Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is officially a suspect in two criminal cases, Israeli police officials said last week. Netanyahu, head of the conservative Likud party, has been under investigation for months. His alleged crimes: accepting illegal gifts from wealthy friends, and floating a quid pro quo deal with a newspaper publisher in a bid for more favorable coverage.

Netanyahu’s fortunes appeared to turn last week, when his former chief of staff Ari Harrow agreed to become a witness for the prosecution. Harrow, according to police, revealed damaging information about his former boss, who is suspected of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

The probes into the prime minister, known as “Case 1000” and “Case 2000,” deal with two separate instances. In “Case 1000,” Netanyahu is accused of accepting cigars and bottles of champagne from wealthy and powerful friends, including a Hollywood producer.

“Case 2000” concerns a phone call Netanyahu allegedly had with the publisher of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Arnon Mozes. Netanyahu reportedly asked Mozes for more favorable coverage. In exchange, Netanyahu would curtail the circulation of Israel Hayom, a competitor that is traditionally pro-Netanyahu. Israel Hayom is backed by an American casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson.

On Monday, Israel’s Supreme Court said Netanyahu must reveal the dates of his phone calls with Adelson and Amos Regev, the former editor-in-chief of Israel Hayom.

According to legal analysts in Israel, it is likely Netanyahu will face charges, potentially forcing him to end his fourth term as prime minister years before scheduled elections. An indictment, which could still be months off, does not necessarily mean Netanyahu will step down, according to analysts and those familiar with Israeli law. And though Israeli prime ministers have been taken down by corruption investigations, a sitting prime minister has never been indicted.

Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, was released from prison last month after serving a 16-month sentence. Olmert was forced from power in 2008, leading to early elections in 2009, when Netanyahu was elected to the premiership.

For his part, Netanyahu has called the investigations as “background noise,” vehemently denying any wrongdoing. “We cannot go without a ‘weekly affair’, so I want to tell you, citizens of Israel, I’m not referring to the background noise, I’m continuing to work for you,” Netanyahu said in a video published on his Facebook page last Friday.

But according to a recent poll by Israeli broadcaster Channel 10, Netanyahu’s popularity might be dwindling. According to the poll, 66 percent of Israelis say Netanyahu should resign if he is charged.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Investigations into Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Italian newspapers have been filled with tales from the “Mafia Capitale” trial this month, as Massimo Carminati, a right-wing extremist with a criminal history, was sentenced to 28 years in prison for diverting millions of euros that had been designated for public services into the bank accounts of politicians and businessmen.

Among those accused is the former right-wing mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, who was in office when the majority of the bribery and extortion took place. Although the label “mafia” was quickly applied to Carminati, his accomplice Salvatore Buzzi, and 45 others who faced trial for their involvement in the scandal, their lawyers have been quick to push back against using the word as a catch-all phrase.

Giosuè Naso, one of Carminati’s lawyers, stated that “if everything is mafia, nothing is mafia” and argued that using that label detracts from law enforcement efforts against crime syndicates. In Italy, trials involving the mafia come with a different set of punitive measures as “mafia association” itself can be considered a crime. Judge Rosanna Ianniello ultimately decided Carminati and Buzzi were guilty of corruption, not mafia association, even though the state made an argument that the operation was mafia-like and that certain members of the group had ties to the ‘Ndrangheta, Calabria’s powerful mafia. Gianni Alemanno has also been cleared of mafia association charges but is still awaiting trial for corruption and illegal funding of his political party.

The city of Rome is currently in dire economic straits, having pulled out of its bid for the 2024 Olympics  last year because it simply did not have the funds to continue. The financial woes of the city are directly linked to Carminati and Buzzi, whose bribery and extortion racket pulled public funds from a host of civic projects–including public housing for refugees–and shifted the funds into private coffers. Carminati and Buzzi have been in prison for over two years under Italy’s infamous 41-bis prison regime, designed specifically for mafia detainees, but going forward they will be granted more relaxed conditions in prison for their multi-decade sentences.

The two men and their accomplices may have been cleared of mafia charges but it will take years to track down and redistribute the funds they stole. Although law enforcement forces are confident they have removed the crime ring from city hall, there may still be members who escaped the crackdown and will return to their bribery practices once public scrutiny is relaxed. In the meantime, Rome is struggling, overflowing with garbage, struggling to house its population and maintain its public spaces. After a harsh drought this summer, Rome is now considering rationing drinking water for the 1.5 million residents of the city. The Eternal City desperately needs funding and responsible leaders to make sure public funds are spent effectively and responsibly. Mayor Virginia Raggi holds relatively high popularity with Roman voters and her M5S party has framed itself as the “outsider” party, separate from the corruption of the past–yet as the infrastructure and public services of Rome deteriorate, she may see difficulties.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Mafia Capitale: The Line Between Government Corruption and Organized Crime? appeared first on Law Street.

In 2010, the 22-member FIFA Executive Committee awarded Russia and Qatar the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, respectively. These decisions stirred up major controversy among media commentators and government officials all over the world. As a result, allegations that the two countries bought their way into hosting the international soccer tournament during the 2009 bidding process began to spring up.

Though the accusations were serious, they were not exactly unfounded. Before the committee voted on which country to award the World Cups, two of its members were suspended due to allegations of vote corruption from their respective soccer confederation regions–Oceania and Nigeria. FIFA also branded Qatar as a “high operational risk” for hosting the tournament due to its average summer temperatures of 115 degrees Fahrenheit and challenges linked to stadium locations. Russia was the only other bid to not have a “low risk” rating.

The controversy has only grown since then. Since the 2010 vote, most members of the committee at the time have been banned for unethical conduct, indicted on corruption charges by the U.S. Department of Justice, or remain under scrutiny by federal prosecutors in Switzerland–where FIFA headquarters are located–who have 25 ongoing investigations involving more than 170 bank transactions suspected as money laundering.

On Monday, a new development occurred. A German newspaper published a portion of a leaked 2014 report–which FIFA commissioned–once expected to be the explosive holy grail for FIFA critics who thought the votes that gave the World Cups to Russia and Qatar could be rerun.

According to the report in Bild, three FIFA executive members were flown to a party in Rio in a private jet belonging to the Qatari federation just before the vote for 2018 and 2022 hosting rights, and Aspire Academy–an independent Qatari government-funded agency that provides “sports training and education to students with sporting potential”–was implicated “in a decisive manner” in “the manipulation of FIFA members who had the right to vote.” It also mentioned a $2m sum allegedly paid to the 10-year-old daughter of another FIFA official just before the vote.

The report was supposed to be released in 2014 under the authorship of American lawyer Michael Garcia–known for prosecuting the men who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and investigating former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. FIFA hired Garcia in 2012 to investigate the World Cup bidding process. FIFA decided to release a 42-page summary that “cleared” Russia and Qatar of corruption. Garcia called the edited report “incomplete and erroneous” and subsequently resigned in protest citing “lack of leadership” at the organization, which led many to believe that the public would never see the full, unedited version.

Other critics of the redacted report include Simon Johnson, who led England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup. “Now that I have seen Mr Garcia’s statement, I am absolutely convinced that the report is a politically motivated whitewash,” he told the BBC. While Qatar and Russia were vindicated by the report, England’s Football Association was accused of flouting bidding rules.

As a response to the initial leak, FIFA–in a rare sighting of transparency–released the full Garcia report on Tuesday. The message generally remained the same: there was no “evidence of any improper activity by [Qatar].” Peter Rossberg–the journalist who claims to have obtained the report–said in a Facebook post that the full report does not provide outright proof of corruption during 2018 and 2022 bidding, but more findings could arise when everything is put together “like a puzzle.”

The full report still brought other findings to light about the relationship between FIFA executives and entities connected to Qatar. South American FIFA voting member, Julio Grondona, failed to disclose meetings to the investigators as well as a discussion about Qatar potentially paying for flights before his death in 2014. An adviser to Thailand’s soccer federation, whose leader was a FIFA voter, was involved in talks between a Thai gas company and Qatar over an energy deal with Doha. Garcia referred to both of these incidents as troubling and suggested that further inquiry be made.

The report also found that the Qatari heat was never discussed in the executive committee meeting before the vote, not even by the voter who also served as FIFA medical chief, Michel D’Hooghe, who was “compromised by his actions” over Qatar, according to Garcia. D’Hooghe’s son was later employed by a Doha hospital linked to the Aspire sports academy  and the bid team was also arranging a business opportunity for a friend’s son ahead of the vote.

Whether or not this will actually result in any sort of sanctions levied against Qatar, or even an outright abdication of its position as World Cup hosts, remains to be seen. The only existing precedent of the tournament getting moved was when Colombia was supposed to host the 1986 World Cup. In that instance, a continent-wide economic collapse had inhibited the country’s ability to afford it. Colombia backed out in 1983, which gave the new host, Mexico, nearly three years to prepare.

As to what it would take for FIFA to remove Qatar as hosts, in 2015, then-FIFA president Sepp Blatter said that only an “earthquake, extremely important new elements,” could change the organization’s decision to hold the 2022 tournament in the Gulf state. At this point, any movement seems unlikely.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post German Newspaper Publishes “Suppressed” FIFA Corruption Report appeared first on Law Street.

The recent history of Croatian soccer has forced its supporters to go from dreams of glory to heads hung in shame. Between its creation in 1991 to its third place World Cup finish in 1998, the country experienced the most extreme jump in FIFA rankings history–going from 125th in the world to third. In the following years, the country produced top level talent that has shined for some of the largest clubs in Europe, like Barcelona and Juventus, and showcased their abilities for the national team. But the underlying corruption that has plagued the country’s soccer scene on an international and domestic level has prevented Croatia from reaching the heights it did in the late nineties, and has allowed for homegrown players to only find real success in other countries.

It appeared as though one of the heads of Croatia’s corruption problems was about to be cut off when national team captain Luka Modrić appeared as the key witness at the corruption trial of a former director of one of the Croatian clubs, Dinamo Zagreb. The former director, Zdravko Mamić, is accused of embezzlement and tax evasion. When prosecutors presented, and repeated, a statement Modrić had made to them earlier in the court proceedings that would have closed the case, he nervously distanced himself from his words.

“That… That I’ve never said… that it… that… that it was drawn up afterwards,” he told prosecutors. “I told you then that I couldn’t remember when it had been done.”

Just 10 days earlier, Modrić was celebrating Real Madrid’s 12th Champions League title in Cardiff following a 4-1 victory over Juventus. The moment should have been a source of pride for his home country as one of their most successful exports had ascended to the summit of European soccer for a third time. Yet, within hours of his testimony, he was greeted with chants of “Luka Modrić, you little sh*t” from Croatian soccer supporters. The hotel where his family lived when they were war refugees in the 1990s was even defaced with graffiti that translates to “Luka, you’ll remember this one day,” and other murals dedicated to him had also been vandalized.

Mural for Luka Modric in Mostar defaced after he changed his testimony in favour of Zdravko Mamic at the latter’s corruption trial. pic.twitter.com/xTbRRygzYP

— Rusty Woodger (@rustywoodger) June 14, 2017

In order to explain why the weight of Modrić’s comments resulted in such a vulgar backlash, it is important to understand who Zdravko Mamić is, what he means to Croatian soccer, and how he relates back to Luka Modrić.

Zdravko Mamić: A Rise and Pending Fall

Zdravko Mamić is the former executive director and a current adviser to Dinamo Zagreb, the winningest team in Croatia this century. Since his friendship with a former manager got him a job with Dinamo back in 1980, Mamić has had a range of influence over the club. As an adviser to the club’s board in the early 2000s, he was able to dictate which players the club should sign. Over time, Mamić grew to become the executive president of Dinamo and first vice-president of the Croatian Football Federation (CFF), the governing body of all soccer-related activities in the country, ensuring his influence would be as strong as it could possibly be.

As his power grew, however, the number of controversies he became involved with increased as well. Mamić’s history includes abusing reporters, general homophobia, and inciting violence following racist remarks he made toward a Serbian official. He also financially controls two of the 10 clubs in the Croatian first division and has been accused of forcing the national team to showcase players from Dinamo so he can sell them for exorbitant amounts of money to larger European clubs.

This history has led to various protests coming Dinamo fans, fans of other Croatian clubs, and even fans of other European clubs.

Mamić and five other people were arrested in 2015 for embezzling the equivalent of $17.3 million of the club’s money since 2008 and not paying $1.8 million in state taxes. Prosecutors claim that this was done through illegal contracts made with some of Dinamo’s most famous former players including Modrić and Mario Mandžukić, a striker for the Italian team Juventus.

Method to the Madness

Here’s how Mamić was able to supposedly get away with this money: unlike in most American professional sports, players are not usually swapped for one another in trades if they are still under contract to a team. FIFA rules state that a club interested in a player has to buy out that player’s contract from the club they currently play on with a “transfer fee.” Once the transfer fee is agreed upon by both clubs, the buying club can enter contract negotiations with the player, and the selling club keeps the transfer fee as revenue.

What Mamić was allegedly doing was taking the transfer fees that were supposed to go to investing in the club and its players, and funneling them into his own bank account. Dinamo has earned nearly €150 million from transfers in the past 10 years. Much of it has disappeared into concealed channels, although the exact number is not known. Additionally, players abroad were required to pay some of their wages back to Mamić as a sign of goodwill for the “good” he had done for them.

The Modrić Connection

One of Mamić’s biggest cash machines was Modrić, who was sold to the Tottenham Hotspurs in 2008 for €21 million, a club record for the English side at the time. Half of that transfer fee went to Modrić. Further investigation, and testimony by Modrić, showed that he would go to a bank accompanied by Mamić’s son or brother, withdraw funds from his personal account and hand the cash to either of the two men. Of the €10.5 million, Modrić kept €1.7 million and the rest went to the Mamić family.

The defense argues that this was  an expected relationship between the two groups because Mamić was a benefactor to Modrić during the midfielder’s youth career and helped him reach his full potential as a professional. The agreement was one of many that Mamić created with promising young players that obliged them to pay him back with their future earnings.

What is currently being disputed, and why Modrić has been such a key witness in this case, involves the date of the contract that allowed the midfielder to keep 50 percent of his transfer fee. Prosecutors argue that that portion of the contract was signed and backdated after the player had already been sold, making the transfer illegal. Modrić supposedly confirmed this in questioning last year, but denied it in court on Tuesday, claiming he was confused.

“When speaking about that, I was talking about a personal contract between Mamic and me, which regulated the split of the transfer fee,” he said in his testimony. But as if that were not enough, Modrić also forgot key portions of his playing career that ended up helping the defense’s case, including the year when he debuted for the national team.

Before his comments in court, Modrić was seen as the victim in this scenario. He was the poor kid from Zadar whose ignorance and naivety was exploited by the “big bad wolf”–Mamić. After his testimony, however, it will be hard to shake his association with someone often referred to as the number one enemy of soccer in the country.

No one is quite sure why Modrić changed his testimony. One theory is that he was scared of crossing such a powerful individual. Mamić’s political influence is so wide,  that the location of this trial had to be moved from the capital Zagreb to Osijek–nearly 175 miles away–because of his close ties with some of the Zagreb judges.

What Comes Next?

Whatever the reason, prosecutors will have some time to sit on this new revelation as Mamić made a big scene in the courtroom on Wednesday morning, and fired his whole legal team before saying he’ll defend himself. The judge ordered a recess until further notice.

Despite the self-sabotaging move, a seemingly-unavoidable Mamić conviction would not even result in much change happening, according to fervent Croatian soccer critic Anthony Zoric.

“Zdravko Mamić cannot simply be replaced,” Zoric said. “For things to improve at the current federation the entire HNS board must resign. The system has been manipulated to serve the interests of Mamić and his friends.”

But a change on that scale could be unrealistic and generally unattainable. Outside pressure from corruption trials might be the closest opportunity Croatian fans will get to relieve some of the issues and turn a new chapter in the soccer history of their country.  The national team has been marked by controversy while the domestic league, filled with its own set of talented players, is making more news for corruption than soccer itself. Any change might be welcome at this point.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does a Corruption Trial Have the Possibility to Transform Croatian Soccer? appeared first on Law Street.

The attorneys general for Maryland and Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit Monday against President Donald Trump, alleging that he violated the Constitution’s anti-corruption clauses by accepting payments from foreign governments since taking office.

This is the first time a state has filed a lawsuit against a president for violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause. While Trump has said that he would transfer his business assets to a blind trust, the lawsuit is centered on the claim that Trump has continued to retain ownership of his vast business portfolio while getting updates from his two sons.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, will require the court to answer whether Trump has violated either the domestic or foreign emoluments clauses.

Both clauses ban any “person holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from receiving any payment from foreign countries or from any of the 50 states without approval from Congress. The founding fathers set up the clauses to limit the influence a foreign country or an individual state could wield over the president.

In a copy of the lawsuit provided to the Washington Post, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh claim that Trump’s global business has him “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors.”

The suit also alleges that businesses in both Maryland and D.C. have been harmed by Trump’s tendency to utilize his own convention centers and properties, such as the Trump International Hotel in D.C. The suit says that hotel payments, tax breaks, and permits all count as domestic emoluments received by Trump, according to CNN Money.

If the lawsuit progresses, the two officials say their first step will be to demand Trump’s personal tax returns in order to gauge the severity of his behavior.

This is the latest in a series of lawsuits attempting to test Trump’s conflicts of interest. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a D.C.-based group, and Cork Wine Bar had previously filed lawsuits against the president.

The Trump Organization, though, argues that everything is perfectly legal. In a response to CREW, the Justice Department argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Trump may legally accept “market-rate payments” for Trump’s real estate, hotel, and golf companies. They even cited George Washington selling farm produce as a previous example in their 70-page response.

Disappointed with the lack of inquiry from Congress, Racine and Frosh felt compelled to file their own lawsuit.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” Racine said.

The attorneys general feel confident that they have the standing to sue because Maryland and D.C. entered a contract, the Constitution, that Trump has violated by accepting gifts.

So while Trump faced plenty of lawsuits before his presidency and a handful since, this lawsuit represents a big moment in the early months of his administration. Trump’s foreign business dealings and potential conflicts of interest have been controversial since the campaign, but now D.C. and Maryland are demanding transparency within the Trump Administration to ease citizens’ concerns.

“This case represents another storm, not just a dusting of snow, but a blizzard of trouble for Trump,” Norman Eisen, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and is CREW’s board chairman, said. “Who better than governmental actors to say our deal was, our fundamental democratic bargain was, we would get a president who would follow the Constitution.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maryland and D.C. Sue Trump, Alleging He Violated Constitution’s Anti-Corruption Clauses appeared first on Law Street.

Prosecutors in Seoul said on Monday that they would pursue an arrest warrant for former South Korean President Park Geun-hye, who was unseated from office earlier this month by the Constitutional Court. The Seoul District Court will examine the prosecutors’ request in a hearing scheduled for Thursday morning. If the request is granted, Park, 65, would be the first president to be jailed since the 1990s, when the former military dictators Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo were arrested on charges of sedition and mutiny.

Impeached in December and formally removed from office on March 10, Park is accused of bribery, extortion, and abuse of office. In a statement, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office said Park “abused the mighty power and position and president to take bribes from companies and infringed upon the freedom of corporate management and leaked important confidential official information.”

Last fall, hundreds of thousands across the country began demanding Park’s ouster, as she was accused of conspiring with her longtime friend Choi Soon-sil to extort millions of dollars from South Korea’s largest business conglomerates, including Samsung, in exchange for political favors. Choi, an unelected, largely secretive presence inside Park’s inner circle of advisers, is in custody, along with the Samsung executive Lee Jae-yong. Both are being investigated on charges of corruption.

Park has publicly apologized for the allegations against her, but has consistently denied any legal wrongdoing. The prosecutors’ office, in its statement on Monday, said “there is a danger of her destroying incriminating evidence if she is not arrested.”

As president, Park was immune from a criminal investigation, but now, as a private citizen, she does not enjoy the same protection. If the judge in Seoul grants the prosectors’ request, Park will be held behind bars for up to 20 days, during which time the prosecutors will continue the investigation. A spokesman for Park’s Liberty Korea Party called the prosecutors’ request for an arrest warrant “regrettable.” The main opposition faction, the Democracy Party, called it “historic.” An early election will take place on May 9.

South Korea is facing a critical time in its young democracy: North Korea is firing off ballistic missile tests every few weeks, and relations with China are declining because of a defense shield the U.S. began deploying to South Korea earlier this month. Beijing views the missile defense system, or THAAD, as a threat to its own missile program. Park, for her part, is steadfast in denying any wrongdoing. “It will take time, but I am sure that the truth will be known,” she said a few days after her ouster from office.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Korean Prosecutors Seek Arrest Warrant for Former President Park Geun-hye appeared first on Law Street.

Lee Jae-yong, the vice chairman of Samsung, was indicted on charges of bribery and embezzlement on Tuesday. Lee is the most powerful South Korean business leader to be ensnared in the country’s longstanding corruption issues, which have reached the highest levels of the government, including President Park Geun-hye, who was impeached in December.

Lee, 48, is accused of giving a $38 million donation to Choi Soon-sil, an unofficial aide to Park who has been detained for months for funneling government funds to her private coffers. The special prosecutor that indicted Lee said in exchange for his donation, Park co-signed a highly controversial merger in 2015 that ultimately consolidated Lee’s hold on the company, and increased Samsung’s stock value by $758 million. Lee has been Samsung’s de facto leader since 2014, when his father suffered a heart attack.

“Samsung was directly linked to the influence-peddling scandal and was essential to the special prosecutor’s investigation,” said a spokesman for the special prosecutor that indicted Lee. “The indictment describes in detail the private conversation between Lee and President Park Geun-hye.”

South Korea’s economy is run by chaebols: family-run business conglomerates. In fact, the 10 largest chaebols account for 80 percent of the country’s GDP. Samsung is the largest chaebol; its products make up 20 percent of South Korea’s exports. For decades, chaebol leaders have been embroiled in corruption. Six of the top 10 chaebol leaders have been convicted of white-collar crimes, but have avoided jail time. 

Lee’s indictment comes at a moment of political tumult and a newfound hunger for cleaning up corruption in South Korea’s business and political worlds, which are often intertwined. Lee denies currying political favors with his donations to Choi. Four other Samsung executives were indicted on Tuesday; three of the four immediately resigned.

Lee is also being indicted on perjury charges, regarding a parliamentary hearing in December. At the hearing, Lee said he was unaware that Samsung’s donations ended up in Choi’s pockets. “President Park asked us to support the development of culture, sports and tourism,” Lee said at the hearing. “I wasn’t aware of Samsung’s payment to the two foundations, and I was only briefed after the fact.” The prosecutor apparently found evidence that Lee was fully cognizant of where his money was headed.

For the past few months, Samsung has been enmeshed in controversy. Last October, the company recalled two million Galaxy Note 7 phones, which had a tendency to burst into flames. And Park has been suspended since her December impeachment. Her case is being reviewed by the Constitutional Court, which will decide, likely in the next few weeks, whether to reinstate her or permanently remove her from power.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vice Chairman of Samsung Indicted on Corruption Charges appeared first on Law Street.

The streets of Seoul were packed with thousands of protesters last weekend in the wake of a leaked email scandal concerning President Park Geun-hye. Park ordered ten members of her cabinet to step down because of their involvement in the scandal, and even Prime Minister Yoo Il-ho was pressured to step down, resulting in Yim Jong-yong being named the new finance minister and deputy prime minister.

The scandal stems from the interference of Choi Soon-sil, a longtime friend of President Park, in state affairs. Choi is the daughter of the cult leader Choi Tae-min, who was Park’s mentor until his assassination, and served as a close confidante for the President, allegedly having access to classified documents and important decision making procedures. There are even reports that Choi organized a secret cabinet of “eight fairies” who advised Park behind the scenes, despite not being elected officials or official presidential appointees.

Choi returned to Korea from Germany this week to cooperate with the investigation and was immediately placed under detention after prosecutors expressed fears that she might destroy evidence of her involvement. A tablet computer was found in her possession that showed evidence of her involvement in classified government affairs, including copies of speeches that President Park had yet to give. President Park acknowledged that she let Choi edit drafts of her speeches, which prompted an estimated 9,000 Koreans to march in protest, carrying signs reading “Who’s the Real President?” While editing speeches may not seem like a dramatic crime, Choi has been compared to Rasputin in Czarist Russia and those calling for Park’s resignation argue that Choi was attempting to interfere with the democratic process, molding the government to her own aims. Choi is accused of advising Park on political appointments and policy decisions, and using her influence to force corporations to donate to the foundations that she works with. As she was escorted into prosecutors’ offices this week, Choi stated on the record that she had “committed wrongs for which I deserve to die.”

South Korea’s constitution protects Park from criminal prosecution except in the case of treason or insurrection but that has not stopped calls for her resignation, especially from the younger population. Park’s presidential term will end in 2018 but with her ministers being forced out and her aides resigning, President Park may barely have a cabinet left to work with during the “lame duck” phase of her Presidency. With her reputation destroyed, Park will now most likely fail to push through the changes she had hoped to make to the economy. The protesters who rallied this weekend were doubtful that Park will face impeachment, as that process must be approved by the supreme court (which is staffed by presidential appointees), but hoped that her crumbling cabinet and rock bottom approval rankings will force her into resignation. And now, Park has had to give up her ability to select a new Prime Minister.

The vitriol expressed against President Park is eerily similar to that expressed against Secretary Clinton over her private email server. Both of their political careers have been so severely damaged by email scandals that they may never recover.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post South Korea’s Email Scandal: Protests in Seoul appeared first on Law Street.

Brazil’s Senate voted on Wednesday to remove President Dilma Rousseff from office–an expected but nonetheless historic result, given that Rousseff was Brazil’s first female president.

Rousseff is accused of corruption and breaking fiscal laws, which her critics say aggravated the already bad economic situation in Brazil. Rousseff has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing ever since she was suspended from office in May this year. In the Senate, 61 voted for her impeachment on Wednesday, and 20 against. Upon hearing the result, she said, “Today is the day that 61 men, many of them charged and corrupt, threw 54 million Brazilian votes in the garbage.”

During the hearing she also said:

I’m here to look in your eyes and say with the serenity of someone who has nothing to hide that I haven’t committed any crimes of responsibility. I have not committed the crimes of which I have been unjustly and arbitrarily accused.

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s 1st woman president, permanently removed after impeachment: https://t.co/8SwnwTvxn0 pic.twitter.com/iqL5fiUd2r

— Women in the World (@WomenintheWorld) August 31, 2016

This means the end of a 13 year-long rule of the left-wing Worker’s Party, and the end for the country’s first female President. Rousseff, 68, used to be a guerilla fighter during the dictatorship in the 1970s. She was elected in 2011, and then reelected in 2014. At the time, the country’s economy was in  really bad shape, and she did not manage to fix it. Even though she stands accused of further ruining the economy and corruption, she has never been formally charged with a crime.

Rousseff claims she has been ousted because she allowed a corruption investigation to go on, which lead to several politicians being charged. So the question is whether she is actually guilty of a crime, or if the opposition just wanted to get rid of a leader who drained the country’s economy.

In a second vote on Wednesday, the Senate decided whether or not to ban Rousseff from public office for the next eight years. This time the majority voted no, with 42 votes against and 36 for, meaning she could technically return to politics whenever she wants.

Acting President Michel Temer will take Rousseff’s place until the next election in 2018.

Rousseff’s parting words to her supporters were, “Right now, I will not say goodbye to you. I am certain I can say: ‘See you soon.’”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil Senate Votes to Oust President Dilma Rousseff From Office appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Corruption: McDonnell v. United States

The decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn corruption convictions of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife. However, there is still a possibility that they can be retried under the court’s new interpretation of the law.

What corruption charges?

In 2014, McDonnell and his wife were convicted on federal bribery charges. He received luxury gifts and financial benefits from Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams in exchange for what prosecutors deemed “government favors” or “official acts.” In total, the gifts and benefits that the McDonnells received were worth more than $175,000–including a Rolex watch, catering their daughter’s wedding, and a $20,000 shopping trip for Mrs. McDonnell.

“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

What does this mean for the future of political bribery?

This case was centered around the question of what constitutes an “official act” under federal law. McDonnell arranged meetings between Williams and state officials in the form of a luncheon thrown at the Governor’s Mansion with a guest list consisting of healthcare leaders. Williams is the chief executive of Star Scientific, a tobacco-based dietary supplement company, and he wanted state universities to perform research on his product.

McDonnell said he never made an official act in favor of Williams or his business, which left the justices searching for where to draw the line between a politician’s regular activities and ones that violate corruption laws. A bipartisan group of officials wrote an amicus brief for the case, arguing that if McDonnell’s convictions were upheld, it would criminalize routine favors that politicians do for donors.

To avoid confusion in the future, Chief Justice John Roberts created a clearer definition of an “official act:”

“In sum, an ‘official act’ is a decision or action on a ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” Roberts wrote. “Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)–without more–does not fit that definition of an official act.”

Read the full opinion here.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Overturns Former Virginia Governor’s Corruption Conviction appeared first on Law Street.

Want to shoot a drug dealer in the Philippines? No worries, you won’t go to jail, you’ll actually be rewarded under president-elect Rodrigo Duterte. In a nationally televised speech late Saturday, Duterte encouraged citizens to take the law into their own hands by using deadly force against drug dealers who threaten them or resist arrest.

“If he fights, and he fights to the death, you can kill him,” he said. “Shoot him and I’ll give you a medal.”

Critics have dubbed Détente, who won the presidency last month, the “Filipino Donald Trump.” His campaign promise that landed him the victory? He vowed to end crime and corruption within the first six months of his presidency, which explains the support he gives civilians in handling drug lords on their own. “Please feel free to call us, the police, or do it yourself if you have the gun … you have my support,” he added.

Also in an attempt to cut crime and corruption, Duterte, 71, announced that he is increasing the bounty for drug lords from 3 million Philippine pesos ($65,000) to  five million pesos ($108,000). “I’m not saying that you kill them, but the order is ‘dead or alive,” he said.

Drug lords aren’t the only part of crime and corruption Duterte is concerned with–also on his agenda is removing corrupt police officers. In his speech, he asked three police generals based in the capital to resign for unspecified crimes. If they don’t quit, he threatened to humiliate them in public, or perhaps worse–kill them. Because some cops may have bribed their way back to the force after being involved with some sort of drug scheme, Duterte is also calling for a review of dismissed criminal cases of active police.

“To all police who have cases and are wanted now, if you are still involved in drugs, I will kill you,” he said. “Don’t take this as a joke. I’m not making you laugh.”

Not only does Duterte encourage civilians to resort to whatever means necessary to take down a drug lord, he also supports security forces shooting and killing anyone that resists arrest. Duterte, above all, really knows what it means to take matters into your hands. While he was the mayor of Davao City, he pulled the trigger on many suspected motorcycle-riding assassins, better known as “Davao death squads.” 

“Me? They are saying that I’m part of a death squad? True, that’s true,” he said.

However, human rights activists say that he has never been charged because no one has dared to testify against him. Many Filipino citizens may love his anti-crime and corruption rhetoric, but human rights activists fear that it will lead to widespread rights violations.

Police and drug lords aren’t the only ones who can fall to corruption, journalists are also guilty, Duterte thinks. 

“Just because you’re a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you’re a son of a bitch,” Duterte said. “Freedom of expression cannot help you if you have done something wrong.”

Duterte begins his six-year term June 30.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Filipino President-Elect: It’s OK For Civilians To Kill Drug Lords appeared first on Law Street.

Signaling the beginning of the end for Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, the Senate voted on Thursday in favor of impeaching the 68-year-old leader of Latin America’s largest country. She will be stripped of her duties for 180 days while the Senate holds a trial and debates whether to remove her from office permanently. Vice President Michel Temer will lead the country in the interim.

Rousseff has called the impeachment proceedings a “coup” and “fraudulent.” Her response to the day’s events, which saw the Senate vote 55 to 22 in favor of her impeachment: “It’s the most brutal of things that can happen to a human being—to be condemned for a crime you didn’t commit,” she said at a news conference Thursday morning. “I may have committed errors but I never committed crimes.”

Riordan Roett, Professor and Director of the Latin American Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University called the result “inevitable,” adding that Rousseff is “not a politician and did not understand how to work the system.”

“The mood of the country turned so negative,” said Roett, who is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, in an interview with Law Street. “It’s a combination of the scandals, increasing unemployment, increasing inflation, and the worst recession in a hundred years.”

Mistrust and public disapproval began in 2014, when members of her government, but not the president herself, were implicated in a corruption scandal involving the state-owned petroleum giant Petrobras. Calls for impeachment followed in 2015 after Rousseff was allegedly using illicit accounting practices to cover up the country’s sinking economic statistics.

Brazil’s economy has been tanking for years, with the central bank announcing in March that it expects the economy to shrink 3.5 percent in 2016, continuing the country’s worst recession in decades. Over the past year, millions of Brazilians have taken to the streets to protest Rousseff’s government. Seas of green and yellow gathered in Brasilia–the capital–and beyond: people waving flags and brandishing protest signs, wearing national soccer jerseys, some had their faces painted in the image of the country’s flag.

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s president of six years, was impeached on Thursday, after months of political and social unrest. “Presidente da República Dilma Rousseff concede entrevista” courtesy of Senado Federal via Flickr

Her political opponents saw Thursday’s impeachment as necessary, the consequence of Rousseff breaking the law by allegedly trying to cover up government deficits and her role in the bribe scandal that rocked Petrobras–where executives paid politicians for contracts–in 2014. Rousseff was chairwoman of the Petrobras–the world’s sixth largest oil company–from 2003 to 2010.

“Did anyone think that we would get to 2018 [the next election year] with a recovery under this government? Impossible,” said Jose Serra of the PSDB, or Party of Brazilian Social Democracy, who lost the 2010 election to Rousseff’s Workers’ Party. “The impeachment is just the start of the reconstruction,” he said.

And that reconstruction will begin with Michael Temer, the 75-year-old of the centrist Democratic Movement Party who was also implicated in the Petrobras ordeal. He has promised to expand social programs while also calling for austerity measures to get the economy back on track.

While polls show a slim majority of Brazilians support Rousseff’s ouster (61 percent in April), and wish the same fate for Temer (58 percent), her supporters deem the impeachment as a machination of the right-leaning political elite that has historically dominated the country’s politics, but has taken a backseat to the leftist Workers’ Party since it rose to prominence 13 years ago.

In April, when the first round of voting to impeach Rousseff passed through the lower house of Congress, her supporters expressed malcontent with what they saw as a conservative coup.

“Power in Brazil is always very conservative and elite, and at various events in the history of Brazil, we had a rupturing of institutions and the rules of democracy so that the economic elite could maintain its power,” Workers’ Party Congress member Maria do Rosario told the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper.

But Roett, the Johns Hopkins professor who has spent years in Brazil, disagreed with that assessment and with Rousseff’s claim that this is a coup by the right. “This reflects the mood of the country,” he said, noting that the history of the word “coup” dates back to the military coup of 1964, and Rousseff’s inclination to brand her political downfall with that loaded word. “People resented her attempt to glamorize herself,” by posing as the martyr of a political scheme.

And while he sees a long road ahead for Brazil–opening the economy, liberalizing labor legislation, reducing inflation and creating jobs–Roett is hesitantly hopeful about the country’s new leader.

“Let’s see if Temer can build the coalition that Rousseff never could,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Impeached in Brazil: President Booted Amid Scandal and Public Outrage appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Platini, former UEFA president, and Sepp Blatter, former FIFA president, were denied appeals on their ban from all football activities this week. However, the FIFA appeals committee did decide to reduce the ban from eight years to six, based on the duo’s “service to the game.” Both Platini and Blatter claim they are innocent and plan to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to lift their ban, but with the election of Gianni Infantino as President of FIFA, it appears that the soccer world is moving on without them.

Infantino was previously an adviser to Platini, but when seven of FIFA’s highest ranking officials were arrested five months ago, he transitioned from UEFA secretary general to the race for the FIFA presidency–a far more contentious position. Infantino’s primary competitor was Sheikh Salman, who ran on a platform of transforming FIFA from a Euro-centric governing body to a truly international organization that would recognize the interests of soccer around the world. Despite this noble ideal of creating a more equitable soccer world, Sheik Salman did not build the solid constituency that Infantino managed to construct.  This could be attributed to Sheik Salman’s allegedly checkered past when it comes to human rights–he was connected with the jailing and torture of Bahraini athletes who peacefully protested against his family during the Arab Spring.

Infantino has multiple issues to tackle during his first several weeks in office. The most immediate concern regards Russia and Qatar’s respective bids for hosting World Cups. The circumstances by which those countries secured the bids are under investigation by Swiss law enforcement, but the chance of FIFA reneging on the bids is relatively slim. Construction has already begun on stadiums and tourist attractions in Qatar, and although the working conditions on these construction sites have caused outrage among human rights activists, there is no sign of development slowing down.

A troubling prospect for the 2022 Qatar World Cup is that Platini and Blatter might be able to return to football just in time to participate in the tournament. The shortening of their sentences leaves the door open for them to participate, either within FIFA or through smaller organizations that will be working on logistical issues in Qatar. Argentina’s legendary Diego Maradona recently stated that he feels Platini and Blatter should receive life in prison for their abuse of power, and while that seems like an extreme reaction, it is clear to many that their current sentence is not a sufficient punishment for their crime.

Missing the 2018 Russia World Cup may be a blow to the egos of Platini and Blatter but if the two men are allowed to participate in the Qatari World Cup, they could be able to step back into their old habits without missing a beat. By 2022, Infantino may enact broad reforms of FIFA activity during his tenure but the return of Platini and Blatter would automatically undermine any of those actions. If the Court of Arbitration for Sport moves to completely overturn the ban on football related activities that was upheld this week, then FIFA may never escape its reputation for corruption.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post FIFA 2016: Can Sepp Blatter and Michael Platini Get Back to Soccer’s Inner Circle? appeared first on Law Street.

On October 26, Jimmy Morales defeated former first lady Sandra Torres in a runoff election, taking 67.4 percent of the vote to become Guatemala’s president-elect. Scheduled to take office in 2016, little is known about Morales’ plan for his government other than that he is a conservative who believes in minimal government interference.

The general election was held as scheduled despite the resignation of President Otto Perez Molina a few days before after he was indicted on corruption charges that had claimed his prior vice-president and numerous members of his cabinet.

Despite the fact that he lacks any former political experience aside from a failed mayoral run in 2011, read on to understand the making of Morales’ rise to the presidency.

The Guatemalan Civil War (1960-1996) and Aftermath

In order to understand Guatemala’s recent election, it’s crucial to first discuss the country’s history of conflict and the connection to its recent corruption challenges. During the 1940s and early 1950s, elections in Guatemala brought popular, leftist leaders into power. In 1954, a United States-backed coup, headed by Carlos Castillo Armas, brought a military regime to power. In the 1960s, conflict between left-wing guerrilla groups and the military sparked a civil war that lasted for decades. In the 1970s, military rulers began a campaign to eliminate guerrilla leaders, causing approximately 50,000 deaths. Numerous atrocities, including genocide and forced disappearances, were committed largely by government forces. The state-sponsored atrocities killed an estimated 200,000 civilians during the nation’s civil war.

Despite the signing of peace accords in 1996, Guatemala continues to face issues like extreme poverty, illiteracy, and racism against indigenous peoples. Political tension has remained a constant, as shown by the recent turbulent election of a television comedian to the office of president. Numerous ex-government officials and landowners who assisted paramilitary groups have been convicted for their roles in the atrocities during the civil war. The internal debate over whether acts of genocide were actually committed continues, and was disputed by former president Molina.

The Road to Morales (1996-2015)

As suggested above, the transition period from civil war to peacetime democracy was slow and rocky and may still be underway. In late the 1990s and early 2000s, the government focused on cracking down on crime and protecting the human rights of civilians victimized by the past wartime governments. However, the post-war government was challenged with high crime rates, corruption, and violence directed at human rights groups and journalists.

Efrain Rios Montt, a former military leader, was permitted to run for president in 2003 despite a constitutional rule that prevented anyone who had attempted to overthrow the government from running for election. Montt had become the national leader in 1982 following a coup and oversaw the escalation of violence in the countryside. He lost the 2003 election to Oscar Berger, who later allowed the United Nations to help create the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). The group was tasked with assisting national law enforcement prosecute organized crime and drug trafficking.

Otto Perez Molina was elected president in 2011, a position that he held until earlier this year. In April, the CICIG released a report implicating numerous members of Molina’s government of corruption, most notably Vice-President Roxana Baldetti. The scandal, which became known as La Linea, revolved around officials taking bribes from importers in exchange for tariff reductions. The tactic dates back to the civil war, when military officials used payoffs finance their counter-insurgency operations. In a protest that was largely organized through social media, tens of thousands of people came out in the streets of the capital urging Baldetti to resign. After a few days, she complied.

Since Baldetti’s resignation, the corruption case has claimed more than 20 government officials, including members of opposition parties. On August 21, the CICIG issued a report which presented further evidence putting former Vice-President Baldetti and President Molina at the head of the La Linea operation. Guatemalans once again took to the streets, demanding Molina’s resignation. On September 1, the Guatemalan congress voted unanimously to withdraw the president’s protection from prosecution and two days later, Molina resigned and was arrested. On September 7, the general election was held with Morales the clear favorite heading into the runoff.

The election was held despite concerns that the La Linea scandal polluted the lead-up to the election with accusations against the candidates. Others insisted that the election should go ahead to avoid a power vacuum.

Jimmy Morales and the Election

With the slogan “Neither corrupt, nor a thief” and waning voter enthusiasm, Morales won the election. Nearly half of Guatemala’s 7.5 million registered voters did not cast ballots. Of those who did, many cited a lack of satisfaction with the current government and low expectations for any future regime. Morales’s victory is likely due to the fact that he is a political outsider who could present a contrast to the officials claimed by the La Linea scandal. He had 13 opponents in the general election but won with a plurality of the vote. Because neither of the three leading candidates met the 50 percent threshold, a runoff election was held shortly after the general. Morales’ won the runoff with around 68 percent of all votes cast.

Manuel Baldizon was considered the front-runner in the election as recently as April, but his association with the established government hurt his campaign after the scandal came to light. He finished in third place in the general election but quit the race prior to the runoff election leaving Morales and Sandra Torrez as the two remaining options.

Morales’s dominant victory in the runoff has been viewed as a rejection of the status quo by voters. However, it must be noted that Morales’s party, the National Convergence Front (FCN) only claimed 11 of the 158 available seats in Congress. Despite his landslide victory, he now faces an uphill battle as he will need to establish a coalition in the among legislators in order to advance his policy agenda.

What to Expect

Although Jimmy Morales was elected with around 68 percent of the vote, his campaign did not offer many specifics about his plans for the country. As BBC notes, his campaign manifesto is just six pages long and contains few details about policy positions beyond fighting corruption.

His campaign website emphasizes his interest in strengthening three areas: employment, education, and public health. His political ideology appears to be strongly influenced by Reaganism and a desire for minimal government interference–in fact, the “about” section of his website features a long quote from Ronald Reagan.

Expectations heading into Morales’s presidency are low given the lack of support he’ll have in Congress on day one. While his specific policy positions remain unclear, reports highlight his emphasis on religion and small government. He has stated his opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, and the legalization of recreational drugs. Women’s rights and gay rights groups have come out against of Morales for his views, and his controversial characters in a popular sketch comedy show raised questions about his position on social issues.

Another notable area of concern is his Party’s ties to military leaders during the civil war, whom many associate with violence and corruption. In response to criticism, Morales defended his Party by issuing a clarification on his website, which noted that much of the Party leadership was replaced when he joined in 2013.

Morales has said that will not be able to make Guatemala’s economic and government problems disappear on his own. While he touted his inexperience and background to win an election that claimed many old guard politicians as victims, those virtues may now act as limitations as he attempts to build a governing coalition.

In the meantime, interim President Alejandro Maldonado has voiced support for the protesters and has backed the charges against former President Molina. Maldonado hopes that the recent developments will help the country deal with its corruption issues as it transitions to a new government. He will serve as the interim President until Morales takes office in January.

Conclusion

On the surface, the results of the Guatemalan election may appear curious, but the reality is that the election of former comedian Jimmy Morales is the result of deeply seeded distrust in the political system. Despite his background in comedy, Morales hails from a conservative party with ties to controversial leaders during the civil war. While he has not given many specifics about what his presidency will look like, it is clear that Guatemalans chose him as an alternative to the status quo. Yet, despite his landslide victory on election day, voter turnout was particularly low, indicating a general dissatisfaction with the current system.

The people of Guatemala are desperate for any form of change, rejecting established political elites for an inexperienced but popular comedian. The populace remains split between those who a cynical of any Guatemalan government and those that remain cautiously optimistic for real change.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala

Additional

The Washington Post: The ‘Donald Trump of Guatemala’ was just Elected President

The Washington Post: Guatemalan President Resigns After Judge Orders Him to Face Corruption Charges

Reuters: No joke: Guatemalan Comedian Wins Presidency in Landslide

BBC: Guatemala election: Jimmy Morales Elected President

BBC: Timeline: Guatemala

New York Times: Jimmy Morales is Elected New President in Guatemala

CNN: Guatemala election: Presidential Runoff set for October; Comedian is Frontrunner

LA Times: Guatemala Presidential Candidate Quits Party, Drops Out of Race

Victoria Sanford: Victory in Guatemala? Not Yet

Jimmy Morales: Campaign Website

Regina Bateson: How Local Institutions Emerge from Civil War

Daniel Schloss: Elusive Peace, Security, and Justice in Post-Conflict Guatemala: An Exploration of Transnational Justice and the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG)

Vox: Guatemala’s Crisis, Explained: Why the President Just Resigned

John Oliver: Guatemala’s Election

Al Jazeera: Talk to Al Jazeera: Showdown in Guatemala: Ending an Era of Impunity?

Journeyman Pictures: An American Genocide: Guatemala

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guatemalan Elections: How a Comedian Became President appeared first on Law Street.

Votes swinging based on bribes, secret deals made in backrooms, corruption at the highest levels. No, this is not about the next presidential election–not yet anyway. Instead this is how the last few World Cups have allegedly been awarded. To many jaded sports fans familiar with the International Olympic Committee or NCAA, this is not surprising. Even for the naïve, allegations of corruption in FIFA are not startling. What was unexpected though was that the powerful people at FIFA would actually be caught. With the recent arrests, the narrative of the story has shifted from if the tree is rotten to how far up that rot goes. Read on to learn about the scandal rocking FIFA and what it means for the future of the World Cup and its decisionmakers.

FIFA

To understand the FIFA scandal, it is first necessary to understand the organization itself, and its former leader, Sepp Blatter.

What is FIFA?

FIFA–the Federation Internationale de Football Association–was founded in May 1904 by the international football associations of seven countries. The organization continued to grow, but remained entirely European until 1909 when South Africa joined and the United States followed in 1912. FIFA went through hard times during WWI and nearly fell apart altogether, however it endured and began expanding anew.

In 1930, FIFA staged its first World Cup, an event it had been building up to ever since soccer was first played at the Olympics in 1908. In the ensuing years, the organization and its membership grew while also dealing with issues such as travel causing many of best teams to not participate in the first few World Cups. By the 1970s FIFA had really emerged on the world stage incorporating members from Europe and South America in growing numbers as well as many new members from former colonial holdings. Under the much-maligned supervision of Sepp Blatter, FIFA has grown into a powerful global entity with 209 members worldwide, divided into six regional confederations, and with unquestioned clout.

Who is Sepp Blatter?

Sepp Blatter first became part of FIFA in 1975, after leaving his job at a Swiss watchmaker. He spent the next 40 years serving in a variety of roles since his start, namely as secretary general for 17 years and then president of the organization since 1998. Under his leadership FIFA’s crowning tournament has been played on two new continents, Asia and Africa, and become a multi-billion dollar tournament.

Despite his role in dramatically growing the game’s presence worldwide, Blatter is known as much for controversy. In the past he has made numerous inappropriate comments and been repeatedly accused of corruption in the court of public opinion. The awarding of the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 contest to Qatar seemed to be the ultimate examples of his duplicitousness.

Still, even with this reputation and after the recent arrests of senior FIFA members, Blatter was able to avoid indictment and was actually elected to a fifth term as FIFA president. However, following persistent criticism of himself and FIFA as a whole, Blatter finally relented and resigned his post in 2015. Nonetheless, Blatter will remain in his position until a new election takes place either later this year or early next, meaning the reign of Sepp Blatter at FIFA is not over just yet.

A History of Bribery, Corruption, and Kickbacks

While allegations of corruption and bribery have long haunted Blatter and by extension FIFA, this has had little or no effect on the all-important bottom line. In the last four years alone, FIFA has generated $6 billion in revenue; however, how the money is used has come under greater question. While this money was earmarked for soccer development worldwide, it was instead used for FIFA’s leaders’ own ambitions.

Acting on all the rumor and speculation concerning FIFA’s backroom dealings, the U.S. Justice Department indicted nine of the organization’s leaders for bribery amounting to $150 million. The arrests were part of a larger joint raid made along with Swiss authorities that also saw five corporate executives arrested and charged with racketeering, conspiracy, and corruption. The British are also considering filing their own charges.  The video below explains the FIFA scandal and arrests in detail.

Picking a World Cup

The World Cup is easily the most popular sporting event across the world. In 2010 for example, 200 million people tuned in for the draw or group selection process, not even an actual game. For comparison’s sake, the amount of people who watched the Super Bowl in 2015, a record for the event, maxed out at approximately 121 million people.

How the Process Works

Until 2002, every World Cup was played in either Europe, North America, or South America. However, this finally changed when Japan and Korea co-hosted the event. This also led to a major change in how the hosting country is selected. In 2006, FIFA instituted a system in which the tournament would be rotated among its six regional confederations.

While this was scrapped in 2007, a similar rule was put into place that same year stating that all countries in a particular regional confederation would be ineligible to host two World Cups following the event hosted by a neighboring country. In other words, if the U.S. hosted the 2018 World Cup, other countries in its region, such as Mexico, would not be eligible to host a World Cup until 2030 at the earliest.

The voting process itself is the responsibility of the executive committee, which is made up of 24 people. These include the president and vice president of FIFA, as well as seven other vice presidents representing each continental soccer federation and one from one of the home nations of the United Kingdom. To clarify, there are actually only six continental confederations–Antarctica is left out in the cold, thus the need for the seventh member. Lastly are 15 members elected from the 209 member countries, who are appointed to four-year terms.

These members are in charge of who gets the right to host the World Cup. The voting process involves each country interested in hosting the event giving a presentation on television before the committee. Once all the prospective hosts have presented their cases, the executive committee votes by secret ballot until a winner is declared. In the case of a tie, it is up to the president of FIFA to cast the deciding vote.

Corruption at Every Turn

As can be expected from a process of this nature, corruption is rampant. Of the many accusations, members selling votes is most common. In the most recent World Cup bid process, actual evidence of this phenomenon emerged. Two undercover British journalists were approached and offered votes in exchange for bribes. The notion of corruption however, should not be a surprise, in fact the way FIFA is constructed basically lends itself to this.

While not every country votes on who will host the World Cup, each has a say in another important way. Every member votes for the organization’s president. This is a system that can encourage small countries that are more dependent on FIFA stipends to be more likely to sell their vote in exchange for more support. This is the case because the amount of support each country receives has nothing to do with its size. Thus, for example, a massive country like China can receive less money from FIFA than a small country such as Bermuda.

In addition, aside from money, small countries can also expect other benefits for supporting certain people or countries’ bids. This comes in the form of recognition, namely FIFA along with having a poorly defined system for allocating funds also has an unclear definition of what makes a nation. For example Gibraltar, a small rock governed by the U.K. but claimed by Spain, nearly won recognition as its own nation despite only having a population of 29,000 people. The following video highlights the most recent FIFA presidential election.

Trouble With the Machine

The controversial decisions to award Russia the World Cup in 2018 and Qatar the event in 2022 are hardly the first incidents with picking a host country. In 2002 when Japan and South Korea co-hosted the event there were minor issues with the travel required between the venues causing the organizers to never again hold a multi-country event.

The controversy only ratcheted up for the next World Cup in 2006, when allegations concerning bribery surfaced when Germany won an upset bid for the tournament over supposedly favored South Africa. Recently, details have emerged of specifically what this bribery entailed; in this case it far exceeded the norm. In 2006 Germany is alleged to have temporarily lifted an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia and to have shipped the country weapons in exchange for its vote. It is also accused of using the lure of investment from German companies such as Volkswagen, to get Thailand and South Korea to also support its candidacy.

Controversy continued when the tournament moved to Africa. In 2010 South Africa finally succeeded in its bid for the World Cup. According to a recent report, Morocco actually received more votes but, through a series of bribes, South Africa was declared the winner. At the center of this scandal was former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner, who reportedly took bribes from both countries for the votes he controlled, he may also have taken money from Egypt who was also bidding for the tournament that year.

Like a perpetual storm cloud, problems followed the World Cup when it arrived in soccer mecca Brazil. The issues evolved far beyond just bribery and affected society as whole. Just a few of the major problems included the forced eviction of thousands of poor residents, social unrest, police brutality, unfinished infrastructure projects, unused stadiums, worker deaths, and lasting social inequality that was actually exacerbated by the tournament.

Russia and Qatar

ll these issues bring us back around to the next two proposed hosts for the World Cup: Russia and Qatar. Russia was awarded the tournament despite continued human rights abuses as well as its flagrant invasions of Ukraine and Georgia. Additionally, like Brazil before it, while Russia agrees to host the lavish tournament, people at home will be feeling the cost. Russia plans to spend at least $20 billion–a new record–despite the Ruble losing half its value in the last year and U.S.-led sanctions taking their toll on the Russian economy, as well.

Then there is Qatar, whose selection to hold the 2022 tournament was so preposterous that it played a huge role in authorities finally stepping in to clean up FIFA’s corruption. Qatar plans to spend $220 billion on the tournament, which will make that record-breaking Russian figure look minuscule. Also, in an effort to avoid the average 106 degree temperature there, the World Cup in Qatar will be moved to winter. On a human level, most of the work is being done by migrants who are working in slave-like conditions and dying in droves. This does not even take into account the laws against things such as drinking alcohol or homosexuality.  The following video explains many of the negative issues as a result of the World Cup in Qatar.

With this as the backdrop and with the still-simmering scandal, it comes as little surprise then that bidding for the 2026 tournament has been put on hold. Additionally, despite FIFA saying there is no legal ground on which to take hosting duties for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups away from Russia and Qatar, many are eager to explore that option as well.

Conclusion

The FIFA scandal far exceeds the traditional borders of sport. The organization is so powerful that it has the ability, directly or indirectly, to boost an unpopular leader and even legitimize states. It also has sponsorships from some the world’s most powerful corporations and is the most popular sport globally. With this in mind then, the recent arrests of FIFA’s top leaders were surprising only in the fact that they actually happened. These men and this organization have been basically untouchable for decades.

Thus, while the U.S. and Swiss indict leaders and promise further action, it is hard to believe any of it will actually happen, or at the very least stick. Even the resignation of Sepp Blatter, despite the ardent support of Vladimir Putin, comes with a caveat. Blatter was elected in a landslide right before his resignation and was allowed to leave on his own terms instead of in hand cuffs, as many feel should be the case.

While its leaders fall like dominoes, FIFA will likely survive this scandal as it survived two world wars, membership issues, and a host of other problems along the way. The real question in the wake of this scandal is, will any of these arrests, indictments, or resignations make this seminal organization less corrupt and more honest? Based on the system in place and its recent elections the answer looks like no.

Resources

Top End Sports: Host Country Selection

MLS Soccer: What is FIFA, Who is Sepp Blatter, and What is All the Fuss About?

Goal: World Cup Bidding Process Explained

FIFA: History of FIFA

Time: These Are the Five Facts That Explain the FIFA Scandal

Five Thirty Eight: How FIFA’s Structure Lends Itself to Corruption

Reuters: Germany Sold Arms to Saudi Arabia to Secure Its Vote for 2006 World Cup

Sports Illustrated: Morocco Beat South Africa in Vote For 2010 World Cup

World.Mic: Seven Big Problems the World Cup Left Behind in Brazil

LA Times: So Many Things Wrong With Qatar World Cup 2022

CNN: FIFA to Suspend Bidding For 2026 World Cup Amid Corruption Scandal

BBC: Vladimir Putin Expresses Support for Blatter

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FIFA Scandal is No Surprise if You’ve Been Paying Attention appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday June 5, Rick Perry announced his plans to run for the Republican presidential bid in 2016. Despite his blunder in a Republican presidential debate almost four years ago, Perry decided that reforming his image and enhancing his stage presence will give him a good shot at running for president this time around. But considering Perry’s low support among Texans and his indictment regarding his alleged abuse of power as governor, Perry might not be able to rally any support for his bid.

So far, Perry has focused his presidential bid on his experience as a governor who stimulated Texas’s economy and on his military experience. His primary tactic is to distinguish himself from the other Republican candidates by being the face of leadership and experience. He’s also emphasized his humble background by relaying his childhood upbringing on a cotton farm. But this technique has not quite corrected his previous blunder, nor is it garnering the same support that he had the first time around.

Perry has already lost crucial support in Texas and many Texans don’t even support him; in a recent poll he barely polled at 2 percent compared to Scott Walker at 18 percent and Marco Rubio at 13 percent. Many Republican and Tea Party members have flocked to Ted Cruz instead of Perry.

The last piece of the puzzle that is seriously damaging Perry’s chances of winning the Republican bid for the presidency is the indictment that accuses Perry of abusing his power as governor when he was in office. Perry allegedly threatened Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign after she had pleaded guilty to drunk driving and served a 45-day sentence. She refused and Perry vetoed the funding to her office’s Public Integrity Unit, which focused on anti-corruption measures. As a result of the indictment, Perry faces the possibility of 109 years in prison. Perry’s defense appeals to the rule of the law, as he stated:

I stood up for the rule of the law in Texas, and if I had to do it again, I would make exactly the same decision.

However, the original complaint was actually filed before Perry vetoed the funding for the Public Integrity Unit. The team who filed the complaint found four other allegations that could point to felonies. The claim for the complaint is focused more on Perry threatening another official and actually has little to do with his vetoes. All of these accusations could spell problems for Perry on the campaign trail.

Perry seems to be taking on a lot as he runs for the Republican presidential bid. The fact that he is accused of abusing his power as governor should put a lot of doubt in voters’ minds. And even though his presidential campaign has focused on important issues so far, such as increasing jobs, Perry has not been successful in gaining support in Texas. Some could say it’s admirable that he is trying to run for the presidency again, but he should be more focused on his abuse of power charges, which may end up determining his presidential campaign before it even really begins.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rick Perry’s Hands Are Full appeared first on Law Street.

Recently re-elected FIFA president Joseph S. Blatter, known to the world as Swiss Sepp Blatter, announced Tuesday he will step down from his post as president of the international football association’s governing body, following criticism over a corruption scandal.

While 14 of his colleagues were recently indicted on charges of bribery, money laundering, and racketeering, Blatter was left unscathed and re-elected for his fifth consecutive term as FIFA president on Friday, May 29^th. During his reelection speech, Blatter rejoiced in his continued reign with the words,

I thank you, you have accepted me for the next four years. I will be in command of this boat called FIFA.

 

However, Blatter has not escaped blame from the global public over the years, having been labeled a dictator, among other names, and accused of sexism and racism reaching far beyond claims of corrupt laundering practices. According to BBC News, the global citizens’ movement Avaaz was responsible for starting the #BlatterOut campaign, which began trending on Twitter just days before the election. Gary Linekar, the former English footballer and current sports broadcaster, is one of the many to join the campaign against Blatter, who seems to have been at the head of FIFA corruption since 1991.

FIFA members should vote for the good of football, and get rid of a man who’s reigned over a corrupt organisation for too long. #BlatterOut

— Gary Lineker (@GaryLineker) May 28, 2015

So what on earth was keeping Blatter in power if so much of the world wanted #BlatterOut? The answer, unlike what most commonly believe, is not so much about the power of the dollar—or the supposed tens of millions of dollars involved in the corruption since 1991—as it is the power of a single vote in any given FIFA presidential election. Each of the 209 national member associations that make up FIFA’s Congress receives exactly one equal vote no matter how much land area the nation possesses or how much of the world’s population lives in each nation. According to the Washington Post, this means the tiny Caribbean island of Montserrat has as much a say as World Cup powerhouses Brazil or Germany in the election. After totaling the member nations counted in the presidential election, here is the breakdown by regional confederation:

So, what Blatter needed to do to get reelected was not to convince the world that he is not as corrupt as his colleagues, but to cater to the areas of the world that would ensure his victory, and he did. Blatter has made what was once a largely European organization a globalized organization, by bringing what he calls “developmental programs” to underprivileged parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Despite where the money came from to start these programs, in doing so, Blatter spoke for most of the 54 votes of the Confederation of African Football (CAF)—the largest number of votes held by any of the six continental confederations above. Amaju Pinnick, the current president of the Nigerian Football Federation, has expressed that,

Without Blatter we wouldn’t enjoy all the benefits we enjoy today from FIFA. What Blatter pushes is equity, fairness and equality among the nations. We don’t want to experiment.

It was not Blatter’s years of experience or money that got him reelected; it was his ability to systematically accommodate the parts of the world that hold the most votes.

The sole person who opposed Blatter in the election for president was Qatari Mohammed bin Hammam, but he withdrew from the race after suspension by FIFA’s ethics committee due to allegations that he offered financial incentives to Caribbean Football Union members. The response to corruption by England’s Football Association and its chairman David Bernstein was to postpone the election, to instill credibility back into the process, and to appoint an independent external committee to make recommendations about future election processes. Yet, the FA’s proposal was again put up to the votes of 206 member nations equally and the election moved forward without delay.

Are Blatter’s or any other FIFA administrator’s corrupt practices inevitable in this day and age of soccer as yet another means of politics? Or is Blatter’s attempt to globalize the world by bringing soccer and developmental programs to countries outside of Europe a kind of affirmative action policy that permits or even necessitates some corruption behind the scenes? Whether you answer yes or no to these questions, FIFA’s Executive Committee might consider an election reform of proportional representation by member nations in order to assure that the next FIFA president elected is preferred in power by all parts of the world instead of only by the continent with the most votes.

Jenifer Carter

Jenifer Carter is a member of the University of Virginia Class of 2016. Contact Jenifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial Re-election Forces FIFA President to Resign appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since Illinois Republican Aaron Schock stepped foot in Washington D.C. he’s been making headlines. He was one of the first millennials to be elected to Congress, in 2009. He gained prominence for his flashy Instagram account, constant presence at the gym, weird office re-decoration possibly inspired by television show “Downton Abbey,” and persistent gay rumors. All of those things, in addition to his millennial status earned him applause from some and criticism from others. Either way, one thing is certain: Aaron Schock was certainly a character. A character that Washington is losing, as Schock announced his resignation yesterday after weeks of financial scandal allegations. But I want to be clear about one thing: Schock isn’t resigning because he’s young, or because he’s a millennial. He’s resigning because he’s a corrupt idiot.

Schock’s downfall essentially came from the fact that he spent way too much money. Some of that money was campaign donations, which he is accused of spending for personal use. He also used taxpayer money for things like private flights, and he was untruthful when filing things like spending reports and travel reimbursements. Some of the best allegations about Schock’s spending include:

• A personal photographer named Jonathan Link. Schock paid Link and his studio more than $50,000 last year and listed that cost as “personnel.”
• He requested mileage reimbursements for miles driven in his car for both official government business and campaigning; however, his car had less than half of the miles on it he claimed he had driven.
• He paid to take his interns to a sold-out Katy Perry concert.
• His “Downton Abbey” inspired office cost $35,000, but was designed by the wife of one of his donors. Many have argued that it was an “inappropriate gift.” The Washington Post described Schock’s private office as including “a drippy crystal chandelier, a table propped up by two eagles, a bust of Abraham Lincoln and massive arrangements of pheasant feathers.” Overall, Schock has spent more than $100,000 to renovate his various offices.

Last one. Full shot of Aaron Schock’s office. http://t.co/PJ1NGekafQpic.twitter.com/2SjsGQlKhp

— Ben Terris (@bterris) February 3, 2015

Overall, it seems pretty clear that Schock’s spending practices weren’t really in line with helping his constituents, but more with helping Schock himself.

Many of his colleagues are disappointed because they saw him as a rising, attractive Republican star. With an active presence on social media that included pictures with people like popstar Ariana Grande, he was more prominent for many young people than say, Senator Lindsey, “I’ve never sent an email” Graham. In a party that has long struggled to connect with young people, Schock seemed like a shoe-in to help fix that problem. But not everyone was so impressed with the Congressman. Politico, which broke the story yesterday, reported:

Schock’s associates — many of whom are afraid to speak for attribution, fearing potential legal action — say a combination of immaturity, sloppiness and an oversized ego led to his downfall. He came to Congress as an eager 27-year-old, raised a lot of money and spent it at a rapid clip.

I think that’s partly right. I think he did have a huge ego, was incredibly sloppy with his position, and was incredibly immature. That being said, politicians get slammed on this kind of stuff all the time, particularly in Schock’s home state of Illinois. I’m not sure what’s in Illinois’ water, but more than 1,500 holders of various political offices in the state have been convicted on corruption charges in roughly the last 40 years. That includes four out of seven of its most recent governors. Schock may have been sloppy, immature, and egotistical, but I don’t think he’s alone.

The issue isn’t that a millennial politician can’t be successful. Schock’s fellow millennials include Representatives Tulsi Gabbard, Patrick Murphy, and Elise Stefanik, none of whom seem to have the same spending issues. Young people need to get involved in politics–from the most recent midterms alone, it’s obvious we’re lagging in participation. It really is pretty clear Schock didn’t get nabbed because he’s young or  likes to travel. He got nabbed because he, like so many other politicians, became entitled and thought he was untouchable.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aaron Schock’s Age Didn’t Do Him in, His Idiocy Did appeared first on Law Street.

A few months back I wrote a story about “California Police Officers Found Stealing Suspects’ Nude Photos.” It centered around a few cops in Contra Costa County, California who were stealing nude photos off of female suspects’ cellphones while those cellphones were in police custody. They would share the pictures among themselves, and then discuss and rank the women, rendering it a kind of perverted “game.” Well, when I wrote that piece, I kind of expected that this wouldn’t be the only example we heard of such disgusting behavior. I expected a similar story to pop up in another city or state. I was right–although it happened a little closer to home than I anticipated. Similar allegations are now being waged against a police officer in my city of Washington, D.C.

An Alexandria woman named Natalia Argote has filed a lawsuit against the Washington D.C. Police Department (MPD) and the cop in question, Terrence Richardson. According to Washington City Paper Richardson no longer works for MPD.

The suit claims that Argote was stopped by Richardson and another officer on March 3, 2012 on suspicions of driving under the influence. Her phone and drivers license were taken from her, which seems like a normal enough procedure. One of the officers administered a sobriety tested, while the officer went through her phone. She claims that he saw a nude photo she had taken for her boyfriend, and without her consent sent it to himself.

Argote’s suit doesn’t just claim that it was Richardson who violated her rights. She claims that this is a pervasive problem in the ranks of the MPD. The suit states:

On information and belief, MPD officers regularly rifle through the phones of female citizens without their permission or a warrant, searching for salacious photos.

On information and belief, MPD officers regularly share the salacious photos with each other and individuals outside the MPD.

On information and belief, on March 3, 2012, MPD was aware that its officers were conducting warrantless searches of female citizens’ phones and sharing the photos they stole; yet, it took no action to stop and correct its officers.

Whether or not Argote and her lawyer, Latif Doman, will be able to prove those claims remains to be seen. It will also be interesting to see why Richardson doesn’t work with the MPD anymore–whether it has anything to do with these allegations, or other misconduct, or whether he left voluntarily. As of yet, the MPD does not appear to have commented on the lawsuit.

When I first heard about the admittedly very similar California case, I was outraged, and I reacted similarly when I heard about this one. If what Argote alleges is true, she has every right to sue for an unfair search and violation of privacy. Being pulled over doesn’t mean that you lose all rights. Hopefully, MPD is about to learn that first hand.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post D.C. Cop Accused of Stealing Nude Photos After Woman Pulled Over appeared first on Law Street.

As soccer fans around the globe eagerly tune in to the FIFA World Cup in Brazil, it is important to take a hard look at the world’s most beloved tournament and its impact on the host countries. It may initially seem that host country selection is a tremendous honor and will result in an economic boom; however, systemic corruption and bribery suggest that not all money is good money.

The Benefits and Impacts of Hosting

Following the announcement on October 30, 2001 that Brazil would be the Host Nation of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the developing country was propelled into a state of pride and eager anticipation. Five-time world champions and birthplace to an abundance of soccer legends such as Pelé and Ronaldinho, Brazil initially viewed hosting the 20th World Cup as an honor. The sport is not only revered at a near religious sacredness in Brazil, but additionally, the perceived economic benefits would be tantalizing for any nation.

Tourism

• The final match of the 2010 World Cup between Spain and the Netherlands drew in at least 1 billion viewers, with the 2014 games expecting to surpass that number.
• 3.7 million tourists will descend upon the country during the tournament’s four-week run.
• A projected $11.1 billion will be spent on hotels, airlines, advertising, and various other expenditures.

Job Creation

• Brazil estimates that 380,000 jobs were created because of the World Cup.

The preliminary sense of privilege, however, began to wear away as obstacles continued to emerge and speculation of Brazil’s inability to host the tournament could not be alleviated.

World Cup 2014: Brazil

How is it Financed?

The country’s original plan claimed that private donors would finance the development and renovation of stadiums. Much to the dismay of Brazilians, this plan has greatly diverted. According to The Wall Street Journal’s John Lyons and Loretta Chao, taxpayers have paid $3.6 billion for the stadiums. São Paulo will be the arena for the opening game, a brand new stadium with 62,000 seats that came with a  $550 million price tag. The stadium will go to the Corinthians soccer team after the Cup, but since the team was unable to provide enough private lenders, the stadium’s financing ended up coming from $200 million in tax breaks and government loans. The 2014 World Cup has accumulated a cost of $11.5 billion, which is twice the amount of the previous two World Cups in South Africa and Germany.

Reported by the Pew Research Center, 72 percent of Brazilians are dissatisfied with the way things are going in their country. Additionally, 61 percent of citizens believe hosting the event has been damaging for Brazil because it takes funding away from schools, heath care, and other public services.

Location

Manaus Stadium is another example of poor planning. The 39,000-seat stadium was constructed in the capital city in the state of Amazonas while its greatest local games scarcely attract 1,500 spectators. Since the city lacks a notable soccer team, the stadium will be rendered useless after the Cup — a significant reason as to why private lenders once again did not contribute and the blunt of the cost fell on to the citizens.

Corruption

Following the historical trend, many corruption allegations have surfaced in the lead up to this year’s World Cup. One such example, according to a report by a city auditor, is that the cost to build a stadium in Brasília was $636 million, a 68 percent increase compared to the initial projected cost. Andrade Gutierrez S.A., the builder of the stadium, chose not to comment on the “grave irregularities” found in the report. These abnormalities, such as transportation being over-billed and a 12.1 percent loss rate on steel, were a source of the distended budget.

With $4 billion spent on stadiums and an insufficient amount of funds allocated to public services, the people of Brazil have taken to strikes and protest to promote their needs.

Civil unrest

Movimento Passe Livre (Free Fare Movement), which advocates for free public transportation, gained attention on June 13, 2013 when police turned a peaceful protest into a place of terror. Officers fired rubber bullets and firing grenades at bystanders and fleeing protesters. Those who were trapped in the mayhem were subjected to inhaling pepper spray and tear gas. The movement quickly spread across a dozen state capitals. These protests occurred simultaneously with the Confederations Cup matches. BBC Sport’s Ben Smith reported that throughout the June 6, 2013 match between Uruguay and Nigeria, “the deep rumblings, loud bangs and the crackle of police weapons could be heard in the streets nearby,” leaving many with questions if the social problems Brazil is facing would hinder its ability to host the Cup a year later.

Subway Strikes

Close to the opening ceremonies, subway strikes erupted in Sao Paulo. Approximately four million people a day use the subway. The workers hoped that the strike would lead to increase in pay and better working conditions; however, the São Paulo court ruled that striking over pay was illegal.

The Homeless Demand Answers

In May 2014, the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem-Teto (Homeless Workers’ Movement, or MTST) and the Fronte de Resistência Urbana (Urban Resistance Front) — both organizations representing homeless citizens — protested 20,000 strong in São Paulo. The protesters demanded answers about how the government spent public funds on the World Cup. The protesters were able to garner international attention and disrupt traffic for more than 150 miles.

World Cup 2010: South Africa

Match fixing

The New York Times‘ Declan Hill and Jeré Longman investigated incidents of match fixing that took place in five exhibition matches during the South Africa 2010 World Cup. Football 4U International was the Singapore-based company that arranged the match rigging.

“At least five matches and possibly more” were manipulated, while “as many as 15 matches were targets.” The exhibition matches were exploited for betting purposes, especially in underground Asian markets. In a report obtained by The New York Times, it is estimated that the illegal betting markets in Asia total hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Football 4U International

The South Africa-Guatemala friendly was one of the matches fixed by Football 4U International. Ibrahim Chaibou was the referee supplied for that game, receiving $60,000 for manipulating a 5-0 South African victory.

Steve Goddard, the acting head of refereeing for the South African Football Association at the time of the 2010 World Cup, was offered a bribe by Football 4U International executive Wilson Raj Perumal. The bribe of $3,500 was for the organization to supply referees for the exhibition matches.

These revelations have spurred FIFA to work closely with law enforcement officials to patrol potential match fixing during the 2014 games.

World Cup 2022: Qatar

Appalling Living and Working Conditions

While Brazil’s hosting capability has been in question, it is nearly unanimous that Qatar hosting the World Cup in 2022 is a treacherous affair. In an interview with Swiss broadcaster RTS about if choosing Qatar to host in 2022 was a mistake, Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s president, said “Yes, it was a mistake of course, but one makes lots of mistakes in life.” Journalists, fans, and officials directly connected to FIFA are calling for a new vote if it is confirmed that Qatar won because of a corrupt system. The BBC reported that Football Association chairman Greg Dyke would support a new vote.

In an interview with ESPN published June 1, 2014, Sharan Burrow of the International Union Confederation (ITUC) was asked, “How do Qataris view the people who are there building this vast infrastructure for a country with only 200,000 citizens?” Her response came as a chilling summation of the hostility,  “I don’t think they see them as human.”

Reported by Richard Conway of BBC, “Almost 200 Nepalese men are reported to have died last year working on construction projects in Qatar,” and “up to 4,000 workers could die by 2022 if current laws and attitudes persist.”

According to the ITUC Special Report “The Case Against Qatar:”

• Employers are demanding deposits of $275 paid by workers before they are allowed to leave for holidays.
• 191 Nepalese workers died in 2013 and 169 in 2012.
• 218 Indian nationals died in 2013, 237 died in 2012 and 239 in 2011.
• On average 20 Indian migrants died per month in 2013.

Qatar follows a ‘kefala’ employment system, which ties migrant workers to their sponsor companies. Human rights groups and trade unions are highly critical of this system as it requires exit visas that do not allow workers to leave without their employer’s permission.

With eight years left until Qatar is set to host the World Cup, these numbers are frightening to both human rights activists and soccer spectators.

How Bribery Gave Qatar the World Cup

In addition to the current welfare of the workers, allegations that Qatar won the bid due to fraudulent measures have also surfaced. Qatar’s former top football official, Mohamed Bin Hammam, stands at the center of it all.

• The Sunday Times obtained numerous leaked e-mails stating how bin Hammam paid off and lobbied numerous senior officials to support Qatar’s bid.
• According to Mike Singer of CBS, “Regarding former FIFA VP Jack Warner, Bin Hammam was accused of paying him more than $1.6 million in order to garner his support. Warner eventually resigned in 2011 to avoid an investigation connected to Bin Hammam’s failed attempt to become FIFA president.“
• Bin Hammam is also said to have paid up to $200,000 to multiple African soccer associations through ten slush funds in his company. In turn for receiving the money, the associations persuaded the top four FIFA officials in Africa to vote how Bin Hammam desired.

Corruption is nothing new to Bin Hammam as he has been banned for life by FIFA twice. In 2012 following a natural gas deal with Thailand (home to Worawi Makudi who is a FIFA board ally), Bin Hammam was expelled based on financial wrongdoing. Supplementing the public’s disdain for how events are transpiring thus far in Qatar, FIFA’s top sponsors have vocalized their displeasure. Visa has requested FIFA to “maintain strong ethical standards and operate with transparency.” Adidas, FIFA’s longest-standing sponsor and ball provider for the World Cup said, “The negative tenor of the public debate around FIFA at the moment is neither good for football nor for FIFA and its partners.” Meeting opposition by six of FIFA’s sponsors — who will pay $700 million collectively over four years toward the 2014 games — are sure to influence how FIFA handles the situation.

Resources

Primary 

The New York Times: Referees Exchange Letter 

Additional

International Trade Union Confederation: “The Case Against Qatar”

FIFA: Brazil Confirmed as 2014 Hosts

Wall Street Journal: Hopes Fades in Brazil for a World Cup Economic Boost

Soccerly: World Cup Expected to Bring 3.7 Million Tourist Invasion

Pew Research Center: Brazilian Discontent Ahead of World Cup

Wall Street Journal: São Paulo Subway Workers to Strike

International Business Times: No to the Cup: Homeless Workers’ Association Leads 20,000 People in Sao Paulo to Demonstrate Against World Cup Costs

The New York Times: Fixed Soccer Matches Cast Shadow Over World Cup

Economist: The Streets Erupt

BBC: Qatar World Cup 2022: FIFA Vice-President ‘Would Support’ Re-Vote

ESPN : Qatar’s World Cup

BBC: Qatar 2022: Plans to Protect World Cup Workers Unveiled

CBS: Report: Former FIFA Exec Paid $5 Million to Support Qatar WC Bid

Guardian: World Cup 2014: Brazil Still Facing Issues With 100 Days to Go 

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post The Dark Side of the World Cup: Corruption, Bribery, and Civil Unrest appeared first on Law Street.

Limits on campaign contributions continue to slip away, with high courts ruling against them. First, in the Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission, and then on April 24, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty struck down donation limits in New York. Surprisingly, Crotty acknowledged that there is a link between campaign finance and corruption. Unfortunately, he felt compelled to rule against the measures aimed to prevent this phenomena due to the possibility of infringing on first amendment rights. Many feel that this issue is black and white; namely, that campaign donations are a right of free speech or that they are ruining democracy. Yet, I think it is fair to say that the judicial branch is in a difficult position. A majority of Americans want campaign finance reform, yet, any attempt to do so could be a violation of constitutional rights (so it seems based on recent rulings).

While I would like to see reform, I acknowledge that there is a more concerning problem underlying the push for campaign contribution limits, and it starts with the obvious question, “why exactly do people want to limit contributions in the first place?” The desire to limit campaign contributions arises from the fear of a distorted power distribution. Simply, the people who have the greatest wealth will have the greatest influence in politics.

In order to run a strong campaign, you need a lot of capital, and thus, politicians require significant financial backing. If someone voluntarily provides a politician with large financial donations, then by de facto the politician owes that financial backer, and hence, the corruption referred to by Crotty ensues. The fact that finances are so important in political elections principally gives citizens of wealth more potential value and gives them greater potential access to politicians than regular citizens.

But let’s back up for a minute. We need to ask the next question that naturally follows, “why does it require a lot of money to win elections?” And this question gets us to the root of the problem. Politicians need a substantial amount of campaign finances in order to capitalize on the public’s immediate perception. Unfortunately, Americans are not educated on domestic and international politics and it shows in the polls. As Cato Unbound reports,

numerous polls show that voters grossly underestimate the percentage of federal spending that goes to entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, while greatly overestimating the amount spent on foreign aid[..] Widespread political ignorance isn’t limited to spending and health care[..] only 42% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative and judicial.

American’s knowledge regarding international affairs shows even less promise. So how does the American electorate make political decisions? They rely on heuristics in order to decide whom and what to vote for. A heuristic is essentially a cognitive shortcut that allows us to make decisions quickly, and one of the most commonly employed cognitive shortcuts is the availability heuristic. In the words of Albert Phung, when using this heuristic, people “rely on immediate examples that come to mind. The availability heuristic operates on the notion that if something can be recalled, it must be important.”

Political campaigns know this, and that is why they are constantly trying to get as much attention as possible, which requires a lot of money. Does the term ‘soundbites’ ring a bell? If people hear what a certain candidate is going to do over and over, they begin to think it is important.

The reason we fear unlimited campaign contributions is because the American people do not make educated voting decisions and instead, they are heavily influenced by how many soundbites they are subjected to. If every person were to decide who to vote for based on their own research, it wouldn’t matter how much money politicians raise and spend. But the sad fact remains that American’s do not do the research. My favorite example of this is the Associated Press Report Homer Simpson, Yes — 1st Amendment ‘Doh,’ survey results. According to the AP, “the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared to just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.”

[ThinkProgress] [Investopedia] [Gallup] [SupremeCourt.Gov]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured image courtesy of [Wonderlane via Flickr]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campaign Donation Limits: Why We Really Need Them appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, Bob McDonnell, a former Virginia Governor, and his wife, Maureen, were indicted on 14 counts of public corruption based on improper gifts he received. Most of the expenses were gifts from Jonnie Williams, the CEO of Star Scientific, a tech-based nutrition company.

According to the indictment, McDonnell and Williams met after McDonnell was elected Governor. Allegedly, Williams offered to help cover the expense of Maureen’s dress for the inaugural ball, helped pay for McDonnell’s daughters’ weddings, invited the McDonnells to a vacation at his home, and gave a Rolex engraved with the phrase “71st Governor of Virginia.”

In return, the McDonnells allegedly assisted Williams with research Star Scientific was doing regarding a product called “antabloc.” McDonnell himself met with various Virginia officials to tout the product, and pushed for it to be further researched and tested.

McDonnell and his legal team claim no wrong has been done in this case. In a statement released after the indictment, McDonnell acknowledged the fact he received gifts and donations from Williams, but said that nothing he did was illegal because he never used his capacity as Governor to help Williams in return.

He stated, “I repeat emphatically that I did nothing illegal for Mr. Williams in exchange for what I believed was his personal generosity and friendship. I never promised – and Mr. Williams and his company never received – any government benefit of any kind from me or my Administration.”

McDonnell’s logic would suggest that a politician can receive any gift or benefit from a donor or supporter, and so long as that politician does not help the donor in return, no harm has been done. And in a way, he may be right. It isn’t unusual for highly influential people with a lot of money to give some of it, be it in the form of sports tickets, a vacation, or just a check, to politicians.

But is that really what happened here?

In the McDonnells’ case, these “gifts” were ongoing, lasting for nearly four years. And if the facts in the indictment are correct, McDonnell started promoting Williams’ product and company during that same time period.

One would be hard-pressed to find a reason that someone who starts donating large amounts of money and goods to a politician during his election campaign, and continues to donate to that politician throughout his time in office, wouldn’t expect something in return.

But even if the donor didn’t expect something, it seems even less likely that a politician accepting gifts worth so much money wouldn’t feel some kind of obligation to that donor. That could be part of the reason politicians are supposed to report all of their assets, gifts and donations included, at each year’s end. So if McDonnell did no wrong in this case, he would have had no problem reporting any stock he owned in Star Scientific on his annual records.

But apparently his wife did. According to their indictment, Maureen contacted her broker in order to sell her stock in Star Scientific before the year’s end. She then repurchased the same amount of stock at the start of the following year.

The facts of this case seem to have less to do with the interactions between the McDonnells and Williams as it does the fact they took any means necessary to deny and withhold information about these gifts and donations. While the outcome of the case has yet to be determined, if McDonnell and his wife are convicted, it will be yet another example of a political power-grab gone wrong.

[Huffington Post] [Indictment] [Washington Post] [Statement]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Queen Bee via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Gifts Turn to Greed: Former Va. Governor Indicted on 14 Counts appeared first on Law Street.

After five years the Turkish court issued 17 life sentences to prominent figures among the government, military and media on Monday.  However, the final sentencing of the Ergenekon trial is only part of its significance for the government and the Turkish people.  In a country with a long history of military coups, this trial may represent the decline in the military’s influence in the political sphere.  Others contend that the trial is an example of government suppression of its opposition.  During the past five years there has been a significant change in people’s opinion of the ruling Justice and Development Party, with harsh responses to protests causing it to be perceived as increasingly more authoritarian.

The Egenekon trial is also perceived to be part of an emerging trend in the Turkish judicial system where people have frequently been prosecuted based on wide reaching anti-terrorism laws.  The government has been facing an increasing amount of criticism as free speech and expression has been significantly limited in recent years.  It is also important to note that government opposition has not been limited to one specific group within the Turkish populace, rather it has been spread throughout a never before seen mixture of people.  This trial marks another step towards authority consolidation within the government and has caused a dramatic backlash from the people.  As dissatisfaction continues, how far the Turkish protests will go remains to be seen, however an end to the demonstrations does not appear to be coming any time soon.

[BBC]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Dawid Krawczyk via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unrest Continues in Turkey After Verdict in Five-Year Corruption Trial appeared first on Law Street.