropriately summed up his argument. “We went big in Iraq and had mixed results.”

    Ford noted in his letter that leftist Kurdish forces in Syria, with U.S. support, had claimed the last piece of ISIS territory in March 2019 and the Pentagon has assessed that ISIS now lacks the capacity to strike the U.S. at home. Militias aligned with Iran have taken the opportunity of U.S. presence in the region to launch attacks on American troops, who number roughly 900, not counting contractors.

    The legal rationale for U.S. occupation is dubious at best. With ISIS suppressed, the administration has suggested the purpose of the occupation is to act as a bulwark against Iran. The Washington Post previously reported:

    The balance of power in Syria’s multisided conflict depends on the American presence. Where U.S. troops retreat, American officials see an opening for the Syrian military or forces from Russia or Turkey to advance. Some U.S. officials have stressed that the American deployment precludes Iranian forces from establishing a “land bridge” that would allow them to more easily supply weapons to their Hezbollah allies in Lebanon.

    “It’s about keeping a balance,” said one senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the media.

    In fact, Iran already has a direct “land bridge” through eastern Syria to Lebanon; the U.S. occupation merely adds some time to the Iranian truckers’ journey. More to the point, said Ford, there is no authorization to deploy troops overseas to counter Iran. “The 2001 authorization of the use of military force was all about Al Qaeda and, to a secondary extent, the Taliban and Afghanistan,” he said. “It wasn’t about Iranian or pro-Iranian militias in eastern Syria.”

    Ford argued that U.S. withdrawal would facilitate the kind of negotiations needed to bring a measure of stability to the region. The Kurdish separatists, while enjoying significant amounts of autonomy, would be pushed into direct talks with the Syrian government over a power-sharing agreement. The Turks have resisted talks with the U.S. over security at the Syrian border, angered at the U.S. alliance with the Kurdish separatists.

    Trump, while urging a withdrawal, also said he’d leave behind a force to “keep the oil.” He suggested a major American firm like Exxon Mobil would come in to exploit Syria’s oil, but so far, no big American company has been involved, and the Kurds are exporting oil largely in collaboration with al-Assad’s government.

    Asked about the ongoing sanctions of the al-Assad regime, Ford said it was time to take a hard look at whether they were working and at what cost. “That’s a very separate issue from our troop presence,” he said. “I would just say two things. First, the sanctions are not delivering political concessions from Bashar al-Assad. And then the second thing I would say is, it’s disingenuous for those who justify the sanctions to say that they don’t harm ordinary Syrians living in government-controlled territories. They obviously do.

    “All I can say is we’re inflicting pain without getting much for it.”

    The post Matt Gaetz, Progressive Caucus, and Former Obama Ambassador Team Up to Oppose Syria Occupation appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The trouble began in 2019 when residents of The Villages were suddenly hit with a 25 percent hike in their property taxes. Historically, nobody under 55 has been allowed to move to The Villages, a master-planned retirement community of 130,000 across Sumter, Lake, and Marion counties in central Florida, and many are on fixed incomes. The math they had done in plotting out their golden years had not accounted for a massive jump in taxes.

    If the new taxes were intended to cover new amenities or upgrades for the Villagers, perhaps a hike would be worth the sacrifice. But the money was instead destined to subsidize further sprawl south of The Villages, ultimately benefitting the entity known locally either as “the developer” or “the family,” which could then escape paying the fees associated with the impact of their development.

    “This place has grown like crazy,” said Oren Miller, who would go on to run for a seat on the county commission. “The developers pay no impact fees for schools, for fire, for EMS, for police, for parks and recreation, for government buildings. The only impact fees they do pay are for roads, and they only pay 40 percent of the recommended amount.”

    The developer is a spaghetti bowl of LLCs doing business collectively as The Villages, which is still owned by the Morse family, the offspring of Gary Morse, who founded the community in the 1980s. The family owns the robust local newspaper, The Villages Daily Sun; owns the radio station, which pipes Fox News and right-leaning updates through speakers in common areas and at pools; owns the glossy magazine; and also owns local politics.

    But a group of fed-up Villagers decided to fight back through the only remotely democratic chink left in the armor of The Villages, the county commission. The deck was stacked against candidates challenging the family and its allies, but there still had to be elections. Backed by the Property Owners’ Association, three Villagers stepped up to run: Craig Estep, Oren Miller, and Gary Search. They ran as a ticket under the clever moniker EMS, promising to rescue The Villages.


    Oren

    A photograph of Oren Miller

    Photo: Courtesy of Angie Fox

    All three had moved south for the same reason as their neighbors: to retire and live the good Florida life. Miller had never been involved in politics before retiring, while Search had been a commissioner in South Whitehall Township in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley, as well as a public school guidance counselor. Estep, a longtime Texan, had a successful career in emergency response management. The three ran as Republicans in opposition to the tax increase, arguing that businesses that profit from the development should instead shoulder the burden with an impact fee. They also vowed to reverse an initiative that had made it easier for the family to keep control of local politics and thereby return some power to rural areas outside the community. And Miller, whose wife was a committed opponent of the local high-kill animal shelter, added a promise to bring a no-kill shelter to The Villages, which won the support of the area’s animal rights supporters, concerned about what might happen to lost pets. While the population of The Villages had exploded, the capacity of the shelter system remained the same.

    The amount of money at stake was eye-watering, well into the hundreds of millions for the developer. The Villages did more than $2 billion in revenue in 2021 alone, according to a Florida trade publication.

    Contractors for the developer, led by the firm T&D, which primarily works for The Villages, swooped in to fund the campaigns of the incumbents who had enacted the tax increase, lavishing close to $200,000 on them, but it wasn’t enough. In November 2020, the EMS slate won in a landslide, giving them a 3-2 majority on the commission.

    EMS immediately faced an onslaught from the Daily Sun, which portrayed the new commissioners as borderline communists set to destroy The Villages’ way of life. The paper accused them of “championing a reversal of the county’s longstanding pro-business strategy.”

    A top official with The Villages made clear to the commissioners how rough a road they were about to go down, Search later told a meeting of the Property Owners’ Association. The day he was elected, he said, “I had a higher-up here at The Villages put his finger in my face and say, ‘Search, just remember one thing: I’m a big person, you’re a little person. I can squash you anytime I want.’”

    “I said, is that a threat? And he said no, it’s a promise.” Search was later asked about his charge in a deposition and reaffirmed under oath that it happened.

    The higher-up was Gary Lester, vice president of community relations for The Villages, Search separately told at least four other Villagers. Lester has been appointed to numerous boards by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and served on the commission that vets judicial nominations. (Asked if it was indeed Lester who issued the threat, Search told me, “I’m not going to say it was, but I’m not going to say it wasn’t. People know who it is.”)

    Lester told Search that he had the personal phone number for DeSantis, telling him he could get the governor on the horn at any moment, Search later told his fellow commissioner Miller, according to Miller. “He indicated that he has the personal phone number of Ron DeSantis and can reach him at any point in time he deems that necessary,” Search confirmed. Lester did not respond to emails or messages left with his assistant.

    Cracks formed early, with Estep, who became chair, drawing fire for going wobbly on the size of the impact fee needed, and the speed with which they could do the property tax rollback. But the trio quickly moved to make their campaign promises reality. By a 3-2 vote in March 2021, they hit businesses with a 75 percent increase in impact fees — less than what Miller and Search wanted, but a substantial amount nonetheless — to cover the cost of future development. There was no good reason, they argued, for residents to subsidize the cost of further development for the Morse family. If the family wanted to expand The Villages, they could fund it themselves. Estep didn’t respond to a request to be interviewed for this article.

    It seemed like an open-and-shut case of democracy in action: Residents had banded together to make their voice heard and changed the direction of their community, rejecting a cozy arrangement between the area’s political and business elites. Next up was the property tax rollback.

    None of that, of course, could be allowed.

    The first counterpunch came in January 2021, from Tallahassee, with a push for statewide legislation that would block local officials from significantly increasing impact fees. The Villages had an ally in the right place. In 2018, Brett Hage, then the president of T&D, the main contractor, had been elected to the state House, beating his opponent — Oren Miller — by some 40 percentage points in the Republican stronghold. After his election, The Villages hired Hage directly, paying him $141,000 the first year and $350,000 the next, according to his disclosures, as vice president for residential development. (Previous disclosures had not included such income.)

    On January 9, 2021, Hage, still on The Villages’ payroll, introduced legislation to block the proposed impact fee hike. On June 4, 2021, DeSantis signed the bill into law. The governor and the Morse family have close ties, with DeSantis frequently visiting for fundraisers, and The Villages and its executives bankrolling DeSantis. Crucially for The Villages, the law was retroactive.

    The Daily Sun spiked the football. “The Estep-Miller-Search tax increase dismissed the warnings of economists, business owners and community leaders,” its report on the bill’s passage reads. “This law is a big win for new businesses and homeowners in Sumter County, where three newly elected commissioners reneged on a promise to study road impact fees over the summer and instead raised them by 75% last month.”

    The article is broken into sections that leave readers no doubt how the Daily Sun feels about the commissioners and their tax hike: “Law stymies freshmen commisssioners,” [sic] followed by “Conservatives lead charge,” “Understanding economic therory,” [sic] and “Locals applaud new law.”

    Meanwhile, Hage had gotten a hefty raise. His 2021 disclosure shows his pay had jumped to $925,096 in the year leading up to Hage introducing the legislation. Though his state House pay is only $29,697 a year, his net worth, according to those same disclosures, had climbed from less than $900,000 to $2.2 million — a total of nearly a million and a half dollars since getting elected to office. In April 2022, Hage announced he wouldn’t be running for a third term. His work in Tallahassee was done.

    If the pushback from The Villages, aided by DeSantis, had ended there, it would represent a brazen flow of cash from a developer directly to the personal bank account of a state lawmaker, who passed legislation saving the developer hundreds of millions and instead spreading the costs to tens of thousands of Floridians. If that was all it was, it would be an outsized, unusually lucrative version of politics-as-usual that many cynics expect from their lawmakers, even if they shake their head at it while reading the paper.

    But it didn’t stop there. In fact, it only escalated.

    On January 30, 2023, a gaunt, 72-year-old Oren Miller — by then a former commissioner, ousted from his seat by a DeSantis decree — was brought handcuffed into the Marion County Courthouse. He had lost 20-plus pounds in the 75 days he spent jailed awaiting sentencing on a felony charge for, essentially, nothing. Or, perhaps more accurately, for fighting back against a powerful, well-heeled ally of Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    “It’s a very complicated story,” Angie Fox, Miller’s wife, told me when I first reached out to her. But it’s also a simple one. “Bottom line, he is a political prisoner.”


    angie-fox

    Angie Fox outside her home on Jan. 14, 2023, in The Villages, Fla.

    Photo: Elise Swain/The Intercept

    The governing structure of The Villages would be familiar to anybody who has lived under the thumb of an aggressively run American homeowners association, complete with its busybodies, covenants, restrictions, and the type of infighting iconically portrayed in “Seinfeld”’s fictional Del Boca Vista, the retirement community of Jerry’s parents. Del Boca Vista, like The Villages, had its own newspaper, The Boca Breeze.

    Oren Miller moved to The Villages about a decade ago, after 40 years at the Caterpillar plant in Joliet, Illinois. His grandfather and father had worked at the same plant, and Miller had risen to logistics manager. But by his 60s, he’d had enough. He retired “on a Thursday and left Friday morning,” he later told investigators.

    “My goal nine or 10 years ago was to retire, come down here, golf three days a week, watch some TV, read some books, mind my own business,” he said. “Then about five years ago, I decided to get actively involved in what was going on in the county, and I still golf two or three days a week.”

    In the summer of 2018, Michael Grunwald, reporting for Politico magazine, traveled to The Villages and happened to interview Miller. Miller was just becoming involved in local politics, deciding to run for state representative. He told Grunwald that he had recently been talking to neighbors at a block party, and he mentioned to them how nice it was that a Black neighbor of theirs had taken it upon herself to pick up litter on her daily walk. It was something to be emulated and admired, he thought. “People responded with pure racism,” Miller told Grunwald. “I thought we were past that in America.”

    The magazine noted that he and his wife had founded the group Lost Pets of The Villages that would try to connect lost pets with their owners before the kill shelter found adoptive homes or else euthanized them, as it would do as a matter of policy within days. The magazine also reported that Miller, alongside his state representative campaign, became commander of the Community Emergency Response Team, a group of residents who’d quickly respond in the event of a health emergency for another Villager. “I’m doing a very bad job of minding my own business,” he said at the time.

    The developers were largely able to pick the commissioners.

    Miller knew going in that, with power vested in a network of corporations acting in coordination with a political party and with control of the media, democratic decision-making potential is extremely limited. Even the area’s county commission had been tweaked to benefit The Villages by a clever bit of election reform. When the community got started, it needed significant upfront investments in infrastructure, something the existing population was uninterested in subsidizing. The wealthier Marion County to the north effectively kept the The Villages out, but the developers were able to make their moves in Sumter County. The company backed a ballot initiative called One Sumter that reorganized the county commission: No longer would each area of the county have a representative on the board. Instead, every commissioner would be elected countywide. With the Daily Sun trumpeting the measure, The Villages muscled through the reform, and in the elections hence, the developers were largely able to pick the commissioners, with the rural areas outside The Villages effectively disenfranchised.

    Miller knew he never had a shot against any Republican for state House but ran for the experience. Brett Hage beat him in a blowout in the 2018 election, 70 to 30 percent. But the next year, when The Villages successfully muscled through its property tax increase, Miller decided to run for county commission.


    DSC0420

    Residents enjoy an outdoor street fair at Lake Sumter Landing in The Villages on Jan. 14, 2023.

    Photo: Elise Swain/The Intercept

    To understand how Miller went from newly elected commissioner to under investigation by a Florida state attorney, a little background about Florida’s sunshine laws is required.

    The state prides itself in its government transparency laws: the Government in the Sunshine Act and the Public Records Act. The Sunshine Act contains two relevant principles for Miller’s saga: County commissioners are not permitted to discuss county business privately with other commissioners; they can only do so publicly at official meetings. And the commissioners may not use a “third-party conduit” for those communications either. The commissioners were sworn in on November 2020 and received a series of trainings on sunshine laws over the next several months.

    On February 16, 2021, the county board met at The Villages Sumter County Service Center. The main order of business was a recommendation by the county administrator, Bradley Arnold, that the commission not raise impact fees on businesses but instead negotiate a voluntary impact fee from the developer. The idea was voted down 4-1, according to minutes from the meeting.

    As a final order of business, Miller turned to a simmering war between local animal rights advocates — of which he and his wife were two — and supporters of the local kill shelter. He proposed a reconciliation group be formed, and suggested Gary Search as the mediator, based on Search’s background in psychology. (Search is from Allentown, Pennsylvania, as am I, and coincidentally was my sister’s guidance counselor before he retired and moved to The Villages, though I never met Search before reporting on this story.)

    “This is news to him, I’m blindsiding him with this,” Miller said of his nomination of Search at the hearing.

    “Yes, you are,” Search said, sounding exasperated.

    “If you don’t wanna do it, I’m OK. I’m saying he’s got a background in mediation and negotiating, and there’s some strong personalities in that group,” Miller said — referring to a group that included his wife, Angie Fox.

    After some discussion among the board members, the county administrator, Arnold, interjected. “There’s a conflict that’s associated with sunshine law issues,” Arnold announced. “The problem that we had was, I had a meeting with Commissioner Search, and he relayed his conversation with Angie Fox that was advocating for this very solution to be presented to the board.”

    Arnold, in other words, was accusing Miller of having communicated with Search about the proposal via his wife, in alleged violation of the Government in the Sunshine Act — a conspiracy to break the law in order to create a reconciliation committee aimed at cooling tensions around a high-kill shelter.

    Arnold unspooled the evidence he had collected about the conspiracy. “I then had a directive email from Commissioner Miller that said go and do this and use Commissioner Search for that specific purpose,” Arnold continued. “That indicates clearly that Angie Fox is a conduit of communication between two commissioners, which is a violation of open records.”

    Arnold said the committee idea should be put on hold awaiting a potential investigation. And he all but encouraged somebody in the audience to file a complaint, and two of them did. “My concern is that, where you have something that unfortunately I became a witness to a violation, that becomes an ethics-related issue,” Arnold said. “If that is filed by someone and the investigation occurs, my concern is, is that you may want to wait until that activity has happened and an investigation has been concluded before you’re involved in anything involving Angie Fox, who’s currently acting as a conduit.”

    That, at least, was Arnold’s version of events.

    Behind the scenes, however, not only was Arnold already aware that Miller would bring the idea to the board, but Arnold himself — according to an email he sent to the county attorney that was obtained by The Intercept — had also directly encouraged Miller to do so.

    On February 11, 2021, Miller had written to Arnold about his idea, according to emails obtained through an open records request by Fox. “I was out golfing today and Angie talked to Commissioner Search,” he wrote. “I don’t know what the conversation was, and I don’t want to know. I just know his background would come in handy to act as a mediator. I don’t know if he would be willing to do this or not, but I think he would.”

    “That is a good thought, but I will need Board direction,” Arnold responded, suggesting a future date.

    Arnold forwarded it to the county attorney, Jennifer Rey. “I am asking that he bring this issue to the Board,” he said.

    “It was a setup,” Fox concluded.

    Arnold, in an interview with The Intercept, said that his intervention in the meeting kicked off the resulting investigation. “That’s what ultimately led to the complaint with the State Attorney’s Office,” he said.

    “It was a setup.”

    Arnold had a backup plan if Miller didn’t bring it up. “If that had not been raised by him at the meeting, it was the plan of the county attorney to share how dangerously close the commissioners are coming to a potential open meetings violation,” Arnold told me. “But before [the county attorney] could provide that support, [Miller] had already proceeded. And then that basically met all of the conditions from my concern that I had raised with the county attorney.”

    In other words, Arnold was planning to bring up an allegation of open records violation whether Miller brought up his proposal or not.

    But when I asked Arnold if he had encouraged Miller to bring the issue to the board, he flatly denied having done so. “No, absolutely not,” he said.

    Presented with the email, Arnold said, “That communication preceded my discovery of the open meetings issue which is covered in the meeting minutes.” However, Miller’s own email alerted Arnold to the fact that his wife and Search had spoken, adding that he didn’t know what they spoke about. Arnold later told Search, according to Search’s testimony, that he had tried to discourage Miller from bringing it up, but no evidence supports that claim. Arnold “said he was disappointed that [Miller] brought it up because he felt his conversation with Mr. Miller indicated that he should not bring it up,” Search said.

    A third complaint was filed by former Circuit Court Judge George G. Angeliadis, who had put his name forward to DeSantis in August 2020 for a state Supreme Court opening. That complaint was even more absurd than the other two: Angeliadis had filed an open records request for the documents associated with an animal rights Facebook group run by Fox. Fox explained that the group was public, and Angeliadis could view any of it he liked. He demanded printouts of the entire page, and Fox’s attorney told him she would gladly do so but would need to charge a standard per-page and per-hour rate. He declined and filed a Public Records Act complaint instead, leading to a back-and-forth interrogation of Miller by the local prosecutors over the nature of a Facebook page versus a group. It later came up in court as evidence of Miller’s evasiveness.

    Oddly, the three complaints bypassed typical ethics procedures and went directly to Republican State Attorney Bill Gladson. (A more appropriate venue would be the state ethics commission, housed in Tallahassee.) At that point, Miller and Search were on extremely unfavorable terrain. Gladson himself had been elected under unusual circumstances. Just before the deadline to file for reelection in 2020, long serving GOP State Attorney Brad King said that he would not be running for reelection. Gladson’s deputy was ready with his paperwork, and voilà, he became the area’s top prosecutor unopposed.

    Also unusually, Gladson took personal control of the rather minor complaints, which, again, focused on the question of whether Fox was acting as a conduit between the two commissioners. In August, Gladson and a team of prosecutors interviewed Search. Estep was also invited to answer questions, but he declined, and the prosecutors never followed up. Citing a potential appeal, Gladson declined to comment on the prosecution.


    angie-fox_

    Angie Fox kisses Jaydon, one of her dogs, at home on Jan. 14, 2023, in The Villages, Fla.

    Photo: Elise Swain/The Intercept

    A transcript of Search’s interrogation reveals a room full of Florida men struggling with the peculiar concept of a woman acting independently of her husband. Fox, Search told, had been warned by Miller multiple times that there were concerns that she was acting as a conduit for him, and that she should be careful in how she talked to commissioners. But Fox insisted that she was a taxpayer and entitled to lobby her commissioners on behalf of the cause she cared about most deeply: ending the high-kill shelter’s slaughter of local animals.

    Search told investigators about a call he had after a January board meeting in which he had declined to second a motion from her husband, Miller, about a new pet tethering ordinance he was suggesting. The investigators asked how long they had spoken. “Ms. Fox does not talk for a short period of time. I can’t tell you how long it went,” he said, but added that he told her, “You’re Commissioner Miller’s wife, we should not be talking.”

    She told him, “I’m not calling you about Commissioner Miller as a wife, I’m calling you as the president of the Lost Pets of The Villages and I’m calling you as a constituent,” Search recalled. “I said, OK, I’ll listen,” Search said. “She just ranted for a while about tethering and things like that.” During the conversation, Fox had mentioned an idea for a reconciliation group to ease the tensions, and Search passed on word to the county administrator, Bradley Arnold, and the county attorney, Jennifer Rey, about the conversation. About two weeks later, in an email to Arnold, Miller proposed a different version of a group, this one with Search moderating it. That’s when Arnold suggested he bring it up at a board meeting.

    That may be too much detail, but it’s worth understanding the context that led to the complaint, which itself led to the interrogation about Fox acting as a conduit between the two. During Search’s interrogation, one prosecutor asked Search if he thought Fox was acting of her own volition. “From your seat and from your perspective, is he asking her/telling her to knock it off, or is he using her as a conduit?”

    “In my speculation, and it’s pure speculation of watching this the last, I’ll say, year before the election until now, is that Angie is a tremendously free spirit who no male is going to tell her — including a husband — what to say, how to say it, when to say it, and what to say. And a husband who is not going to go down that path,” Search answered.

    “I get it,” said the prosecutor.

    “No, you really wouldn’t get it unless you really met her,” Search said.

    “I don’t think my wife is a conduit for me. I might be a conduit for her.”

    In October, Miller was subpoenaed by the state attorney, despite repeatedly attempting to schedule a meeting in response to an invitation. The subpoena added to the breathless coverage in the Daily Sun.

    Under oath, he told Bill Gladson the same thing as Search. His wife was her own woman. “I don’t think my wife is a conduit for me. I might be a conduit for her. She was the big animal rights advocate to begin with and I’m kind of supporting her on those issues. She brought those concerns to me, not me to her,” he tried to explain.

    The prosecutors expressed confusion. “For the life of me I can’t understand why you don’t see that this was clearly a conduit situation; I mean, you know all about the positions she’s on, you know about the emails she’s sent, you know she’s having communications with other county commissioners because you’ve seen these emails,” said one prosecutor.

    “Right,” said Miller, “but she’s a voter, she’s a taxpayer. She’s not telling me how to vote or what to vote or — she’s not controlling me, she’s trying to be a citizen and a voter and a constituent.”

    Apparently recognizing the cul-de-sac they’d found themselves in, prosecutors never went forward with the conduit charge.


    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks on the coronavirus crisis during an appearance at the drive-through testing site at The Villages, Fla., Polo Club, Monday, March 23, 2020. The testing site is being operated by UF Health, with University of Florida medical students performing the tests. (Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks at The Villages on March 23, 2020.

    Photo: Joe Burbank/TNS via Getty Images

    In mid-October 2021, Ron DeSantis returned to The Villages for his 20th visit since becoming governor. He had even signed the state’s budget at The Villages. He was there this time to award the county a $6 million grant for road improvements.

    Search saw Gary Lester, The Villages vice president who had previously promised to squash him like a bug, and reached out to shake his hand. “Get away from me, you liar,” Lester told him, Search recalled. He waited until after the event and asked him why he had said that.

    “Why would you even do that as a fellow Christian brother?” Search asked.

    “Don’t get religious with me,” Lester replied, according to Search, who asked again what he was trying to say.

    “You’re gonna find out soon enough why you’re a liar,” Search said Lester told him. “And I said, ‘Excuse me, Mr. Lester, but I haven’t lied about anything.’ And he said, ‘You’re gonna find out.’ And I kind of just took that tongue in cheek, like, OK, I’m not gonna get anywhere with this person.” At lunch after the event, he said, he told Bradley Arnold about the exchange, and Arnold told him not to worry about it, that Lester was just unhappy that Search was on the commission. (Arnold didn’t respond to request for comment on that exchange.) Search was disturbed enough by the encounter that he told his friend Gilbert Windsor from New Covenant United Methodist Church about it that evening, Windsor told me.

    In December, Search would come to suspect what Lester seemed to be hinting at. Prosecutors had instead decided to charge both Search and Miller with perjury, saying they lied about the nature of their phone calls with each other. “I never put two and two together until two months later when you get the phone call,” he said, describing the moment he learned he was being charged with perjury. “And it’s like, wait a second, how would he — he had to have known? And why in the world would the state attorney be talking to him?” (Gladson declined to comment.)

    Search and Miller, phone records showed, spoke somewhat frequently from November 2020 to February 2021. And, they readily admitted, they had occasionally discussed commission business before they were fully trained and understood that doing so ran afoul of sunshine laws.

    The transcript of Gladson’s interview with Miller includes the supposed crime he is convicted of committing:

    Miller: We got elected in November, the phone calls probably stopped in January or February when we all realized that could be an issue.

    Gladson: Got it.

    Miller: So I can’t give you the exact date they stopped, but it was somewhere in there.

    Another prosecutor added: “Of more concern, sir, is that I asked you — I think a specific question: Do you have phone conversations with Mr. Search?”

    Miller: Yes.

    Prosecutor: OK.

    Miller: I did.

    Prosecutor: After January?

    Miller: No.

    Miller’s “no” to “After January?” would be used as the basis for a perjury charge, despite his having said multiple times elsewhere in the interview that he’s uncertain about when the calls stopped.

    Gadson and his deputies showed Miller some phone records, showing calls in January, and also one on February 17, and another in March, and asked what they were about.

    “In all honesty, I do not know what it was about, I don’t.”

    “But you had phone conversations with him?”

    “Yes, I promise you we had phone calls.”

    “So it could have been county business?”

    “We did not discuss anything the county was working on, anything we voted on or anything we were going to vote on, or anything that was coming up in front of us,” Miller said.

    “Well, how do you know? You don’t remember what the phone calls were about.”

    “Because we know from the ethics training we couldn’t do that,” Miller explained.

    In the moment, Miller said he didn’t remember what most of the calls were about, and prosecutors didn’t show him a calendar or give him any heads up that might have let him cross-check his schedule. But some of the calls, Miller recalled, were about a golf outing. Some were to arrange who was going to bring apple fritters from Dough J’s for the staff at meetings. (The fritters took up an inordinate amount of time in Miller’s interrogation. Dough J’s was way out of the way, so the pickups had to be coordinated.) Some of the calls, he said, were about church functions or Covid relief. But none, after their training, were about active commission business, he said.

    Scott Fenstermaker, a retired attorney and former FBI agent who lives in The Villages, knows both Search and Miller, and would talk to them about county business, he told me. “They would both say, don’t tell me what these other guys have said to me because I don’t want people to think you’re a conduit,” Fenstermaker said. “They were being very careful to observe the Sunshine Act.”

    Miller’s lawyer later noted in a motion to vacate the conviction that Miller readily admitted to having violated the Sunshine Act, at least until January and February — undermining the idea that he lied to avoid implicating himself in breaking the law. The perjury charge, in other words, concerned when the calls stopped, but that fact is actually irrelevant to the question of whether they violated the law. And, again, prosecutors never charged either Miller or Search with violating any sunshine laws.

    DeSantis stepped in and issued executive orders removing them from the commission.

    Yet in December 2021, Gladson charged both commissioners with felony perjury, punishable by up to five years in prison. DeSantis stepped in and issued executive orders removing them from the commission.

    “Two things are happening here: intimidation and humiliation,” Search said in January 2022, addressing The Villages’ Property Owners’ Association. “The second thing is … to intimidate any other candidate from running against the local government that they’ve controlled for so long.”

    Throughout the whole episode, the Daily Sun routinely published Search’s and Miller’s mugshots. And the opposition to The Villages’ political machine was quickly eroding. Cliff Weiner, president of the Property Owners’ Association, spoke after Search. “I had a lot of people who were lined up to run in 2022 for the two seats that were open. Andrew is the only one who’s still standing,” he said, referring to a candidate in the audience Search had pointed out. “And some people that were gonna run in 2024 in other offices, slowly but surely they’re all dropping. They don’t want to go through what Gary and Oren are going through right now. That’s a sad state of affairs that we live in a community that people are afraid to run because if you win, you’re on the wrong side.”

    “I’m also very disappointed in our governor,” Search added. “He made a financial move, but I think a very terrible political move. Hopefully when these charges are dropped, because they are all false, I hope the governor and I have a long talk.”

    Soon, Search and Miller were drowning in legal bills. Search also had surgery scheduled, plus his medication schedule made a prison term less than ideal. He cut a deal with prosecutors to testify at Miller’s trial in exchange for avoiding prison and ending the legal battle. The deal barred him from for running for office for six months, blocking him from the next election.

    But Search’s testimony was not, in the end, damning to Miller. Search confirmed that the two of them had spoken by phone after January or February, but they weren’t discussing commission business. They would, for instance, coordinate on who would bring which snacks to a meeting. Search did admit to bringing up the no-kill kennel plan with Miller sometime in the summer of 2021, cutting against their claims that they stopped discussing county matters privately after January or February. But that conversation didn’t happen by phone, so it isn’t relevant to the perjury charge.

    Miller’s jury was empaneled on November 14, 2022, by Judge Anthony Tatti, who had previously put his name forward to DeSantis, hoping for an elevation to the state Supreme Court. The judge did two things. First, he empaneled the jury on a Monday but delayed the trial until Friday. Then he told them that under no circumstances should they go home and read coverage of the case in the local Daily Sun. Doing so might bias them, he said.

    Miller’s attorney, Dock Blanchard, was flabbergasted, and later objected, showing the judge the biased coverage that he had elevated to the jury’s attention. “This is a newspaper, not a motion,” the judge told him, overruling his objection.

    Not a single prosecution witness presented evidence that Search and Miller had talked about commission business on the phone after the time they said the calls stopped. But the existence of the calls themselves — perhaps coupled with relentless Daily Sun coverage — was sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict, the jury of six found.

    Miller was floored. His attorney asked that he be allowed to go free on bond to await sentencing, but the judge rejected it, sending the 72-year-old out of the courtroom in handcuffs on the afternoon of November 18.


    IMG_5086

    The Village’s local newspaper, The Villages Daily Sun, on Jan. 31, 2023.

    Photo: Ryan Grim/The Intercept

    Two and a half months later, and some 20 pounds lighter, Miller was back before Tatti for sentencing. The Daily Sun had run a front-page story that morning on the sentencing, calling Miller a “convicted felon.” Dozens of his friends and supporters packed the courtroom as Miller, cuffed again, was escorted in. He was hunched over, now bearded, wearing an orange-and-white striped jumpsuit.

    The last 74 days had been an ordeal. There are about 1,800 people in the county’s lockup facility; Miller was in a pod with 80, he said, but there were just 56 seats for meals. On his first day, a jailmate offered to adopt him and get him a seat at meals in exchange for some of his food, a bargain he eagerly accepted. On the second day, he said, he won protection from a gang leader. “Oren Miller, you are protected in here because you’re a senior citizen,” the man said, according to Miller. “‘But understand, don’t cross any lines.’ … And so I minded my p’s and q’s.” Violence broke out regularly, Miller recounted, and he watched two men beaten nearly to death. He moved to try to break up the first fight, but two men held him back, explaining that if he got involved, he’d be called later as a witness, and you don’t want to be a witness against somebody who sleeps in the same open room as you. So he let them fight.

    Miller went days without his heart or thyroid medication, and grew weak and dizzy. Complaining of chest pain, he was eventually given an EKG, which the staff told him showed no problems. “My EKG hasn’t been good in 15 years,” he said. “I will never have a good EKG. I’ve got an irregular heartbeat all the time.” He said they gave him medication despite claiming to detect no heart trouble — the same type of heart medication he’d been prescribed but hadn’t been getting.

    His logistics training from Caterpillar came in handy, and he devised a system for the headcount process which worked so well that the unit’s numbers were correct more often, meaning they rarely got punished for the wrong count anymore. He could see the guard coming from a neighboring unit, and Miller would yell “Headcount!”: a signal for the men to move to the predesignated places to be counted. He taught his jailmates how to document abuse and negligence when it occurred, so that if they later filed a complaint, they’d have something to stand it up. When he left the unit for what he hoped would be the last time, he turned around and yelled to the men: “Headcount!”

    They all shouted back: “Headcount!”

    Tatti began by acknowledging Miller’s motion for a new trial and quickly dismissing it. The judge reprimanded Miller’s attorney, Blanchard, for Facebook posts from Miller’s supporters saying that he had been “railroaded,” and asked if that was the argument Miller was planning to make at sentencing. It was not, Blanchard said, and asked to call three character witnesses.

    Fox, ahead of the sentencing, had put out a request for testimonials. What came back shocked even her. If Miller saw somebody eating alone in a restaurant, friends said, he’d pay for their meal. If service was particularly good, he’d insist on speaking to the manager to compliment the staff. If he saw a veteran in a grocery store, he’d pay for their groceries. (“Oren doesn’t have much money,” Fox told me afterward, her pride mixed with a little financial concern.)

    A 19-year-old young man from southern Sumter County, outside The Villages, took the stand to call him “the greatest man I’ve ever met,” saying Miller had mentored him since he was 14, including sitting with him as a loved one passed. The last time he saw him for lunch, Miller brought him a stack of used iPads he had collected, and instructed him to take them to a local repairman (at Miller’s expense) and donate them to local high school students in need.

    When a family lost their home to a fire, Miller organized the effort to rebuild their lives. When Hurricane Irma hit, Miller didn’t wait for the winds to have fully died down before organizing recovery efforts. There didn’t seem to be a church charity program he wasn’t involved in or leading. Another man described the emergency response team Miller had set up. The first time he got a call, he said, he rushed to the distressed home in two minutes max, but when he got there, he found Miller already in the bathroom, doing chest compressions on a man in cardiac arrest. If somebody lost a pet, said another friend, Miller and Fox would drop everything and go searching immediately. “If it was 2 a.m., they wouldn’t say, we’ll be there at 7. They’d be there right away,” said one woman.

    There was no victim, no violence, and Miller had no record. The pre-sentencing report called for time served and 30 months probation. The prosecution, in a subtle nod to the absurdity of the penalty, asked for less: time served and 24 months of probation. But Assistant State Attorney Sasha Kidney still laid into him. “The defendant has shown zero remorse,” said Kidney.

    In the hallway, I asked her if she felt like justice was served in the case. “I think the jury listened to the evidence that was presented and returned a verdict based on that, and it was up to them and they made their decision,” she said.

    The Daily Sun, also in the hallway, wanted more blood, and asked if the original investigation into sunshine law violations was still open. “Not to my knowledge at this point,” she said. The Daily Sun reporter pressed the question again. “I can’t really answer that question. It may still be open. I don’t know,” she said.

    The next morning’s coverage of the sentencing, above the fold on the front page, would headline “Convicted Felon Miller Released from Jail: Legal Woes Not Over.” The article used the assistant state attorney’s answer to hang a new sword over Miller’s neck, reporting: “Prosecutors have not yet said they have closed the investigation into Miller’s potential Sunshine Law violations, and he remains under investigation by the state’s Commission on Ethics over an online fundraiser he created for the public to bankroll his lawyers.” (His GoFundMe to cover legal fees for his appeal remains open and is accepting contributions.)

    Back in the courtroom, Tatti decided to add 200 hours of community service to Miller’s sentence, too, but he had a problem: How to punish a man with forced service who gives the bulk of his time in service to the community already? The judge’s solution: On top of going above the sentencing recommendation to give him 36 months of probation, Tatti ordered him to perform his community service at the local landfill.

    The post How a Grassroots Revolt in the Iconic Retirement Community Ended With a 72-Year-Old Political Prisoner appeared first on The Intercept.

  • Silicon Valley dodged a hail of congressional bullets through the last several months of 2022. A suite of antitrust legislation threatened to puncture the industry’s monopolistic business model, but the bills never left the upper chamber.

    The legislative package represented the most advanced legislative threat to Big Tech since the industry’s birth. Several bills passed through the House of Representatives and others, sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Following the November elections, which saw Republicans take over the House, Big Tech’s Washington lobby kicked it into higher gear, working to make sure the threat didn’t materialize in the next Congress.

    And they found an unlikely hero: Taylor Swift.

    In mid-November, Swifties looking to secure tickets to the singer’s upcoming Eras Tour were foiled en masse by monopolistic incompetence of Live Nation, the parent company of Ticketmaster, which melted down amid the surge in demand. It was a poignant demonstration of monopolism run amok — and of what a mistake it had been for the Obama administration to have greenlighted the Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger that effectively ended competition in the ticketing industry.

    Politicians dutifully denounced the decrepit company, and Big Tech spied an opening to deflect and distract.

    The next day, the lobbying firm NetChoice, which represents the Big Tech conglomerates in Washington, urged Congress and antitrust policymakers to focus their attention on Ticketmaster.

    “Congress and progressives like Amy Klobuchar are spending all this time going after tech leaders including Meta, Google, Amazon and Apple, which are far from monopolies,” NetChoice policy counsel Jennifer Huddleston said in an email November 16 to press and Washington power brokers. “Instead, the government should use existing laws and resources to protect consumers and investigate Ticketmaster’s anti-competitive practices in the concert marketplace.”

    For its first hearing of the year on Tuesday, January 24, the Senate Judiciary Committee chose to target Live Nation, with Chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in a panel titled, “That’s the Ticket: Promoting Competition and Protecting Consumers in Live Entertainment.”

    The hearing included testimony from Joe Berchtold, president and chief financial officer of Live Nation Entertainment; Jack Groetzinger, CEO of SeatGeek; Jerry Mickelson, CEO and president of Jam Productions; and musician Clyde Lawrence of the band Lawrence; and advocates on both sides of the issue.


    The choice of hearing sends a signal regarding congressional priorities, and Swifties and Big Tech alike celebrated the coal-raking of Ticketmaster. Indeed, there are few companies less popular for better reasons than Ticketmaster, which controls some 80 percent of the concert venue market.


    Big Tech’s targeting of Ticketmaster is far from altruistic, however. On Tuesday, Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of NetChoice, laid out the industry’s interest in the case. The Ticketmaster example, Szabo said in a statement, shows that, actually, there’s no need for all the work Congress and federal antitrust regulators like FTC Chair Lina Khan are doing to rethink competition policy in order to encompass industries like Big Tech. Ticketmaster is such a flagrant example of monopolistic practices, yet regulators have done nothing to break them up. If Washington won’t even bother with the low-hanging fruit, how can it chop down trees in Silicon Valley?


    The industry also implied that reforming antitrust laws might make it harder to go after Ticketmaster, though that’s not the case. Szabo’s statement said:

    We have seen Ticketmaster pressuring artists and venues to use their system, withholding thousands of tickets from sale to the general public, and helping ticket speculators circumvent anti-bot protections. At the same time, consumers can’t get access to tickets, and prices have continued to skyrocket—a clear example of consumer harm.

    It’s obvious that this presents an antitrust enforcement action under the consumer welfare standard—the current legal framework in the U.S. for bringing antitrust cases. This already-existing legal criteria is meant to deter the government from targeting businesses based on political leanings. Under the consumer welfare standard’s 3-pronged test, the government must show a company’s market power, abuse of that power and proof that the company’s actions resulted in consumer harm. Clearly, LiveNation’s practices would fit under this framework.

    Yet the Biden administration and progressives in Congress have been trying to change these effective guidelines to serve their own political goals. It’s mind-boggling that Biden’s Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have wasted taxpayer resources and pursued legally-questionable antitrust enforcement actions, while simultaneously failing to address this clear case of consumer harm and anti-competitive practice in the ticket sales market.

    While we’re glad to see the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is taking these anticompetitive practices seriously, antitrust law would not need to be changed to bring an enforcement action against LiveNation/Ticketmaster for this fiasco.

    The argument did not appear to persuade the Department of Justice, which announced on Tuesday it plans to sue Google — again — for monopolizing the online ad market.

    In testimony prepared for the Judiciary Committee, Live Nation’s president argued that Ticketmaster wasn’t all that bad. “Ticketmaster comes under a lot of criticism, and I look forward to addressing that today,” he said in prepared remarks. “But I can say with great confidence that technologically Ticketmaster is a much better ticketing system today than it was in 2010.”

    Aside from Big Tech, railroad workers and antitrust advocates have been pushing Congress to take a stand against a merger between two of the few remaining railroad companies that have yet to be consolidated, Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern. Durbin, the chair of the Judiciary Committee and Senate majority whip, has publicly opposed that merger.

    The post Big Tech to Congress: Listen to Taylor Swift and Go After Ticketmaster, Not Us appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • House Republicans enacted new rules for the 118th Congress on Monday that preserve the traditional right of rank-and-file members of Congress to bypass House leadership and put legislation on the floor directly if they obtain the signatures of a majority of the chamber. This opens a handful of legislative opportunities for Democrats, despite Republican ideological cohesion.

    The maneuver, known as a discharge petition, was famously deployed by President Lyndon Johnson and his House allies to pressure reluctant opponents of civil rights to allow a vote for the Civil Rights Act on the floor. Under standard rules, the majority leader sets the floor schedule, in collaboration with the House Rules Committee, but a discharge petition can automatically pull a bill from committee and move it to the floor. Once the logjam was broken, it passed with significant support.

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., deployed a discharge petition in the last Congress to pressure House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to move forward with a ban on congressional stock trading. Pelosi smothered the move by publicly agreeing to hold a vote, but then sabotaged negotiations.

    With Democrats holding 213 seats in the 118th Congress, that leaves them five votes short of the number needed to bring a bill to the floor. For most legislation, five votes is far too high a hurdle to clear. It is exceedingly unlikely, for instance, that Democrats could find five Republicans to sign on to a discharge petition that created a vote on codifying Roe v. Wade, though there may be a small number of Republicans put in a difficult spot at home if they resisted signing.

    A discharge petition to raise or eliminate the debt ceiling, on the other hand, could avert a financial crisis threatened by Freedom Caucus members who opposed Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s bid for the speakership. In exchange for their votes, Freedom Caucus members won a commitment that McCarthy would hold U.S. debt payments hostage in exchange for significant spending cuts across the board. But if Democrats could find five Republicans unwilling to risk default, which would spark a global financial crisis, a discharge petition would give those Republicans a route around their own leadership.

    First-term Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa., said that he saw real opportunities for bipartisanship when it comes to antitrust policy, and a discharge petition could get around McCarthy’s support for concentrated corporate power. “I think there’s some interest on their side in doing some of this. There certainly is on ours. If we can get the numbers, fine, we’ll do it, I’ll be part of that,” he said.

    Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., said that a similar dynamic might be at play when it comes to immigration — “the desperation on the border,” as he put it — and the fentanyl crisis, if a handful of Republicans in blue districts feel pressure to get something done. “How can you not hear that and give it a fair opportunity,” he said. “If there’s common-sense, middle-ground, enforcement-slash-humanitarian, how can you turn that one down?”

    And, of course, the fate of Republican Rep. George Santos of Long Island remains unclear. Santos is currently one of 18 Republicans serving in a district that voted for Joe Biden for president in the 2020 election. If Santos resigns or is booted from office, the question of codifying Roe in the resulting special election would be more salient with an active discharge petition underway, as it would move Democrats one vote closer to a majority.

    In November, following the midterm elections, Ocasio-Cortez backed the idea of a discharge petition on abortion rights, though was concerned that Republicans might strip the discharge petition from the rules in the upcoming term. Their opportunity to do so quietly came and went on Monday. Any effort to change the rules in the middle of the term in response to a petition with momentum would at minimum attract national attention.

    “Discharge petition is an excellent vehicle,” Ocasio-Cortez said in the interview. “Using rules is going to be quite important. I know that that’s going to be subject to negotiation within the Republican caucus as well. This is something that they’ve already started to use as a lever. … They are in a much weaker position as a party, which means they have more to concede — not us. And we can stand in that confidence, in that power a little bit more.”

    David Segal, head of the group Demand Progress, which often works with both Democrats and Republicans on populist issues, said the motion to discharge opened up opportunities to push legislation opposed by party leadership. “Discharge petitions can be used to a variety of useful aims — from forcing members to take stances on popular issues, to potentially forcing votes on matters of important substance where there’s cross-partisan esteem, like antimonopoly policy, that could actually pass,” he said.

    Democrats would have to move fairly quickly, however, to avert a financial crisis. First, a bill would have to be introduced and referred to committee, according to House rules and precedents. Then 30 legislative days would need to expire. Once 218 signatures are collected, another seven legislative days need to pass, at which point the motion would come to the floor on the second or fourth Monday after those seven legislative days are up. A legislative day is one in which the House is in session and then adjourns. A motion to discharge filed in February or March ought to be ripe by summer. The Treasury Department has not put a precise date at which default will occur, but the estimate is summer.

    Using a discharge petition to avert default could, however, become a moot issue. Constitutional scholars have argued that the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional: If Congress appropriates money, the executive is required to spend that money, not default because of a lack of borrowing authority when other avenues to fulfill the appropriations exist.

    The post House Rules Package Gives Democrats a Path to Averting a Debt Ceiling Crisis appeared first on The Intercept.

  • Rep. Kevin McCarthy would have to commit to “shut down the government rather than raise the debt ceiling” in order to win the support of his opponents, Rep. Ralph Norman, a Republican from South Carolina, told reporters Wednesday afternoon.

    “That’s a non-negotiable item,” said Norman, a leader of the squad objecting to McCarthy, a California Republican, becoming speaker of the House.

    A reporter asked Norman if he meant default on the debt, as the debt ceiling and a government shutdown are not directly linked. “That’s why you need to be planning now what agencies — what path you’re gonna take now to trim government. Tell the programs you’re going to get to this number. And you do that before chairs are picked,” he said, referring to the process of choosing and installing House committee chairs.

    A quirk of parliamentary procedure requires Congress to authorize spending, then appropriate money for those authorized expenditures, and then to authorize the Treasury Department to issue debt in order to pay for that appropriated money. Some constitutional scholars argue that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, but currently both parties recognize it as a legal and valid restriction on the government’s ability to issue debt.

    If the Treasury defaults on its debt, the result could be a global economic crisis, as many companies and foreign governments hold their capital reserves in Treasury notes. If those notes can’t be turned into dollars, payments won’t be made, producing a cascading collapse of counter-parties that had been expecting those payments, and so on. In 2011, the threat of default downgraded the U.S. government’s credit worthiness and led to a major stock market crash, but a deal was struck before the U.S. defaulted.

    The debt limit is expected to be hit sometime in the summer. Democrats declined to take the opportunity to eliminate or raise it further during the lame-duck period when they still controlled the House.

    Another reporter noted to Norman that House Republicans lack the power to dictate those spending terms to Democratic President Joe Biden’s White House and a Democratic-controlled Senate, a reality Norman conceded. His band of Freedom Caucus members, however, was willing to use what leverage they had.

    “You play the cards you’re dealt,” he said. “Biden’s gonna veto anything. Can we get a two-thirds vote [to override]? Probably not. But it is what it is. If we do what the American people tell us to do, which is to get this country back on track financially, we will get their support. The insane spending cannot keep up.”

    The Intercept asked Norman if he thought a potential Speaker Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, whom Norman said he trusts more than McCarthy, would be willing to default on the debt. “No, he would cut things that have to be cut,” Norman said. “Default is only if you keep the spending. We’re going to default eventually if we keep going down this path.” (Jordan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

    Asked what specifically McCarthy had done to lose his trust, Norman said, “The 14 years he’s been here when he’s voted for every spending package and this $1.7 trillion omnibus.”

    The post Kevin McCarthy Must Commit to Government Shutdown Over Raising Debt Ceiling, Says Freedom Caucus Holdout appeared first on The Intercept.

  • Opponents of Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s bid for the House speakership are digging in after a tense discussion on the House floor between Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

    The pair’s conspicuous exchange in the back of the chamber on the first day of the 118th Congress was caught on C-SPAN — and noted by many members in the building. Thanks to Gaetz and his far-right allies, McCarthy, a California Republican, failed to win the speakership on the first round of voting.

    Gaetz told Ocasio-Cortez that McCarthy has been telling Republicans that he’ll be able to cut a deal with Democrats to vote present, enabling him to win a majority of those present and voting, according to Ocasio-Cortez. She told Gaetz that wasn’t happening, and also double-checked with Democratic party leadership, confirming there’d be no side deal.


    “McCarthy was suggesting he could get Dems to walk away to lower his threshold,” Ocasio-Cortez told The Intercept of her conversation with Gaetz on McCarthy’s failed ploy. “And I fact checked and said absolutely not.”

    Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York won all 212 of his party’s votes, a show of unity that, if it holds, requires McCarthy to win over all but four of his colleagues.

    Gaetz, who has shown a willingness to break with the GOP establishment, said that his crew of McCarthy opponents was dug in and would continue to resist him, adding that McCarthy has been threatening opponents with loss of committee assignments. A private gathering of Republicans ahead of the vote had been heated, multiple sources said. (Gaetz did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

    McCarthy and Gaetz presented their positions in dueling press conferences Tuesday morning. McCarthy said that Gaetz and his allies had requested plum committee assignments in exchange for supporting his speaker bid. McCarthy also accused Gaetz of telling Republican members that he was willing to elect Jeffries as speaker rather than accede to McCarthy. Gaetz told reporters that he and his allies didn’t trust McCarthy.

    Ahead of the second round of voting, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who won six votes for speaker in the first round, nominated McCarthy again. Then Gaetz rose and nominated Jordan. All 19 McCarthy opponents voted for Jordan in the second round, leaving McCarthy again at 203 votes — 15 short of what he needed.

    Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz. another McCarthy opponent, also huddled with Ocasio-Cortez in the chamber, inquiring about the possibility of adjourning the House. (Gosar did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

    In the first round, McCarthy won just 203 votes, losing 19 of his colleagues. McCarthy has been insistent on remaining in session, as have his opponents. Adjourning without choosing a speaker would be embarrassing to Republicans but might also give time for McCarthy to break the opposition one by one.

    Ocasio-Cortez was noncommittal on the tack, as an adjournment strategy would require party leadership.

    The post What Matt Gaetz and AOC Talked About During Kevin McCarthy’s Speaker Vote appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Fresh off a victory against workers demanding sick days as part of recent contract negotiations, two major railroads are pursuing a merger and a third, owned by billionaire Warren Buffett, is retaliating against one railroader who helped lead the push for better working conditions.

    On Wednesday, a coalition of 10 organizations sent a letter to the Surface Transportation Board urging it to reject the merger of Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern on a number of different grounds, warning that further consolidation would lead to diminished service, higher prices, and more trucks on the road, despite rosy promises from the carriers to the contrary. Concentrated and brittle supply chains, they argue, have already helped drive inflation amid the pandemic.

    In North Dakota, BNSF railroader Deven Mantz, who played a public role in the fight for sick days in Congress, has suddenly found himself the subject of a Kafka-esque investigation by Buffett’s railroad company, which is accusing him of stealing time from the company. The railroad would be forced into arbitration if it fires him, Mantz said, and would likely lose, owing him years of back pay for wrongful termination. But it would be a small price to pay to get a motivated advocate for the union out of the workforce.

    In the summer of 2021, the Biden administration laid out a comprehensive competition policy aimed at breaking up concentrated corporate power and reversing the wave of consolidation across industries.

    The merger’s coalition of opponents, which includes Open Markets Institute and Public Citizen, argue that monopolization has not led to more efficiency. Rather, railroads have abused their market power by refusing to carry low-margin loads from small businesses and otherwise cutting their capacity. That leaves them no flexibility in the event of even a minor shock to the system, they wrote:

    In July 2021 for example, the Union Pacific suspended all container freight service between West Coast ports and its Global IV terminal in Chicago, a hub clogged with stacked containers that the rail operator lacked the capacity to sort and redirect. The embargo immediately meant that still more boxes coming from Asia, with everything from auto parts to transistors, piled up on docks as West Coast ports waited for canceled trains. The cause of this inflationary chokepoint: Union Pacific had previously closed a major handling facility in Chicago, known as Global III, that is desperately needed to keep the supply chain moving. At a time of soaring food prices, UP’s continuing service failures have jeopardized shipments of corn that thousands of dairy cattle and millions of chickens depend on, while also driving up the cost of automobiles through disruption of supply chains or diversion to more expensive trucks. As in other concentrated industries, monopoly leads to the hollowing out of capacity and to the spread of price gouging and inflation.

    Deven Mantz became active in his Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes union around seven years ago, and helped form a workers caucus called BMWED Rank and File United. In mid-November, he was in Washington with other railworkers, meeting with members of Congress, asking them for help in the upcoming contract fight that was expected to come to Capitol Hill. He did an interview with the leftist podcast Chapo Trap House and was featured in an Intercept article on the railway battle. Back in North Dakota, he soon found himself under investigation.

    devon

    Deven Mantz.

    Photo courtesy of Deven Mantz.

    Mantz said the allegation is “time theft,” when a worker is accused of claiming to have worked an amount of time that is greater than what he actually performed. But, Mantz, said, there’s an easy explanation. Workers in his shop are told to enter the time they’ll be working in the beginning of their shift. Occasionally, they work shorter or longer hours than forecast, and there are multiple ways to correct the record. On November 30, Mantz entered a workday of 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., but he and two others, with their work finished, decided to leave at 12:35. That afternoon, he was promoted to track inspector and no longer had access to the internal system he would need to tweak his hours. On Friday, December 2, he emailed his timekeeper, as he’d done before, to correct the record and have just under three hours docked from his paycheck. She confirmed receipt of the email and said she would make the adjustment. 

    But that was not that. On Monday, December 5, he was notified he was under investigation for “alleged falsification of payroll,” and instructed to appear at a hearing December 15 that has since been moved to January 5. 

    Over the same time period, Congress was voting on additional sick days that Mantz had worked to push. During the sick-day fight, Mantz had worked directly with the offices Reps. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., and Cori Bush, D-Mo., in developing the strategy to push back after Biden forced a contract on workers.

    Mantz said his union representative has been supportive, but if BNSF’s aim is to oust union shop steward who’s been a thorn in their side, it won’t matter who’s right. “Railroads have been known for a long time to do different sorts of retaliation,” said Mantz, speaking from his home in North Dakota on Wednesday, where the wind chill hit minus 30 degrees. “BNSF knows that it’s all BS and that if it goes to arbitration — which it will — if I do get fired or if I get that probation, then it’ll be dropped. The arbitrator is going to agree with us, but that’s two years away, so I might be out of a job here for the next two years.”

    As the head of his local, Mantz said that he makes sure the company abides by the contract it has struck with workers, and if it doesn’t, he files grievances for remedies. Those remedies can cost the company thousands of dollars, while also demonstrating to workers the value of collective action. The potential cost of paying Mantz not to come to work if he wins a legal fight is less than it costs them to have him there, he argued. “It’s really cheap for them to do,” he said of the alleged retaliation. “I know I’m a pain in their butt, I know that. If the arbitrator comes back in two years, and they have to pay me back all my lost wages for the last two years or three years or however long it takes, it’s still cheaper than what it is for me to be out there.” 

    On Wednesday, Bowman issued public support for Mantz.


    BNSF did not respond to a request for comment. “An injury to one is an injury to all,” said Ross Grooters, co-chair of Railroad Workers United, a cross-union caucus of railroad workers. “Stay tuned as my good friend and fellow railroad worker is under attack by the billion dollar company he works for.”

    The Surface Transportation Board is made up of five members — three Democrats and two Republicans — who now control the fate of the proposed Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern merger.

    “At a time when we desperately need to be diverting more freight and passenger traffic to railroads in order to reduce carbon emissions and alleviate truck and auto congestion, we are threatened by modern-day Wall Street robber barons who abuse the market power of today’s consolidated railroads to boost short-term profits through downsizing and degraded services,” the coalition letter reads. “President Biden’s 2021 executive order on promoting competition explicitly called on your Board to initiate rulemaking that would protect against anti-competitive practices by railroads. The Board should heed this directive in evaluating this anti-competitive merger. Far from approving more consolidation based on wishful-sounding and unlikely benefits, the board should focus on requiring existing railroads to live up to their obligations to the public as common carriers, including by insisting on non-discriminatory freight service to smaller shippers and communities as well as open access to Amtrak and other passenger rail providers.”

    The letter was led by Open Markets Institute, and backed by Solutionary Rail, American Family Voices, Campaign for Family Farms & the Environment, Demand Progress, American Economic Liberties Project, Farm Action, Food & Water Watch, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Public Citizen, and the Revolving Door Project. An STB spokesperson declined to comment.

    Railroad concentration has allowed the companies to implement a strategy they inaccurately called “precision scheduled railroading,” which is a euphemism for slashing costs and personnel. In a letter to the board in June, Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., argued that in a competitive environment, cutting costs could be a way for a company to become more efficient by investing resources in the most productive way possible. But if a railroad faces no competition, the costs that get cut simply go toward profits, while the quality and efficiency of the service is reduced. Customers have no choice but to accept it. 

    In an uncompetitive market, railroads can cut costs by eliminating jobs and capacity, suffering few consequences — the ‘do less with less’ approach,” Porter wrote in her letter opposing the merger. PSR has led to increases in train length, maintenance delays, and safety concerns, contributing both to record railroad profits and today’s supply chain crisis.” 

    She noted that STB Chair Martin Oberman in a speech last year had estimated that U.S. railroads have “paid out $196 billion in stock buybacks or dividends to shareholders since 2010.” That’s significantly more than they spent on upgrading capacity or on new equipment, she noted. 

    As The Lever reported, another railroad, Norfolk Southern, touted its dividends on an investor call days after the negotiations ended. Granting workers sick days, the Lever reported, would cost them just four days of profit.


    The post Railroads Riding High After Victory Against Workers appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.