President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on Friday, their first face-to-face meeting since Trump’s election. They reportedly spoke for over two hours, in what was meant to be a 30- to 40-minute meeting.

I look forward to all meetings today with world leaders, including my meeting with Vladimir Putin. Much to discuss.#G20Summit #USA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 7, 2017

It is unclear precisely what Trump and Putin discussed. But from the Syrian civil war and Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election, to Putin’s opposition to NATO and Trump’s recent endorsement of the alliance, they certainly had no shortage of potential issues to review.

“Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it’s going very well,” Trump told reporters in Hamburg. “We’ve had some very, very good talks. We’re going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue. We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everybody concerned. And it’s an honor to be with you.”

Over the past few weeks, White House officials and Putin himself have hinted at what the American and Russian leaders might cover in their first meeting. Last week, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, announced the meeting, and said it would have “no specific agenda.” He added that “it’s really going to be whatever the president wants to talk about,” and that Trump would seek avenues of cooperation with Moscow.

PUTIN:”I’m delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr. President. And I hope, as you have said, our meeting will yield positive result.” pic.twitter.com/ayKu0O0BZv

— Stephen Crowley (@Stcrow) July 7, 2017

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are deepening, and the relationship has hardly seen the re-start that Trump alluded to during his campaign. For one, the Trump Administration has continued, and has intensified in some instances, the campaign against Islamic State in Syria. Russia is the primary backer of the Syrian government, which has decimated the country and has murdered its own people. The U.S.-backed alliance of rebels firmly opposes the Syrian army.

Immediately after the meeting concluded, the Associated Press reported that Washington and Moscow struck a cease-fire agreement in southwest Syria. Citing three White House officials, the AP said the agreement includes Jordan and Israel, and will go into effect Sunday.

In a discussion with Russian media outlets last month, Putin outlined the issues he hoped to address with Trump. The U.S. and Russia should cooperate to advance “non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “This is an area of crucial importance and concerns not just the North Korean issue but other regions too.”

Putin added that “settling the crisis in southeast Ukraine,” where Russia has fomented a pro-Russian separatist movement, is paramount. The U.S. provides nominal support to Ukrainian troops battling the pro-Russian forces in the ongoing conflict.

And then there is the issue of Russia’s role in hacking the Democratic National Committee emails in the run-up to last November’s election. U.S. intelligence agencies have unanimously concluded that the hack was orchestrated by the Kremlin with the goal of aiding the Trump campaign. Trump has previously denied Russia’s involvement. And on Thursday, he said, “I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people in other countries,” adding: “It could have been a lot of people interfered.”

The AP reported that Trump and Putin did indeed discuss the election hack during Friday’s meeting:

BREAKING: Russian foreign minister says Trump accepted Putin’s assurances that Russia didn’t meddle in the U.S. election.

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 7, 2017

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 Trump and Putin Meet in Germany, Strike Partial Cease-Fire in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

French President Emmanuel Macron and his allies won a large majority in the country’s second and final round of parliamentary elections on Sunday. While Macron captured the seats he needs to carry out his centrist agenda, the election saw a record-low turnout, suggesting that much of the country is unenthusiastic about the young leader’s ability to change realities on the ground.

Macron’s En Marche party and its ally, the Democratic Movement, picked up 350 spots in the 577-seat National Assembly, Parliament’s powerful lower chamber. The vote was a repudiation of France’s establishment parties, as the center-right Republicans captured 135 seats, while the left-leaning Socialist bloc won 45 seats. Led by Macron’s deeply unpopular predecessor, Francois Hollande, the Socialists dominated the 2012 election, winning both the presidency and a majority in Parliament.

“A year ago, no one could have imagined such a political renewal,” Prime Minister Édouard Philippe said on Twitter. Referring to the record abstention rate–only 43 percent of eligible voters went to the polls–he added: “Abstention is never good news for democracy. The government interprets it as a strong obligation to succeed.”

Fatigue could account for the record-low turnout–there were two rounds of presidential voting in May plus two rounds of parliamentary voting in June. But more likely, a majority of French voters are simply unsure about Macron’s program. According to Luc Rouban, a professor at the Center for the Study of French Political Life at Sciences Po, “Many people are in a state of uncertainty.”

“The level of abstention in the second round is a sign that a large part of the working-class electorate are not going to vote anymore,” Rouban told the New York Times.

Contrary to France’s traditional left-right politics, Macron, 39, ran on a centrist platform that advocated for continued integration with the European Union, and shedding restrictions on businesses. Since ascending to the presidency, many observers have applauded Macron’s interactions with leaders who would like to see the Western liberal alliance erode, like Russian President Vladimir Putin. But still, for French voters, Macron has a lot to prove.

The poles of France’s political spectrum also suffered a convincing defeat on Sunday–Le Pen’s far-right National Front picked up nine seats, while the far-left leader Jean Luc Melenchon and his allies won 27 seats. Aside from the rejection of the left and right, French politics are changing in other ways: over 200 women were elected to Parliament, a record in France’s modern history.

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 Macron Wins Large Parliamentary Majority Despite Low Turnout appeared first on Law Street.

While it’s been more than 20 years since a major Washington, D.C. sports team has been invited to the White House, two faces of Washington sports are getting political this summer.

Last week Washington Redskins quarterback Kirk Cousins played a round of golf with President Donald Trump at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Meanwhile, Washington Capitals star Alex Ovechkin attended an annual event for President Vladimir Putin where the Russian leader answered questions from a studio audience and civilians across the nation.

Neither has made any specific political statements, but the actions of both stars raised eyebrows in the nation’s capital. Some fans expressed frustration on social media, but others accepted that each athlete has their own personal lives and they can do what they choose.

The District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia–which comprise the main fan base for both teams–all voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Cousins said that Eric Shuster, the director of strategic partnerships at CSN Mid-Atlantic, helped put the duo together. The opportunity was too much to pass on. Cousins said the round was a great experience, adding:

I didn’t ever think that would happen. Had a good enough time that if there’s any former presidents in the D.C. area that want to give me a call, I’d love to meet them at one of the courses around here. I know lots of them are members at these courses and I’m not, so I’d love to get on and get to meet them. Republican, Democrat, left, right, I’d love an invite.

Meanwhile, Alex Ovechkin explained his rationale to Sovetsky Sport, a Russian outlet. Ovechkin said he was making a plea to Putin to help save the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) from its massive financial troubles.

Alex Ovechkin goes to Vladimir Putin town hall meeting to lobby for struggling Dynamo… https://t.co/6iA87Fdy62 pic.twitter.com/1SmEDqe9tw

— Zesty NHL News (@nhl_zesty) June 16, 2017

The KHL, Europe’s premier hockey league, is in serious debt, with teams owing their players more than $17 million, according to the Associate Press. Some players haven’t received a salary payment in over six months.

Ovechkin’s former team, Dynamo Moscow, is in about $35 million in debt and in danger of shutting down. The future Hall of Famer wants to do all he can to avoid that situation.

“It’s a great pity that such things are happening in our sport,” Ovechkin said. “I hope the teams experiencing difficulties will overcome them.”

So both Washington sports stars had their own rationale for spending time with these world leaders. Ovechkin had a goal in mind while Cousins simply jumped at the opportunity to meet the most polarizing figure in American politics.

Neither meeting means much in the grand scheme of global politics, but it does add intrigue and anguish to the beginning of summer for many Washington sports fans.

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 Washington Sports Stars Spend Time with Trump and Putin appeared first on Law Street.

What started as a baffling and unconventional bromance between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is quickly resembling the U.S.-Russia relationship of the past few administrations. Not so long ago, Trump was praising Putin as a stronger leader than former President Barack Obama. He once expressed hope the two could be best friends. His associates–and Trump himself–are under investigation for possible collusion with the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election.

But all that good will has been unraveling over the past few weeks, accelerated by the chemical weapons attack in Syria on April 4. Russia is a key patron of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said “no doubt” carried out the chemical strike on the town of Khan Shaykhun, killing up to 100 civilians. Since the strike, and the subsequent U.S. military response of striking a Syrian air base with 59 cruise missiles, Moscow and Washington have been engaged in a rhetorical cold war of sorts.

Russia has not only denied prior knowledge of the chemical attack, but has also claimed the strike was carried out by “terrorists”–its blanket classification of all opposition forces–to frame the Syrian regime. In a declassified dossier released on Tuesday, U.S. officials said Syria and Russia “have sought to confuse the world community about who is responsible for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people.” The four-page report, largely dedicated to refuting the Kremlin’s denial, continued:

Russia’s allegations fit with a pattern of deflecting blame from the [Syrian] regime and attempting to undermine the credibility of its opponents. Russia and Syria, in multiple instances since mid-2016, have blamed the opposition for chemical use in attacks. Yet similar to the Russian narrative for the attack on Khan Shaykhun, most Russian allegations have lacked specific or credible information.

Has the chemical attack ended Trump’s stated intentions of building a closer relationship with Russia, in hopes of defeating Islamic State? In spite of the suggestions that Trump is a “Putin puppet” or has unusually kind words for Putin because he knowingly was propped up by Russia’s hacking efforts, the relationship is in danger of deteriorating. On Tuesday, Putin compared the U.S.’s retaliatory strike to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“To my mind, this strongly resembles what happened in 2003 when representatives of the United States showed in the Security Council what was supposed to be chemical weapons found in Iraq,” Putin said. Using a common acronym for ISIS, he added: “A military campaign in Iraq ensued, and it ended in devastation of the country, growth of the terror threat and emergence of ISIL on the international scene.”

But Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, after being led to believe he would not be granted a private meeting with Putin, will be meeting with the Russian president after all. On Tuesday, at a G-7 meeting in Italy, Tillerson admonished Russia for its failure to fully rid the Syrian government’s chemical weapons stock in 2013, which it pledged to do in a deal with the Obama Administration.

He said Russia was either incompetent in disposing of the chemical weapons, or complicit in allowing the regime to maintain a cache. “But this distinction doesn’t much matter to the dead,” Tillerson said. “We can’t let this happen again.” And in a Wednesday morning interview with Fox, Trump said referring to Russia’s support of Assad: “Putin is backing a person that’s truly an evil person, and I think it’s very bad for Russia, I think it’s very bad for mankind, it’s very bad for this world.”

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 After Syrian Strike, the U.S.-Russia Relationship Hits a Low Point appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military struck a Syrian airfield with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles late Thursday night, marking its first direct strike against the Syrian regime in the country’s six-year civil war. Authorizing the strike from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, on the first day of a two-day meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Donald Trump said the attack was meant to signal the U.S.’s willingness to escalate its role in the conflict. He said it was a response to the chemical attack on Tuesday, which killed up to 100 civilians, and was believed to be carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Trump said in remarks at Mar-a-Lago. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” The strikes, which commenced at 8:40 p.m. EST and lasted three to four minutes, launched from two U.S. ships in the Mediterranean.

With the strike, Trump signaled to Syria, its allies Russia and Iran, and the rest of the world that the U.S. is changing its calculus in a region where it has long resisted direct action. Former President Barack Obama–whose “weakness and irresolution” was to blame for Tuesday’s chemical attack, the new administration said–was reluctant to directly strike the Syrian regime, afraid that deposing Assad would only make things worse.

As a result of Obama’s failure to stop Assad, Trump said on Thursday, “the refugee crisis continues to deepen, and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.” According to U.S. officials, in a meeting on Wednesday with military advisers, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Trump was presented with three options in responding to the chemical attack. He chose the “one-off” missile strike against the Al Shayrat airfield, which advisers describe as the tamest option.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said an early review indicated the strike “severely damages or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment…reducing the Syrian government’s ability to deliver chemical weapons.” Trump’s decisiveness was welcome by a host of international and domestic actors–from Israel and Syrian activist groups to a bipartisan cohort of senators and some former Obama officials.

“Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in a joint-statement. “For that, he deserves the support of the American people.” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also applauded the decision to strike. “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do,” he said in a statement. Others said his decision was rushed and, if unaccompanied by a long-term vision, potentially dangerous and ineffectual. 

By directly striking Assad, Trump could jeopardize any further cooperation with Russia in fighting Islamic State, which has a substantive–yet shrinking–footprint in the country. A Russian spokesman said the strike “deals a significant blow” to U.S.-Russia relations, and “creates a serious obstacle” to fighting terrorism. Though its stated goal in joining the fight in Syria a few years ago was to combat terrorism, Russia has played a significant role in propping up the Assad regime. Russia, the Pentagon said, was notified of the strike beforehand; no Russians were killed in the attack.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is due to meet with Russian officials next week in Moscow. U.S. officials said Thursday’s strike was meant to provide leverage in the talks, and to show the Russians they can no longer act with impunity in Syria. “This clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for,” Tillerson said. “The more we fail to respond to the use of these weapons, the more we begin to normalize their use.”

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 What You Need to Know About the Missile Strike in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

He is often caricatured as an iron-fisted, shirtless, horseback-riding, murderous regime-supporting paragon of machismo. But Russians also have a sense of humor. So in 2013, during gay rights protests, an image of Russian President Vladimir Putin made up as a clown with mascara, long eyelashes, and lipstick became a popular symbol of resistance.

On Wednesday, Russia officially banned the image, calling it a form of “extremism.” It is illegal to share the image on the internet, because it implies “the supposed nonstandard sexual orientation of the president of the Russian Federation.” Naturally, Twitter had a field day:

Sharing this illegal picture of Putin as a gay clown. #ThingsIWontApologizeFor pic.twitter.com/KiaIbJW6nX

— Allensaurus Rex (@allenrw81) April 6, 2017

Oh no! It’s Putin the Gay Clown!!! Why doesn’t Putin like this image, he looks so pretty!#theresistance #russiagate pic.twitter.com/dVf75py21c

— Queen du Tout (@Gravityisback1) April 6, 2017

It is now illegal in Russia to share an image of Putin as a gay clown.

Guess what motherf*ucker America is still a free nation… for now. pic.twitter.com/xsG0Nma7KA

— Impeach Donald Trump (@Impeach_D_Trump) April 6, 2017

In the summer of 2013, Russians took to the streets to protest Russia’s homophobic laws and repression of the gay community. Wielding the Putin-as-a-pretty-clown meme, protesters opposed Russia’s new laws banning the propagandizing “nontraditional sexual relations” to children. Russian officials beat and arrested scores of protesters.

The LGBT community in Russia suffers from a variety of oppressive, draconian laws. In January 2015, a law passed that made it illegal for transgender people, or others with “disorders,” to operate a vehicle. In October of that year, the Russian government proposed a law that would deem public displays of non-heterosexual orientation–kissing or holding hands, for instance–a criminal act.

While the new Kremlin directive does not explicitly name a single image, it casts a wide net, banning pictures of a Putin-like figure “with eyes and lips made up.” One Russian news outlet suspects a meme of Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, both with make up, clutching a bouquet of flowers, is the banned image:

В РФ признали экстремистским плакат с накрашенными Путиным и Медведевым https://t.co/HhJvROd6Bl

— Gordonua.com (@Gordonuacom) April 5, 2017

To clear up any confusion, this Twitter user compiled all of the potentially banned images in one handy tweet:

Did anyone get the meme-o on which gay-clown images #Putin has banned in Russia? Was it any of these? #stophomophobia pic.twitter.com/ljrUm7Pmo8

— Jason ’Toole (@jayrotoole) April 6, 2017

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 Russia Outlaws Images Depicting Putin as a Gay-Friendly Clown appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands of people fanned out across cities in Russia to protest corruption on Sunday, the largest public demonstrations in five years. Hundreds were arrested, including Russian and foreign journalists and scores of young people. While the protests broadly targeted government corruption, there were few direct displays of dissent against President Vladimir Putin, who throughout his nearly 17-year rule has kept a tight grip on protests and opposition.

From Vladivostok in the east to Kaliningrad in the west to Moscow, protesters waved Russian flags and wielded banners and signs, chanting: “Russia without Putin,” and, in Moscow, “this is our city.” A spokesman for the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, called the protests a “provocation and a lie” and said young people were “promised financial rewards in the event of their detention by law enforcement agencies.”

Aleksei Navalny, an increasingly influential and strident opposition politician, called for the protests weeks ago. His Foundation for Fighting Corruption organized the demonstrations. Navalny, who ran for mayor of Moscow in 2013, was arrested in Moscow on Sunday while protesting. While some see him as a viable Putin opponent in the 2018 elections, he is widely expected to lose. In February, a Kremlin-backed court found him guilty of fraud (he denied the charge), further derailing his chances.

Unprecedented number of young Russians who’ve known no president but Putin came to protest him today. This looks like being the iconic shot pic.twitter.com/noRLeNNxDu

— max seddon (@maxseddon) March 26, 2017

Regardless of his political future, Navalny, who also helped organize the protests that followed tainted elections in 2011 and 2012, is hitting a nerve across the country. Sunday’s protests in Moscow were the most visible and received the harshest crackdown from authorities. Protesters were met with riot police and surveillance helicopters. The Moscow Police Department said “around 500” people were detained for an “unapproved public event.” A group that monitors arrests, OVD-info, said the number of arrests was closer to 1,000.

In the U.S., the White House response was muted; some lawmakers were vocal about the Kremlin’s swift response to the protests. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NB) said in a statement: “Putin’s thugocracy is on full display. The United States government cannot be silent about Russia’s crackdown on peaceful protesters. Free speech is what we’re all about and Americans expect our leaders to call out thugs who trample the basic human rights of speech, press, assembly and protest.”

And while President Donald Trump–who is currently under investigation by the House and the Senate for his communications with Russia during the election–was silent on the issue, Mark Toner, the acting spokesman for the State Department said the U.S. “strongly condemns the detention of hundreds of peaceful protesters throughout Russia on Sunday.” He added: “Detaining peaceful protesters, human rights observers, and journalists is an affront to core democratic values.”

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 Hundreds Arrested in Anti-Corruption Protests Across Russia appeared first on Law Street.

Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, lobbied on behalf of a Russian oligarch with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to an Associated Press investigation, Manafort began discussing a strategy, as early as June 2005, with Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska to push his business interests in Russia and other former Soviet republics.

One of Deripaska’s goals, as indicated by memos obtained by the AP, was to support Putin’s government and to undermine anti-Putin politicians in Russia and former Soviet republics like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Georgia. 

In a 2005 memo obtained by the AP, Manafort wrote to Deripaska, whose net worth is $5.1 billion according to Forbes, and described a “great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.” Manafort added: “We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success.”

Manafort’s “great service” involved influencing politics, business exchanges, and news not only in Russia and former Soviet states, but in the U.S. as well, according to the AP. Manafort and Deripaska signed a contract to carry out the lobbying efforts in 2006. Deripaska paid Manafort $10 million per year for his efforts, and the two maintained a business relationship until at least 2009.

Last August, Trump asked Manafort to resign as his campaign chairman after reports came out that he lobbied on behalf of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who had a cozy relationship with Putin. On Monday, FBI Director James Comey revealed that a number of Trump’s campaign associates are under investigation for their Russian ties. And though Comey declined to explicitly name Manafort as one of the associates in question, it is highly likely he is a subject of the probe.

After Comey testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee on Monday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Manafort “played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time” for the Trump campaign. In fact, Manafort was campaign chairman from March to August, a crucial six-month stretch of the campaign.

Manafort denied any malfeasance in a statement to the AP: “I worked with Oleg Deripaska almost a decade ago representing him on business and personal matters in countries where he had investments,” Manafort said. “My work for Mr. Deripaska did not involve representing Russia’s political interests.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed concern over the AP’s report. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Manafort’s lobbying could amount to “basically taking money to stop the spread of democracy, and that would be very disturbing to me.” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the AP report “undermines the groundless assertions that the administration has been making that there are no ties between President Trump and Russia.”

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 Did Paul Manafort Work to Benefit Vladimir Putin’s Government? appeared first on Law Street.

The resignation of Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser and the subsequent revelations that Trump aides communicated with Russia during the campaign have raised a lot of questions in Washington. Clearly some sort of relationship exists between Russia and Trump–or at least his orbit of advisers and aides. But how deep does it go? How nefarious does it get? And, perhaps most importantly, what will happen next?

For one, the FBI is continuing to review the communications between Flynn and Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak. Flynn was pressured to resign after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about the content of his calls with Kislyak (they talked about U.S. sanctions, but Flynn told Pence they did not).

It is unclear if Trump, or any other top administration officials, directed Flynn to discuss the sanctions with Kislyak, or if Flynn acted of his own accord. But Trump, for one, is not happy about the leaks coming out of his administration:

The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by “intelligence” like candy. Very un-American!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

On Tuesday, top Senate Republicans hinted that they would be calling for an investigation into the relationship between Trump, his aides, and Russia. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said a probe is “highly likely.” Two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), also called for an investigation.

“We are aggressively going to continue the oversight responsibilities of the committee as it relates to not only the Russian involvement in the 2016 election, but again any contacts by any campaign individuals that might have happened with Russian government officials,” Burr said on Tuesday.

Republican Senators John Cornyn (TX) and Roy Blunt (MO) echoed the call for a Senate investigation, which would likely include a subpoena for Flynn to testify. Republicans in the House, however, struck a different tone Tuesday.

“I’ll leave it up to the administration to describe the circumstances surrounding what brought [Flynn] to this point,” said Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Ryan did not call for a House Intelligence Committee investigation.

The decision to launch a House investigation into the Russia-Trump Administration relationship is unilaterally controlled by one man: Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the House Intelligence Committee Chairman. In contrast with many of his Republican colleagues, his counterparts in the Senate, and Democrats, Nunes sees a bigger problem than Trump’s potential Russia ties.

“I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” Nunes said on Tuesday, referring to the FBI’s recording Flynn’s call with Kislyak. “The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.”

In other words, Nunes likely won’t be launching a House probe any time soon.

The opaque, yet unmistakable, ties between Trump and Russia first came to light in the summer of 2016. In July, he flippantly implored Russia to dig deeper into Hillary Clinton’s emails. In August, his campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort, quit amid reports about his past business dealings with Ukrainian government officials who were backed by the Kremlin. And in the waning months following Trump’s election win, U.S. intelligence officials concluded that Russia–perhaps directed by President Vladimir Putin–interfered in the election with the goal of netting Trump a victory.

Then, just over a week before Inauguration Day, reports of a salacious dossier on Trump compiled by a former British intelligence officer began to leak. The dossier claimed that Trump and his campaign colluded with Russian officials during the campaign in their hacking of Democratic operatives’ emails.

While U.S. intelligence officials have made some progress on corroborating the claims in the dossier, nothing too incriminating has been confirmed yet. They are continuing to probe the dossier, as well as Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), never one to mince words, called Russian interference in the U.S. “very disturbing” in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Wednesday. He added: “Any Trump person who was working with the Russians in an unacceptable way also needs to pay a price.”

Stay tuned to find out what happens next.

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 Trump and Russia: What Will Happen Next? appeared first on Law Street.

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned late Monday night, after less than one month of service. Last week, U.S. officials said that in his phone calls with the Russian ambassador in late December, Flynn discussed the sanctions President Barack Obama levied on the Kremlin after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded it interfered in the U.S. election. Flynn reportedly cautioned Kislyak against a harsh response, and suggested the sanctions could change under President Donald Trump, who was set to take office a few weeks later.

Though Trump’s team publicly supported Flynn last week and even early Monday, the external pressure proved too heavy. “I am tendering my resignation, honored to have served our nation and the American people in such a distinguished way,” Flynn wrote in his resignation letter, which the White House sent to reporters. On Tuesday morning, Trump gave his take on the matter via Twitter:

The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2017

While the White House publicly supported Flynn–Trump’s Counselor Kellyanne Conway on Monday morning said he had the “full confidence” of the president–privately, things were different. For one, Vice President Mike Pence was apparently incensed that Flynn had lied to him about the content of his calls with Kislyak. Because he was led to believe Flynn and Kislyak discussed nothing out of the ordinary, Pence publicly defended Flynn last week.

In his letter, Flynn said he “held numerous phone calls with foreign counterparts, ministers, and ambassadors” during the transition. “Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology.”

Lt. Gen. Joseph Kellogg Jr. will temporarily replace Flynn until the White House chooses a permanent replacement. Kellogg is a retired Vietnam War veteran with decades of military experience. The leading candidate to replace Flynn is retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward, according to an anonymous source that is close to the Trump Administration. Former CIA Director David Petraeus and Kellogg are also in the running.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a fervent critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, issued a statement early Tuesday on Flynn’s resignation, which he said was “a troubling indication of the dysfunction of the current national security apparatus.” McCain, who also chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, continued:

General Flynn’s resignation also raises further questions about the Trump administration’s intentions toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia, including statements by the President suggesting moral equivalence between the United States and Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, threats to our NATO allies, and attempted interference in American elections.

According to a report by The Washington Post, the White House has known about Flynn’s potentially damaging phone calls for at least a month. Sally Yates, the acting attorney general who Trump fired after she refused to enforce his travel ban, told the administration that Flynn misled Pence about the content of his communications with Kislyak. Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan echoed the Justice Department’s warning.

Yates and the intelligence leaders worried that Russia could use the content of the calls to blackmail him in the future. If Russia wanted something, for instance, they could tell Flynn that they would expose the true nature of the calls unless he capitulated to Russia’s demands. But it took a public outcry and external pressure to finally uproot Flynn from his post, though according to administration officials, it was not easy for Trump to nudge Flynn to finally resign, because of the loyalty he showed throughout the campaign.

Even as he was heading out the door, Flynn showered praise on the Trump Administration. In his resignation letter, Flynn wrote: “this team will go down in history as one of the greatest presidencies in U.S. history, and I firmly believe the American people will be well served as they all work together to help Make American Great Again.”

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 Michael Flynn is Out: What You Need to Know About his Resignation appeared first on Law Street.

During the transition period, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn reportedly discussed President Barack Obama’s sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador. According to current and former U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials, Flynn and Sergey Kislyak, the ambassador, exchanged texts and at least five phone calls in the moments before and the day after Obama announced his actions on Russia, which were in retaliation for its election hacking. Flynn and White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, repeatedly denied that the two men discussed the sanctions. 

In an interview with The Washington Post, Flynn also denied he and Kislyak spoke about the sanctions, which Obama announced on December 29. However, Flynn, through a spokesman, slightly backtracked on Thursday. Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up,” the spokesman said.

This saga began on December 29, when Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S., and shuttered two Russian-owned compounds in New York and Maryland. The sanctions were a response to the U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia meddled in the election by hacking email correspondences between Democratic Party officials. According to U.S. officials who have reviewed intelligence reports and diplomatic cables, Kislyak requested a phone call with Flynn when news of the impending sanctions began to leak.

On January 13, President Donald Trump’s Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Flynn and Kislyak coordinated the logistics of a call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. But U.S. officials are now saying that the sanctions were also a topic of conversation. Flynn told Kislyak that Moscow should refrain from responding to the sanctions too harshly. Flynn reassured Kislyak that the sanctions would be reviewed once Trump was in the White House. “Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” a former U.S. official told the Post.

On December 30, when Putin announced he would not retaliate, everyone seemed surprised but Trump. “Great move on the delay,” he said in a Twitter message. “I always knew [Putin] was very smart.”

White House officials have denied that any impropriety took place during the phone calls. “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said in an interview with CBS last month. He also said Trump’s team had no contact with Russia during the campaign. Flynn has raised concerns that he has a more-than-cordial relationship with Russia and its president. In 2015, Flynn sat next to Putin at a banquet in Moscow for the state-owned television network Russia Today. 

While Trump has tempered his seemingly pro-Russia stance since the campaign–he recently said the sanctions will remain in place–many worry that Flynn maintains too favorable of a relationship with Russian officials. There is also the question of whether he broke federal law by discussing the sanctions with Kislyak. The Logan Act of 1799 bars U.S. citizens from interfering in foreign affairs “with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government.” It is unclear what qualifies as a breach of that statue; it has never been acted on in court. The FBI, however, is investigating the correspondences between Flynn and Kislyak.

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 Did Michael Flynn Speak with Russia About Sanctions During Transition? appeared first on Law Street.

Gorsuch Stands Up to Trump

President Trump’s Twitter comments about the judges who are weighing his controversial immigration ban have now drawn criticism even from his own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Trump called U.S. District Judge James Robart a “so-called judge,” attacked the justice system as “disgraceful,” and criticized judges for being too political. During a private meeting with Senator Richard Blumenthal yesterday, Gorsuch apparently called Trump’s negative tweets “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” After Blumenthal told the media about their conversation, Trump went for a Twitter attack early this morning, attacking Blumenthal for lying about serving in the Vietnam War.

Sen.Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie),now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

But Gorsuch’s comments were also confirmed by Ron Bonjean, who is part of the group guiding Gorsuch through the confirmation process.

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 RantCrush Top 5: February 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump met privately with British Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday, in his first meeting with a foreign leader since taking office. After the closed-door meeting, Trump and May held a joint press conference. During the 20-minute Q&A, Trump and May tackled a variety of topics that are in the interests of both countries, including defense alliances and Russian sanctions.

Trump began the conference by praising Britain for choosing to leave the European Union last summer. “I think Brexit is going to be a wonderful thing for your country,” Trump said. May congratulated her American counterpart for his “stunning election victory.” She also passed along an invitation from Queen Elizabeth II for Trump to visit the United Kingdom later this year for an official state visit. Trump accepted.

.@theresa_may w @realDonaldTrump during White House visit. pic.twitter.com/jCE4zlycpD

— Stephen Crowley (@Stcrow) January 27, 2017

May quickly delved into more substantive issues. “On defense and security, we are united in our recognition of NATO as the bulwark of our collective defense,” she said, referring to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the primary defensive mechanism against Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.

In the weeks and months before taking office, Trump suggested that the U.S. rethink its membership in NATO, and said other members should pick up more of the tab. He has also said the alliance, which formed after World War II as a deterrent against Soviet aggression, is “obsolete.” But on Friday, May implied that during their private meeting, Trump said he was “100 percent” behind NATO.

Not everything went so smoothly though, as there were a few awkward exchanges:

“There goes that relationship.”

Trump smirks and scoffs when a BBC reporter takes him to task about torture, abortion and banning Muslims: pic.twitter.com/bl42L3Luoy

— Fusion (@Fusion) January 27, 2017

Trump and May also addressed sanctions the U.S. has levied on Russian officials and companies, in response to Russia’s incursion in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014. President Obama also expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S. in December in response to the CIA and FBI conclusion that the Kremlin interfered in the U.S. election. Trump said it is “too early” to lift the sanctions during the press conference. May also reiterated the importance of pressuring and containing Russia with sanctions.

In an interview on “Fox and Friends” on Friday, Trump’s counselor Kellyanne Conway suggested that lifting the sanctions is “under consideration.” The topic will likely be discussed when Trump speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call on Saturday. In a statement on Friday, Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), an outspoken Putin detractor, warned Trump of the dangers in dealing with the Russian leader.

“He should remember that the man on the other end of the line is a murderer and a thug who seeks to undermine American national security interests at every turn,” McCain said. “For our commander in chief to think otherwise would be naïve and dangerous.”

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 Trump Discusses NATO, Russian Sanctions with British PM Theresa May appeared first on Law Street.

U.S. Intelligence officials testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday morning, addressing Russia’s election cyberattack, and the overall importance of U.S. intelligence forces. President Barack Obama called for the hearing after responding with sanctions and expulsions of Russian diplomats last week. An unclassified report on Russian hacking of Democratic National Committee emails is expected early next week.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, opened the hearing with a statement: “The goal of this review, as I understand it, is not to question the outcome of the presidential election. Nor should it be. As both President Obama and President-elect Trump have said, our nation must move forward. But we must do so with full knowledge of the facts.”

Top-ranking members of the intelligence community, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, answered questions from a bi-partisan cohort of lawmakers. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) asked Clapper if it’s healthy when elected officials question U.S. intelligence, likely alluding to President-elect Donald Trump. Skepticism is healthy, he said, but “there’s a difference between skepticism and disparagement.”

Clapper added: “Congress must set partisanship aside, follow the facts, and work together to devise comprehensive solutions to deter, defend against, and, when necessary, respond to foreign cyberattacks.” Since the CIA and the FBI concluded that Russia was the culprit behind the DNC hack, and in fact likely interfered with the aim of electing Trump, the president-elect has disputed those findings, and has seemed to place more trust in Russian President Vladimir Putin than U.S. intelligence.

Trump said the idea of Russia interfering in the presidential election on his behalf is “ridiculous.” Using his Twitter account as a megaphone, Trump has undermined the intelligence community’s findings, and has urged Congress to “move on.” Democrats and Republicans alike have expressed alarm at the Russian hack, and at Trump’s seeming ambivalence in responding to the cyberattack.

In a pair of tweets on Wednesday, Trump quoted Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, who said Russia did not provide him with any hacked emails. “Julian Assange said ‘a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta’ – why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info!” Trump tweeted, referring to Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, whose emails were leaked in the weeks and months  leading up to Election Day. In Thursday’s hearing, Clapper was asked if Assange is a reliable source of information. “Not in my view,” he replied.

Last week, Obama responded to the Russian hack in a flurry of diplomatic moves. He ejected 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S., ordered the closure of two Russian-owned compounds in Maryland and Virginia, and slapped sanctions on a Russian intelligence agency. Trump has viewed the intelligence agencies’ conclusions, and the uproar from both parties, as a way to undermine his election victory. 

Lindsey Graham, the outspoken Republican senator from South Carolina, addressed Trump directly as the hearing came to a close. “I want to let the president-elect to know that it’s okay to challenge the intel,” he said, “but what I don’t want you to do is undermine those who are serving our nation in this arena until you’re absolutely sure they need to be undermined.” Graham added: “The foundation of democracy is political parties, and when one political party is compromised all of us are compromised.”

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 U.S. Intelligence Officials Testify at Senate Hearing on Russian Hacking appeared first on Law Street.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a ceasefire deal for the Syrian government and some rebel factions during a speech in Moscow on Thursday. The deal does not include the Kurdish groups that control swaths of territory in the north, or certain Islamist groups, including the Islamic State (ISIS), which holds patches of land throughout the country. Putin acknowledged that the truce is “fragile,” but signaled peace talks could take place next month in Kazakhstan. The ceasefire is set to take effect Thursday at midnight.

Negotiations for the agreement have been going on for the past few days between Syria, Russia, and Turkey. Two parties that are usually privy to such talks were noticeably excluded: the U.S. and the United Nations. Both have failed to broker sustainable ceasefire agreements over the course of the six-year conflict, so Syria, its foremost ally Russia, and Turkey decided it was time to forge a consensus agreement without them.

Under the deal, fighting will come to a halt in areas controlled by the government, including the recently conquered city of Aleppo, and rebel-held territory in the northern province of Idlib. Russia will guarantee the Syrian army’s compliance, along with Iran and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, while Turkey will guarantee compliance from the rebel groups. All sides expressed optimism that the latest ceasefire will succeed. With rebel-held parts of Aleppo retaken by government forces this month, rebels have less leverage than they had when previous agreements were forged.

Reflecting the tangled web of alliances in Syria, and the muddy definition of “rebel group,” Russia and the Free Syria Army, an umbrella group for the opposition, gave conflicting statements on the rebel participants included in the ceasefire. Russia said seven distinct rebel groups supported the ceasefire, excluding ISIS and other hard-line jihadist groups, but it included Ahrar al-Sham, a group with ties to Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate. The Free Syria Army said 13 rebel groups would participate in the deal.

A statement from the Syrian Army said the ceasefire agreement followed “the victories and successes that our armed forces accomplished in more than one place,” likely referring to its decisive and swift takeover of Aleppo earlier this month. Furthering the fragility of the agreement, Turkey demanded Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militant group that the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, evacuate Syria.

And although the Obama administration was not invited to take part in the talks that preceded the agreement, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said “after the Donald Trump administration takes office, it will also be able to join these efforts.” The U.S. State Department called the ceasefire a “positive development.” Steffan de Mistura, the UN envoy for Syria, said the agreement “should contribute to inclusive and productive intra-Syrian negotiations to be convened under UN auspices.”

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 Putin Announces Ceasefire for Syrian Government and Rebel Groups appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, there was a meeting between the heads of the country’s leading intelligence agencies: FBI Director James Comey, National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and CIA Director John Brennan. The gathering’s subject matter: Russia’s hacking of email networks during the presidential election. On Friday, an official with direct knowledge of the meeting said that the agencies now agree that Russia’s hacking operation had the intention of putting President-elect Donald Trump in the White House.

When the CIA first announced its assessment that Russia had indeed hacked into both the Democratic and Republican email networks, only leaked the Democrat’s emails, and aimed to aid Trump, the FBI was hesitant to come to the same conclusion. Trump has called the CIA’s claims “ridiculous,” and continues to deflect any notion that he was aided by Russia.

The official close to the FBI said that the bureau was timid at first because officials entertained other motives for the Russian hacks: Perhaps Russia was trying to undermine Clinton’s position if she were to be elected, or maybe it was a personal rebuke as a result of her dicey past with Putin? Eventually, the FBI agreed that Russia’s actions were motivated by putting Trump in the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, Trump’s opponent during the election, Democrat Hillary Clinton, told Democratic Party donors on Friday that the Russian breach was not only directed by President Vladimir Putin, but that the episode was a personal attack on her. She said Putin has a “personal beef” with her, alluding to her statement five years ago that Russia’s parliamentary elections were”rigged.” Clinton said: “Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election.”

But Clinton also called the Russian hacks “an attack against our country,” not just her campaign. “We are well beyond normal political concerns here,” she said. “This is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation.” President Barack Obama, in his final news conference of the year, defended his handling of the Russian hacks. He said he even delivered this stern command to Putin when they met in September: “Cut it out.”

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 FBI Now Agrees with the CIA: Russia Intended to Help Trump appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump may have dismissed the CIA report that Russia’s hacking was intended to aid his election efforts, but a bipartisan cohort of  politicians banded together to condemn the Kremlin’s actions over the weekend. Many have also called for a “bipartisan investigation” into the matter. Four senators–two from each party–released a joint statement on Sunday in response to the CIA’s conclusion that the hacks were pointedly aimed at putting Trump in the White House. 

“We are committed to working in this bipartisan manner, and we will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security,” said the statement from Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI).

The senators said that the CIA’s report “should alarm every American,” adding that the hacks “cut to the heart of our free society.” McCain and Schumer appeared on “CBS This Morning” on Monday, reiterating their concern over the hacks. Contradicting Trump’s Twitter flurry denying the CIA’s report, McCain said: “there is no doubt about the hacking. Let’s establish that.”

Trump continued his Twitter tirade on Monday morning:

Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016

He continued:

Unless you catch “hackers” in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn’t this brought up before election?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016

Russia’s hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s email servers, and its assist to Wikileaks, which in turn unleashed the damaging emails, has been on the CIA’s radar since at least July. But last week, the agency concluded that the Russians also hacked into the Republican National Committee’s servers, but held back on releasing what they had dug up. Based on a new analysis of previously known, and largely circumstantial evidence, the CIA concluded Russia intended to help Trump get elected over Hillary Clinton.

Trump and Clinton presented Russia with two very different futures, depending on which candidate U.S. voters elected into office. As secretary of state, Clinton clashed with Russian President Vladimir Putin several times. For instance, he blamed her for instigating anti-Putin protests in Moscow in 2011. Trump on the other hand, has shown nothing but admiration for Putin on the campaign trail. Trump has praised Putin as “a strong leader,” and has questioned the effectiveness of NATO, a key check against Russian aggression in Baltic states in Europe.

While some top-ranking Republicans have spoken out against the Russians, others have remained largely silent. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan issued a statement on Sunday, saying “foreign intervention in our elections is unacceptable” but also added that he “rejects any politicization of intelligence matters” and did not call for a deeper probe into the matter. But for McCain, Schumer, Graham, and Reed, Russia’s meddling “cannot become a partisan issue.” They said in their statement: “The stakes are too high for our country.”

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 Bipartisan Group of Politicians Express Outrage Over Russian Hacking appeared first on Law Street.

The wife of Vladimir Putin’s chief spokesman Dmitry Peskov faces criticism from around the world after performing a Holocaust-themed ice skating routine on the Russian reality show “Ice Age.”

Former Olympic figure skating champion Tatiana Navka and her partner Andrey Burkovskiy donned Holocaust-era prisoner uniforms that were each fitted with a yellow Star of David for the performance.  The pair skated to Israeli singer Achinoam “Noa” Nini’s song “Beautiful That Way,” which was featured in the 1997 Oscar-winning Italian film, “Life is Beautiful.”

The film tells the story of a father who employs his fertile imagination to shield his son from the horrors of internment in a Nazi concentration camp. Navka posted a collage to Instagram highlighting moments from the performance after the show aired.  She explained that the routine was “based on one of my favorite movies” and noted the importance of Holocaust education for children.

Посмотрите обязательно! Один из моих любимых номеров!По мотивам одного из моих любимых фильмов ” Жизнь прекрасна”! Покажите этот фильм своим детям, обязательно☝️ #ледниковыйпериод @tatiana_navka @aburkovskiy PS : Наши дети должны знать и помнить о том страшном времени, которого надеюсь-даст Бог, они никогда не узнают!

A photo posted by Tatiana Navka (@tatiana_navka) on Nov 26, 2016 at 11:22am PST

The routine ended on a gruesome note as Navka stands alone grieving, while Burkovskiy is heard being shot behind her.

The Russian celebrity ice-skating show works similarly to the United States program “Dancing with the Stars” or the UK’s “Dancing on Ice.” The routine seemed to be well-received by audience members, but international backlash followed shortly after the routine aired.

Director of International Affairs at Australia’s Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Jeremy Jones, told CNN that he found the act to have been “unbelievably tasteless.”

“The lack of thought that would have to go into making that decision is almost mindblowing,” said Jones. “Long after they’re forgotten as ice skaters they’ll be remember as people who sunk to such depths to get some celebrity.”

The segment also drew considerable amounts of criticism online as Twitter exploded with negative reactions to the performance.

This might be offensive if they hadn’t take such great care to recreate all the wonderful ice dancing going on at Aushwitz at the time. https://t.co/Nz0iDHqili

— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) November 27, 2016

Producer: Let’s play word association to find a theme for your routine. I’ll start: Ice skating.
Navka: Holocaust
Producer: …Genius

— Lara L-S (@larasouthwell) November 27, 2016

Jones told CNN that he hoped the backlash to the routine would serve as a reminder to the world of the Holocaust’s horrors.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russian Figure Skater Sparks Outrage With Holocaust-Themed Routine appeared first on Law Street.

Maskirovka is Russian for “something masked,” and it’s also the name of the number one strategy for psychological warfare used by Russia. Recently workers constructed a new piece in the maskirovka collection in a field outside of Moscow–an inflatable fighter jet that looks completely genuine from as close as 300 yards. According to Maria A. Oparina, the director of the company that produces the inflatable decoys, the demand has been growing quickly during the past year. Exactly how many they make is classified, but 80 people are employed full-time and most of them work making inflatable planes or weapons. These decoys are made to confuse and distract enemies, who have to spend valuable time figuring out whether the threat is real or not.

“Nobody ever wins honestly.” On Russia’s inflatable tanks, jets and missile launchers: https://t.co/Aovfj7JxFH pic.twitter.com/Is1VJIJ1k5

— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 12, 2016

The relationship between Russia and the U.S. has deteriorated fast over the past couple of months with the failed ceasefire with Syria, accusations that Russian hackers have tried affecting the election by hacking voter databases, the release of Hillary Clinton emails from Wikileaks, and a cancelled visit from Putin to France.

And on Wednesday, Russian officials said they received an order from Putin to fly home any family members living abroad. They were told to take their kids out of foreign schools immediately, according to local media. This move has people discussing if we’re on the brink of another global war. “This is all part of the package of measures to prepare elites to some ‘big war,’” said political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky.

First Putin Orders Nation Wide Civil Defense Exercise & Now this. What’s Putin Planning & Preparing? https://t.co/UDJEY0M4a1 via @MailOnline

— Bharatavarsha (@T_deserteagle) October 12, 2016

Last month Russia was accused of attacking a humanitarian convoy in Syria, but denied it and blamed terrorists. “Just when we think it cannot get any worse, the power of depravity sinks lower,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said about the attack. Russia’s denial did not seem very genuine as it, after blaming terrorists, blamed the U.S. and then said the convoy must have caught on fire by itself.

According to Major General Alexander Vladimirov, an authority on maskirovka, the practice is as old as time. We have had to disguise ourselves when hunting ever since the Stone Age. “All human history can be portrayed as the history of deception,” he said. And in Russia, it is common that maps are inaccurate, in case they end up in the hands of a spy. But is that really the same thing as sending fake convoys to take over a territory by scaring opponents off?

Greenwald: In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots #Newsweek #KurtEichenwaldhttps://t.co/xfv8YqyauU

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 11, 2016

One of the most recent occasions when Russia used this tactic was in Crimea two years ago, when masked soldiers were sent there in military vehicles to “volunteer” and do “humanitarian” work. Later it was revealed that most of the trucks were empty. When asked about it on TV, President Vladimir Putin denied that the soldiers were Russian and said that the men could have bought fake uniforms in any ordinary store. But five weeks later when the Russian annexation of Crimea was a fact he admitted that they had indeed been Russian forces.

The concept of maskirovka is to keep the enemy guessing and wondering, and also to include an element of surprise. Examples of Russia’s use of it are easy to find: when soldiers looking like tourists sailed to Syria in 1983 to aid the country in the Lebanese civil war, when a big group of young men flew on a normal Aeroflot flight to Prague but then seized the airport, or when Russia crashed drones over Georgia on purpose in 2008, pretending they were poorly built, until one of them exploded when Georgian officers tried to remove them.

The latest moves by the Kremlin has everyone wondering what is going on and what plans are in the making.

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 How Russia Uses Inflatable Airplanes for Psychological Warfare appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Vladimir Putin Dubbed Peacemaker by Surprise Banner

A banner lauding Putin as a “Peacemaker” appeared on NYC’s Manhattan bridge Thursday. It immediately stirred up a lot of buzz. It was removed in a couple of hours, but not before Twitter users grabbed some pics.

We spotted this Putin banner being unfurled on north side of the Manhattan Bridge at 1:47 p.m. https://t.co/DStAoerBz9 pic.twitter.com/kL2uUh9Vhe

— Gothamist (@Gothamist) October 6, 2016

Some observers were amused, but others not so much.

This Vladimir Putin banner dangling on Manhattan Bridge is equally as disturbing as the numerous clowns that are showing up in random places

— Call me James (@nyjones7) October 6, 2016

The thing that makes me madder than this banner is the fact that someone had to piss off a whole lot of bikers going uphill to put it there. https://t.co/qLAp9t09ie

— Scott Steinhardt (@ScottFromNY) October 6, 2016

Police are checking surveillance cameras to see who the person is behind this obvious statement.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 7, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In early 2014, protestors in Ukraine ransacked and overran the headquarters of the ruling government, the Party of Regions. Ukraine’s president at the time, Viktor Yanukovych, fled to Russia, and his former residence has since been turned into a museum. On the third floor of that palace, a 400-page “black ledger” was found, containing hundreds of cash favors from Yanukovych to election officials and others. A recent New York Times report found Paul Manafort–Donald Trump’s campaign chairman–listed as a recipient 22 times throughout the ledger. Yanukovych, who has deep ties to Russia and its president Vladimir Putin, was a client of Manafort’s international political consulting firm.

The investigation into the ledger is spearheaded by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), an arm of the government that was elected after Yanukovych fell from power. Throughout the “black ledger,” the name “Manafort” appears 22 times and is linked to a total of $12.7 million over five years, from 2007 to 2012. In a statement, NABU acknowledged that this fact does not necessarily mean Manafort accepted off-the-books cash payouts from Yanukovych. The statement said: “the presence of P. Manafort’s name in the list does not mean that he actually got the money, because the signatures that appear in the column of recipients could belong to other people.”

While reading the Manafort Russian payment story, keep in mind we have no idea if @realDonaldTrump is getting paid by Russians. #taxreturns

— stuart stevens (@stuartpstevens) August 15, 2016

In March, the Trump campaign hired Manafort to help steer its efforts to court delegates. But the veteran Republican strategist’s ties to Yanukovych–and by proxy, Russia–have been media fodder since Trump hired him. On Monday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign jumped on the possibility that Manafort was in the pockets of Ukraine or Putin. “Donald Trump has a responsibility to disclose campaign chair Paul Manafort’s and all other campaign employees’ and advisors’ ties to Russian or pro-Kremlin entities,” said a statement by Clinton’s Campaign Manager Robby Mook.

Manafort denied any notion that he accepted cash payments from the Yanukovych government. In a statement, he called the claims “unfounded, silly and nonsensical.” He added that all payments received during his time assisting Yanukovych were disbursed throughout his entire local and international staff, including his polling and research, and election and television advertising teams.

How Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chief, benefited from powerful interests friendly to Vladimir Putin https://t.co/sTnyyIK7Dx

— The New York Times (@nytimes) August 15, 2016

According to The New York Times’ article, investigators from NABU–a U.S. and European Union funded investigative unit that shares its findings with the FBI–said the “black ledger” payments were part of an illegal off-the-books system. “It would have to be clear to any reasonable person that the Yanukovych clan, when it came to power, was engaged in corruption,” a former senior official with Ukraine’s general prosecutor’s office told the Times.

It remains to be seen whether these revelations are enough for Trump to cut ties with Manafort. But Manafort’s prominence in the ledger is reason for concern, especially in light of Trump’s soft–and at times reverent–attitude toward Russia.

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 Did Trump’s Campaign Chairman Accept Cash Payments from Ukraine? appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) published a massive leak of legal documents dubbed the “Panama Papers,” easily surpassing the Pentagon Papers, Snowden’s global surveillance documents, and WikiLeaks’ Cablegate to become the biggest data leak in whistleblower history.

The extensive leak dispensed decades of confidential offshore banking records for the rich and famous, resulting in the financial scrutiny of many high profile world leaders.

Here are some of the key facts you need to know.

What are the Panama Papers?

The “Panama Papers” are a collection of more than 11 million confidential internal documents that were leaked from the prominent Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. The leak, which included 4.8 million emails, 3 million folders, and 2.1 million PDFs, according to the Daily Beast, exposed 40 years worth of shady offshore business dealings from some of the world’s most influential celebrities, public figures, and political power players.

Notable names like Russian President Vladimir Putin, Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, FIFA’s Ethics Committee member Juan Pedro Damiani, action movie star Jackie Chan, and Spanish soccer player Lionel Messi all used Mossack Fonesca to hide their money using shell corporations in offshore “tax havens”–and they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

Investigators suspect that Putin was the primary target of the data leak. The large number of the records seemingly confirmed the existence of the hidden money network of the Russian leader’s inner circle, revealing that “as much as $2 billion has been secretly shuffled through banks and shadow companies linked to Putin’s associates.”

How did they get leaked?

The documents were first leaked to Süddeutsche Zeitung reporter Bastian Obermayer by an anonymous whistleblower who contacted him via an encrypted chat in late 2014. Obermayer then enlisted the help of ICIJ to coordinate an intensive investigation into the documents, the findings of which were later shared with over 100 media outlets.

What is a shell corporation?

A shell corporation is a company used to hide assets for an individual with very minimal government oversight. Often times these companies are established in countries or regions known as “tax havens,” where personal and business taxes are very low or even non-existent. That allows individuals to pay significantly less money in taxes than they would in their home countries.

Still don’t get it?  Watch these two Fusion explainers narrated by a pro-wrestler and a porn star to learn more.

Is it illegal?

Moving your money into an offshore bank account as a means to avoid international law enforcement or tax collectors sounds super shady, but technically speaking it isn’t illegal. That being said, often times individuals with shell corporations use these companies to hide away illegally sourced assets. According to CNN, the ICIJ has stated that “the files include people and companies that the U.S. has blacklisted due to drug trafficking and terrorism links.”

What will happen next?

For the most part, the accused have begun responding to the allegations with a mix of denial and silence since news of the data leak broke. Gunnlaugsson has resigned amid protests, and the Kremlin called the leak “a series of fibs” and a smear campaign ahead of legislative elections in September and presidential elections in 2018. Mossack Fonseca also responded by releasing a 4-page statement denying any and all claims of legal wrongdoing. 

Several countries including Britain, France, Australia and Mexico have also vowed to launch investigations into possible tax evasion for their accused citizens. However, the world’s response is still very much in the early stages. As more information inevitably continues to roll out, we may begin to see more world powers’ political dynamics change.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Panama Papers: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, FIFA’s outgoing President Sepp Blatter deserves a Nobel Prize. Putin made these comments during an interview with Swiss broadcaster RTS that was released on Monday. These comments followed  Blatter and Putin’s gathering in St. Petersburg for the preliminary draw for the 2018 World Cup located in Russia. But Putin’s comments seem a bit odd, as there’s potential evidence that Blatter has been involved in suspicious or illegal activities for years.  

After all, Blatter has had his fair share of attention this past year. Blatter’s 17-year-reign as FIFA president came to an end in June when he announced his resignation. His resignation came six days after the FBI announced it would be investigating some top FIFA officials. The FBI later announced it planned to win the cooperation of other FIFA officials who were under indictment and work its way up the organization.

During the interview, Putin stated

I believe that people like Mr. Blatter, the heads of major international sports federations, deserve special attention and gratitude from public organizations, if anyone should be awarded Nobel Prizes it is these people.

FIFA itself had a rough year as well. Last January, FIFA was hit with a lawsuit by several high profile female players after it announced the Women’s 2015 World Cup would be played on turf instead of grass like Men’s World Cups. In addition to the lawsuit, FIFA has struggled to maintain partners and sponsors after the announcement of the investigation into the potential corruption scandal. Last month, the Nobel Peace Center announced that it would stop working with FIFA on the joint fair play Handshake for Peace after the corruption allegations. After the severance of this relationship, it is hard to believe that the Nobel Peace Center would agree with Putin’s comments. While the Nobel Peace Center doesn’t directly say the relationship was severed because of the allegations, it’s a popular and believable theory.

While Blatter denies any wrongdoing, that’s a bit hard to believe given his abrupt resignation and the indictment of his former colleagues. However, Putin seems to be convinced of Blatter’s innocence stating:

We all know the situation surrounding Mr. Blatter right now, I don’t want to go into details, but I don’t believe a word of him being involved in corruption personally.

I question Putin’s ability to judge someone’s innocence given his recent activities (Ukraine comes to mind), but since Blatter isn’t being personally investigated by authorities, that could be part of Putin’s reasoning.  Currently, Swiss and U.S. authorities are investigating whether the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bids were accepted through legal means, but Putin has voiced his concerns about those investigations, particularly the U.S. role.

While Blatter has won more than 70 awards in the futbol world, many members of the soccer community were not sad to see him go. Greg Dyke, the head of the Football Association (FA), and Michael Plantini, the head of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) had already been calling for him to step down.

While Blatter is not currently being investigated by U.S. or Swiss authorities, many believe he may be at least somewhat involved in the scandals. Dyke, the head of FA, stated

I don’t believe Mr. Blatter’s decision to step down was an ethical decision. I suspect it is much more to do with the investigations that are going on, clearly something has terrified him.

Although Blatter has many awards and served FIFA for 17 years as president, he is in no way qualified to receive a Nobel Prize. In fact, given that the Nobel Prize is only given in Chemistry, Peace, Physics, Physiology, Literature, and Medicine, Putin should have specified what award Blatter is actually qualified for.

The 2015 Nobel Prize winners have yet to be determined, and Blatter will likely remain in office  until his successor takes over. However, his role in the potential corruption investigation has yet to be determined, creating skepticism around his legacy and role at FIFA, and a huge question mark when examining Putin’s statements.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sepp Blatter and the Nobel Prize: What is Putin Thinking? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no gray area quite like international law. Historically speaking it’s a relatively new field, and every nation accepts various parts of it. But essentially there are a number of different treaties, measures, and conventions that mediate the ways in which our nations interact, both in war and peace. Nations have certain obligations, and despite the United States’ abysmal track record when it comes to international law, we’re held to them too. We don’t live in a vacuum. After the collective political hissy fit that 47 Senators just had in the form of a truly condescending letter to Iran, it’s time to remind Senate Republicans of that.

The United States has long been dismissive of international law, and understandably so. For example, we have refused to ratify the Rome Statute–the document that created the International Criminal Court–out of fear that our heads of state could ever be tried in an international court. In fact, the United States has long occupied a position upon a hypocritical throne, condemning the actions of others that don’t fall in line with international norms and agreements while seldom being held to other international standards ourselves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. has been the world’s superpower for decades, and we’ve acted the part.

Just because the United States is the only real superpower doesn’t mean that we got there on our own. We have allies, most of whom belong to NATO and are located in Western Europe. Could we be a superpower without Germany, and the United Kingdom, and France? Probably. Would it be harder? Almost certainly. Here’s an example: yesterday, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus reached out to our allies asking them for help in the fight against ISIS. At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting Mabus stated with regard to our international allies’ cooperation in the ISIS fight, “we can’t do it by ourselves and they have to carry their fair share of the burden.” Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi (who also signed the letter to Iran) said:

We are going to have to insist on more of a contribution from our international partners. We keep the lanes open for them. Our friends in Europe, our NATO friends and our other friends are depending upon what you are talking about. We are going to have to collectively come up with a plan to convince our partners that it is in their interests too to make the financial sacrifice.

We could deal with ISIS without our international partners, most likely. But any politicians who put us in that position would face a lot of backlash for the political and financial ramifications.

What does this have to do with Iran, and the remarkable letter that Senate Republicans sent to Iran’s government? Well, it’s important to remember that this deal, like any aspect of international politics, does not exist in a vacuum. Most importantly, this isn’t just a negotiation between Iran and the U.S., it involves five other countries and will be endorsed by a U.N. Security Council Resolution. We would prefer not to piss off the U.K., Germany, and France for the aforementioned reasons. Although our relationship with China is rocky at best, it’s hands down one of our biggest trading partners. Finally, the hot mess that is Putin’s Russia is at the very least a major player on the world stage, and it would probably be in our best interest to not piss it off either.

So, when Senate Republicans wrote that laughably snappish letter to Iran warning about a future president overturning a deal they don’t like “with the stroke of a pen,” that indicates that said fictional future president wouldn’t just be screwing a deal with Iran–they’d be doing the same thing to the U.K., Germany, France, China, and Russia as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything would come of it–it would probably take a hell of a lot more to lose the loyalty of some of our closest allies–but it’s still not a good move for a new president to make.

That’s sort of the crux of the issue though. Either Senate Republicans don’t give a crap about the delicate balance of global politics, or they are so desperate to stick it to President Obama that they no longer care. Either way, the letter was an extraordinarily dumb move by a remarkably short-sighted group.

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 Hey Senate Republicans: Iran Negotiations Involve Other Countries appeared first on Law Street.

Tens of thousands of Russians marched in Moscow today mourning the death of Boris Nemtsov. The human rights activist and critic of President Vladimir Putin’s government was shot to death on the night of Friday, February 27 while walking in the capital city. It is widely believed by Putin’s opposition that the Kremlin is responsible for the act.

Boris #Nemtsov killing spurs thousands to march in Moscow, as motives debated – http://t.co/Lc7cAFUl7S pic.twitter.com/ab9t03LBib

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 1, 2015

Reports from the ground spoke to the solemn and quiet mood of the march. Participants broke into anti-Putin chants from time to time, but for the most part the “only sound was the steady thwack of police helicopters overhead or the hum of police boats patrolling the shores of the Moscow River.” Widescale marches for a variety of causes from climate change to social justice are a hallmark of American culture; many of us have likely experienced at least one in our lifetimes and can easily recall the vibrations of the crowd, the yelling and clapping, and general energy. The near-silence reported today in Moscow is difficult to imagine. Nemtsov was an outspoken critic of the Putin government, calling out its actions in Ukraine in a radio interview only hours before his death. Fellow opposition leader Ilya Yashin weighed in on Nemtsov’s killing and lent weight to the belief that it was ordered by the government:

Essentially it is an act of terror. It is a political murder aimed at frightening the population, or the part of the population that supported Nemtsov or did not agree with the government. I hope we won’t get scared, that we will continue what Boris was doing.

Secretary of State John Kerry took to the Sunday morning shows to lend the official American perspective on the killing. He asserted that the U.S. does not have any information what happened or who shot Netsov, but that he is pushing for a “thorough, transparent, real investigation, not just of who fired the shots, but who, if anyone, may have ordered or instructed [the shooting].” Members of Congress expressed their condolences and outrage over Nemtsov’s death, including Senator John McCain (R-A) via Twitter:

I am heartbroken by murder of my friend #BorisNemtsov – a voice for human rights in #Russia. My stmt: http://t.co/f1yHqEtWpj — John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) February 28, 2015

McCain also released a statement that directly addressed Nemtsov’s fight against the Kremlin and the need for continued pressure to decrease human rights abuses in Russia.

That Boris’ murder occurred in a secure part of the Russian capital raises legitimate questions about the circumstances of his killing and who was responsible. But regardless of who actually pulled the trigger, Boris is dead because of the environment of impunity that Vladimir Putin has created in Russia, where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their beliefs.

Whether or not a fair investigation will be conducted into Boris Nemtsov’s death, the fact remains that tensions in Russia are nearing a boiling point, and the international community can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to what is happening in the region.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russians March in Mourning of Opposition Leader’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

Western countries agree that they do not condone the aggressive actions taken by Russia in Ukraine. Their response? Sanction Russia. Rather than resort to military action, countries now use sanctions as the foreign policy tool of choice. The United States and European Union are united in the belief that the best way to encourage Russia to behave in the international arena is to increase pressure on the country by way of this penalty. So what exactly are sanctions, how do they work, and will they be effective in the case of Russia?

What has been happening in Ukraine?

The conflict began at the end of 2013 when former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych rejected an association agreement with the European Union (EU) and instead accepted a deal with Russia. Thousands of protesters took to the streets to voice their disapproval of the deal and perceived government corruption. In response to the protests, Ukrainian forces took aggressive action. Tensions escalated and eventually in February 2014, protesters overtook the capital and sent the president scrambling for Russian protection. Russia quickly moved to secure its interests by invading and annexing the Ukrainian province of Crimea. Russia still has troops stationed along the border in Eastern Ukraine and is accused of sending weapons to aid pro-Russian forces. The issue is complicated by the fact that many people in Ukraine, especially in Crimea, are ethnically Russian and would like to become a part of that country. Watch the video below for further explanation of the conflict:

Western countries declared Russia’s actions to be a clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law. The White House called Russian intervention in Ukraine “illegal and illegitimate.” The United States sees the actions as a violation of the United Nations Charter regarding the prohibition of force and of Russia’s 1997 military basing agreement with Ukraine. Russian leader Vladimir Putin, however, continues to disregard the demands of the United States and European Union. With the collapse of a recent ceasefire, the future of the conflict remains unclear.

Western countries hope sanctions will deter Russia from future aggression in Eastern Ukraine and force the country to abide by its international obligations.

What are sanctions?

Sanctions are a foreign policy instrument applied to a country to pressure it into changing its actions. Sanctions institute deliberate government withdrawal or threat of withdrawal from trade or financial relations. Typically sanctions are used to force a country to cooperate with international law, or to contain a threat to the peace of other countries. Ideally sanctions send a strong message of condemnation and entice countries to comply with international rules in order to avoid further harm. Sanctions can be issued by individual countries or by an entire group, such as the European Union, United Nations, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There are several different types of sanctions:

• Diplomatic sanctions sever diplomatic ties, such as by removing embassies from the offending country.
• Economic sanctions can include a number of trade and financial punishments, including a ban of trade, imposing tariffs or embargoes, freezing assets, banning cash transfers, and restricting travel.
• Military sanctions include military intervention, targeted strikes, or supplying arms and aid to military.

A long-term study by the Peterson Institute found that economic sanctions are partially successful only one-third of the time. The study showed sanctions are most successful when they are used to reach a limited, modest goal. Using sanctions to influence a more ambitious policy change drops the rate of success to just 30 percent. For example, the Cuban embargo, in place since the 1960s, is largely seen as a failure; however, the more recent blockades and financial sanctions in Iran were extremely successful in forcing the Iranians to negotiate with the United States. The success in Iran may have emboldened the United States to now apply economic sanctions to Russia for its role in the Ukraine conflict.

What kind of sanctions have been used?

So far, sanctions have been limited to specific targets to impose a cost aimed at those responsible for the situation in Ukraine and Crimea. The economic sanctions have been described by Forbes as a “new breed of financial warfare,” which the treasury has been honing as a way to lock terrorists out of the global financial system.

Specific Targets

On March 6, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13660 to authorize sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. More sanctions followed. Currently the list of those sanctioned by the U.S. government includes 23 government officials and 18 companies. The individuals are members of the Russian elite and have significant control over the Russian economy, including its banks, railroads, and media. The E.U. and other European countries also released lists of those sanctioned, which includes many of those targeted by the United States. Watch President Obama’s declaration of sanctions below:

Consequences

The sanctions of the United States and European Union currently only impose asset freezes and travel bans. Essentially those targeted are blacklisted. For those listed in the U.S. sanctions, all assets held in the United States are frozen. Furthermore, Americans are prevented from doing business with the listed individuals or entities and are prevented from making any funds available to them. The individuals listed will also be denied visas to enter the United States. The United States will cut off exports of American products to those companies and prevent exports of high-tech items that would contribute to Russia’s military capabilities.

Potential Problems

One of the problems with sanctions is that many feel they unfairly harm a country’s innocent civilians for a government’s actions. The idea is that sanctions may harm the people, but these people will then pressure their government to change its actions. In the meantime, the effects are felt most by ordinary citizens rather than the intended government officials. The current targeted sanctions , however, were enacted to apply pressure only on the elite rather than on the entire economy. Until more major banks are targeted, ordinary citizens may not feel the impact.

Have they had the intended effect in Russia?

It is difficult to judge the exact impact that the limited sanctions have had. Outwardly Putin still seems unfazed, yet in recent weeks he has tempered Russian aggression. The Russian economy was struggling before the sanctions, so these penalties have only furthered the decline. The Russian central bank predicts growth will slow to just 0.4 percent this year. A report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) says that Western sanctions have had a “chilling effect” on investment. The IMF claims that the future strength of the Russian economy lies in greater global integration, which is currently hindered by the sanctions.

Effect on the Elite

Vladimir Yakunin, Putin’s close friend and head of Russian Railways who is on the saction list told the Financial Times, “I did not intend to travel to the U.S.  I have no assets.  So it does not bother me at all.”

These sanctions have much broader implications, however, even if they do not directly affect Yakunin. All financial institutions are discouraged from interacting with him in any way. The U.S. financial system is extremely pervasive, and the U.S. dollar is the world’s numéraire. Every financial institution needs a relationship with a U.S. bank to do business. Since Bank Rossiya appeared on the U.S. sanction list, it can no longer do business with any bank that deals in dollars either. Major credit card companies Visa and Mastercard even severed their business with the bank.

Effect on Public Confidence

Thus far the major impact of the sanctions has been psychological, impacting consumer and business confidence. No one knows who will show up on the sanction list next, so others are hesitant to do business. The entire Russian economy is effectively isolated. The sanctions lead to capital flight, inflation, and limit future investment in the country. Goldman Sachs reports that $45 to $50 billion was taken out of Russia in the first three months of 2014 as compared with only $63 billion in all of 2013.

Effect on the Future

Experts say the sanctions are likely to push Russia toward increased self-reliance. The economy ministry is already pushing to use state funds to aid lagging economic growth. Major effects of the sanctions have already been seen through cancelled IPOs and two cancelled government bond auctions. Standard & Poor’s recently downgraded Russia’s credit to one level above junk status.

Russia has responded by imposing like-for-like sanctions and threatens greater future sanctions. Russia banned nine prominent American politicians from the country, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NC), Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). McCain responded in a March 20 tweet:

I guess this means my spring break in Siberia is off, Gazprom stock is lost & secret bank account in Moscow is frozen http://t.co/TgwZneD4HY

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) March 20, 2014

Do sanctions hurt the U.S. economy?

The typical argument against economic sanctions is that they can harm the U.S. economy, especially for the companies that do business with the targeted country. The U.S. economy will not be significantly affected simply due to the fact that the United States and Russia do not do much business with one another. Trade between the United States and Russia amounted to $40 billion last year — only one percent of total U.S. trade. By comparison, EU trade with Russia is 11 times that of the United States. Even tougher sanctions, like those applied to Iran, would only have a limited effect on the American economy due to limited ties between the nations. Watch the video below for the debate over who will be harmed by the sanctions:

Concerns are growing, however, that Western jobs are at risk if sanctions increase. For example, Boeing uses Russian titanium, General Electric leases aircraft to Russian airlines, and Exxon, Coke, and Pepsi all do significant business in Russia. If Russia sanctions in return, these companies could see a loss in profits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers are preparing an ad regarding the harmful potential impacts of the sanctions. The groups are particularly concerned if the United States were to impose unilateral sanctions that would single-out American business and put them at a disadvantage. However, recent data shows that the United States exported more goods and services to Russia in May, after the sanctions, than for any other month in 2014 so far.

What’s next?

The idea is to gradually increase the pressure on Russia through sanctions. Many expect more sweeping measures to come in the near future, as both the United States and European Union indicated a stronger response will come soon. President Obama recently agreed on a phone call with British Prime Minister David Cameron that if Russia does not take steps to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine, the United States and European Union would roll out further sanctions. It is likely that targeted bans on key sectors of the Russian economy, such as gas and banking, are next. The options are nearly limitless. The United States could revoke Russia’s favorable tariff rates, which would increase taxes Russian firms have to pay to sell goods in the United States. Other alternatives include quotas, a trade embargo on certain goods, or further limiting Russian access to U.S. financial markets. Secretary of State John Kerry discusses what could be next below:

Unilateral sanctions are rarely effective, and the limited business ties between the United States and Russia means the European Union and United States must impose coordinated sanctions; however, Russia is the largest energy supplier in Europe and among the top three oil-producing countries in the world. Russia supplies roughly one third of the oil and gas in the European Union. This dependency complicates sanction efforts. Europe is hesitant to sanction because it could prohibit E.U countries from purchasing Russian oil, which would then lead to higher prices and potential shortages. Experts agree that ultimately any effective sanctions on Russia in the future must be coordinated and far-reaching.

Resources

Primary

Treasury Department: Treasury Sanctions Russian Officials

Treasury Department: Announcement of Additional Treasury Sanctions

Additional

Washington Post: The West Can’t Afford to Make Empty Threats on Russia Sanctions

Wall Street Journal: Western Sanctions Likely to Push Russia Toward Increased Self-Reliance

Guardian: Ukraine Crisis: Any EU Sanctions Are Unlikely to Make Impression

BBC: Ukraine Crisis Timeline

Politico: The New Russia Sanctions: Stalled Tax Talks

Forbes: Here’s How Obama’s Russia Sanctions Will Destroy Vladimir Putin

CNBC: Russia Sanctions: Who’s Losing Out So Far

BBC: The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Russia

Investopedia: Sanctions Between Countries Pack a Bigger Punch

USA Today: Business Groups Oppose Any New Sanctions on Russia

New Republic: These Sanctions Against Russia Will Hurt

Forbes: U.S. Exports to Russia Rise Despite Tensions

The New York Times: Western Businesses in Russia, Watchful and Wary

The New York Times: Obama Steps Up Russia Sanctions in Ukraine Crisis

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Are Sanctions the Answer? appeared first on Law Street.