Billion-Dollar-A-Day Crypto Trading Firm Says It's Now Taking Outside Money
Most crypto traders handling any kind of money know to take security seriously. One never knows what hackers, and sometimes even real-life kidnappers, are waiting on an opportunity to steal someone's crypto riches - especially if they have a reputation. With the stakes so high, big-time market participants have gone to great lengths to conceal their identities, unless they have a specific reason not to.
For Alameda Research, a trading firm that found itself at the center of a Bloomberg story entitled "Billion-Dollar-a-Day Crypto Trader Finds Accolades Are Better Than Anonymity", their reason is this: After years of primarily trading their own money, they're opening for business.
The firm recently launched a new over-the-counter trading desk that, according to BBG, caters "largely to Asian clientele". Though the story largely focuses on the history of the firm and its "increasingly sophisticated" arbitrage strategies (Alameda founder Sam Bankman-Fried says he's trying to make 2 basis points per trade, extremely cutting-edge stuff), we found the tidbits intended to entice new clients far more interesting.
For example, Bankman-Fried's biggest innovation appears to be leveraging the BitMex "leaderboard" as an imperfect record of the firm's successes. After going public earlier this year, Alameda's trading accounts have consistently ranked in the top tier of BitMex's highest-earning accounts.
It's not a complete track record, but it's about the best there is.
"For those companies that manage money, the leader boards can act as a type of track record that could be used to market their own services," said Lex Sokolin, global financial technology co-head at ConsenSys, which offers blockchain technology. "While not as rigorous as an audited track record, it is still better than nothing."
With so much turmoil in the world, and with Beijing continuing its crackdown on capital outflows, making it increasingly difficult to trade crypto on the mainland, we imagine Alameda Research is well-positioned to take on more business, particularly in that ever-lucrative mainland market.
Of course, when it comes to personal safety, being so "out there" can have its drawbacks. But that's something everybody in crypto must wrestle with.
The notoriety from being atop the leader board comes with some drawbacks. "We had internal discussions, are there countries I shouldn’t visit," Bankman-Fried said, referencing examples of kidnapping and extortion in the crypto community.
Now that the firm handles more than a billion dollars a day in turnover, accounting for more than 5% of daily trading volume in the market, it's profile is too large to ignore. And according to Bankman-Fried, it has already handling around 8-figures a day in trading volume for an account for outside money.
And for Alameda, some of these drawbacks include lawsuits accusing the firm of manipulating spot and derivatives markets for crypto, as well as illegally marketing digital tokens to investors. But the firm's founder brushed aside the lawsuit's claims, and the BBG report seemed to accept that explanation.
the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, Alameda is being sued for $150 million and accused of manipulating the Bitcoin spot and derivatives markets and selling digital tokens to investors unlawfully. Bankman-Fried said the lawsuit has no merit, as trades the complaint cites as examples of violations don’t fit his firm’s strategy; he also said he didn’t offer the tokens to U.S. investors.
"When we get targeted for things, it’s a function of our increased brand size in crypto," Bankman-Fried said.
Now that the word is out, hopefully the firm can handle the heat. Because as these glorified crypto hedge funds continue to accumulate clients and client assets, the targets on their backs will grow steadily, too.Tyler Durden Sun, 11/17/2019 - 08:45 Tags Business Finance
Africa In The New Era Of Great Power Rivalry
Submitted by SouthFrontThe Second De-Colonialization
To an extent, this is a déjà–vu all over again. As the British and French colonial empires, crippled by the two world wars which not only bankrupted them but also plainly demonstrated “colored” soldiers could fight as well as “white” ones, collapsed, the two superpowers promptly filled the void. While in some cases United States swiftly moved in as the French and the British were departing, leaving behind the elites their trained, those countries which experienced genuine national liberation movements nearly without exception opted for an alliance with USSR. Contrary to Western Cold War-era propaganda, USSR was an attractive partner for international cooperation for several reasons, which included the demonstrated ability at defeating Western powers at war (a major consideration for developing post-colonial states), the Marxist economic development model which succeeded in industrializing the country in the space of only one decade, and the absence of legalized racial discrimination which, until the late 1960s, was the norm in the United States.
The ability to choose between two demonstrably different models of development offered by the two rival superpowers had both benefits and dangers for the developing countries of Africa, Asia, and even Latin America. The benefits lay in the fear of “domino effect”, which forced the “First World” to offer considerably better terms to the “Third World” than they would have had the “Second World” not existed. The danger lay in the form of superpower “proxy wars” fought to prevent countries from drifting toward USSR or to subvert the economic and political systems of those countries which did join the East Bloc. The murder of Patrice Lumumba, the war in Vietnam, the military coups in various Latin American countries, the economic blockade of Cuba, and many other such campaigns were all part of the US effort to eliminate Soviet influence from the developing world.
The end of the Cold War meant a shift toward global unipolarity where there would be no competing economic models. Economic neoliberalism was now “the only game in town” on a global scale, and the politics of TINA (“there is no alternative”) ruled the roost.
But the shift toward a multipolar world that became evident in the 2010s means both opportunities and dangers for the developing countries similar to those experienced during the Cold War, though the greater number of global power centers means the game is considerably more complex than it was during the era of bipolarity.Multipolarity in Action
While on the face of it might look as if the world is moving toward bipolarity once again, in practice there are four major actors: United States, European Union, China, and of course Russia. While US and EU collectively form “the West”, they also are perfectly capable of undercutting one another in order to protect own spheres of influence, be it Monroe Doctrine, the British Commonwealth, or Francophone Africa. Russia and China so far are not showing coordination in their respective efforts in Africa, though the absence of visible clashes of interests thus far suggests the existence of an informal division of responsibilities.
Russia’s renewed interest in Africa was prompted by the West’s efforts to isolate it politically and economically. Prior to 2014, previous provocations notwithstanding, Russia appeared to be steady on its course toward economic and political integration with the West and had that course not been rudely interrupted by NATO expansion, regime change in Ukraine, and the general campaign of demonization, Russia probably would not have felt compelled to lean into what the West viewed as its rightful sphere of influence if its own security interests along own borders were respected.What does Russia have to offer?
It would appear, many things. If the Russia-Africa Economic Forum held in Sochi on October 23-24, 2019, where over 500 agreements estimated at $12 billion were signed and which were attended by leaders from 50 African states and eight African international organizations is any indication, economic development and mutually favorable business ventures rank high on the list of contributions to Africa’s prosperity and political stability. In a similar vein, Bloomberg network reported that Russian Railways were in negotiations over a contract potentially worth $500 million to modernize the railroad network of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rosatom is negotiating with Ethiopia to construct a nuclear power plant. Russia’s forgiveness of $20 billion of debts owed by various African states is likewise expected to result in new economic cooperation projects. Even though these impressive numbers still pale in comparison with the Chinese investments in the region, they do suggest African countries are not averse to having more than one non-Western partner in the realm of economic development.
Where Russia does outpace China is in the realm of security cooperation with African states, and here there may indeed exist a tacit agreement with China over the delineation of responsibilities. The preference shown for Russia in the area of security cooperation is driven by several considerations. They include relationships established during the Cold War, the proven reliability and durability of Russian weapons on African battlefields, but also Russia’s recently re-established prowess at waging a variety of types of warfare, combined with its ability to face down Western military threats. That latter quality is of interest to developing countries which fear finding themselves on the receiving end of some 21st century version of White Man’s Burden. While China’s recent military developments are impressive, the country has not shown itself either willing or able to demonstrate an ability to defend distant allies through military force. Should Chinese investments and assets in Africa be exposed to military or paramilitary threats emanating from the West, it does not appear likely Chinese military forces would be there to protect them. At the moment it’s rather more likely China would rely on Russia for that protection. For that reason Russia and China can potentially form an extremely effective tandem that would be difficult for Western powers to counter.
The security dimension of Russia’s involvement in Africa appears to be attractive to a number of African states concerned about US designs on the region, particularly in the wake of the failed US-sponsored “color revolutions” in the Middle East. Some African states, including Sudan and Central African Republic (the latter clearly in the French sphere of influence) have already openly expressed interest in hosting a Russian military base. Russia’s long reach was furthermore demonstrated by the visit of two Tu-160 strategic bombers to the Republic of South Africa that received considerable positive attention in that country’s social media. Combined with the growing presence of the Russian Navy in the world ocean made possible by the newly built modern guided-missile frigates, Africa is beginning to recognize the presence of Russia as an exporter of political stability.The Dangers
The biggest danger of course is that the United States is unlikely to simply accept any challenge to its influence on the continent, after having accustomed to the idea of unipolarity. Sometimes that rejection of reality takes comic dimensions, for example, when Facebook bans pages allegedly “meddling” in African politics, a measure which speaks volumes about the US assumption of “ownership” of that entire continent.
But US policies are unlikely to stop at Facebook temper tantrums. We are once again likely to see death squads, paramilitaries, CIA-linked jihadists, and even US support for genocidal rulers who will serve as local proxies intended to roll back Russian and Chinese influence. The most frightening aspect of contemporary US policies is the willingness to despoil a country and plunge it into a civil war if it looks like it might slip out of the Western orbit and into Russian and Chinese one.
It is yet difficult to predict how the future proxy wars will play out. However, the US track record in other regions suggests that not only are its covert action instruments ineffective at achieving US foreign policy goals, US reputation as a trustworthy international actor is so badly tarnished that it is likely to operate at a significant disadvantage when attempting to recruit proxy actors on the African continent. The alternative would be, as in the case of Syria, to directly deploy US forces into combat in order to stave off a political defeat, but it remains to be seen whether such a measure would find political support in Washington or among the US public.Tyler Durden Sun, 11/17/2019 - 08:10 Tags Politics War Conflict
Watch: Russian Commandos Take Over Sprawling Base In Syria Moments After US Abandoned It
Even as American forces are controversially "securing" select oil fields in the Deir Ezzor region of eastern Syria, they are simultaneously continuing withdrawal from northern Syria near border areas in keeping with Trump's prior ordered draw down amid the Turkish military operation against Kurdish militias. And that means Russia is continuing to move into locations the US has abandoned.
“We entered the base and took the inner and external perimeter under control,” a senior Russian military police inspector said after on Friday Russian combat helicopters were filmed landing at a sprawling air base in northern Syria, newly vacated by US forces.
“Now sappers are looking and going through every building to make sure there aren’t some kind of explosive substances left behind or some kind of surprises here for us,” he said. Russian state media boasted that the major base is now "under new management".
The Russian military police took an airfield in northern Syria, where the American base used to be located. pic.twitter.com/5T7fpITRwx— Ali Özkök (@Ozkok_A) November 15, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) video showed elite forces hastily securing Sirrin Air Base in the northern Aleppo area, among the largest military installations previously occupied by American forces in Syria.
Though flying the Russian flag as they moved in, the MoD indicated Sirrin is now controlled by Syrian government forces, also to be used as a joint distribution center for humanitarian aid.Sirrin Air Base in the northern Aleppo, via Russian MoD.
On Thursday the Russian MoD also said it had established a helicopter base at Qamishli after Americans retreated from the area, amid joint Turkish-Russian patrols based on high level talks between Putin and Erdogan.
And already there are reports that Russia has deployed its Pantsir air defense system to the Qamishli Airport in order to "protect transport helicopters deployed to northern Syria from the Khmeimim base," a Russian broadcaster which first broke the news stated.Via Russian MoD footage: Russian Military Police secure
All of these events have heightened continued uncertainty and confusion on the ground over whether the US is ultimately withdrawing from Syria or increasing its presence.
Scenes of the Russians scooping up American forward operating bases has angered hawks in Washington.
Today in Syria: Russia takes control of main U.S. military facility abandoned earlier this week by American forces on Trump’s orders. This area is south of Kobani and went to Russia under the Putin-Erdogan deal. Russia now also owns the airstrip we built. pic.twitter.com/uO5AHdKMi3— Brett McGurk (@brett_mcgurk) November 15, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Early this week Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Washington of seeking to establish an illegal "quasi-state" in eastern Syria. He made the remarks while addressing the Paris Peace Forum on Tuesday.
“They left in a hurry”, #Russia 🇷🇺 broadcaster Zvezda showed Mi-35M helicopters arriving at the airfield & officers from the Russian Military Police arriving at the abandoned military base, Sirrin in #Syria 🇸🇾, one of the biggest US 🇺🇸 military outposts in the war-torn country. pic.twitter.com/QBvysEMGcd— Saad (@SaadAbedine) November 15, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“On the eastern bank of the Euphrates River, they are doing everything possible to create the structure for a quasi-state, and are asking the Gulf States for major investments in order to create a local administration on the basis of the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurds – the YPG People’s Protection Units and others, with the clear intention of breaking this piece of territory off from Syria, and controlling the oil fields located there,” Lavrov said.Tyler Durden Sun, 11/17/2019 - 07:35 Tags Politics War Conflict
An Independent Ukraine's Painful Journey Through The Five Stages Of Grief
In my July 25th article “Zelenskii’s dilemma” I pointed out the fundamental asymmetry of the Ukrainian power configuration following Zelenskii’s crushing victory over Poroshenko: while a vast majority of the Ukrainian people clearly voted to stop the war and restore some kind of peace to the Ukraine, the real levers of power in the post-Maidan Banderastan are all held by all sorts of very powerful, if also small, minority groups including:
The various “oligarchs” (Kolomoiskii, Akhmetov, etc.) and/or mobsters
Arsen Avakov’s internal security forces including some “legalized” Nazi death squads
The various non-official Nazi deathsquads (Parubii)
The various western intelligence agencies who run various groups inside the Ukraine
The various western financial/political sponsors who run various groups inside the Ukraine
The so-called “Sorosites” (соросята) i.e. Soros and Soros-like sponsored political figures
The many folks who want to milk the Ukraine down to the last drop of Ukrainian blood and then run
These various groups all acted in unison, at least originally, during and after the Euromaidan. This has now dramatically changed and these groups are now all fighting each other. This is what always happens when things begin to turn south and the remaining loot shrinks with every passing day.
Whether Zelenskii ever had a chance to use the strong mandate he received from the people to take the real power back from these groups or not is now a moot point: It did not happen and the first weeks of Zelenskii’s presidency clearly showed that Zelenskii was, indeed, in “free fall“: instead of becoming a “Ukrainian Putin” Zelenskii became a “Ukrainian Trump” – a weak and, frankly, clueless leader, completely outside his normal element, whose only “policy” towards all the various extremist minorities was to try to appease them, then appease them some more, and then even more than that. As a result, a lot of Ukrainians are already speaking about “Ze” being little more than a “Poroshenko 2.0”. More importantly, pretty much everybody is frustrated and even angry at Zelenskii whose popularity is steadily declining.Factors beyond “Ze’s” control:
Still, it would be an oversimplification to bring it all down to Zelenskii’s total lack of experience in politics. There are objective factors which make any kind of resolution of the Ukrainian problem very complicated, even for a very strong and principled leader. Here are some of them.
1. Ukraine is a completely artificial country composed of no less than 4 different regions: the western Ukraine (Lvov), the southern Ukraine (Odessa, Nikolaev), the eastern Ukraine (Donbass) and the north-central Ukraine (Kiev). It is important to stress here that these regions do not have well-defined borders so one map might show them quite differently from another one. Here are three examples to illustrate this point:
2. The concept of an “independent Ukraine” has always been based on strong ideological founding myths. For example, the expression “independent Ukraine” is a contradiction in terms since in order to be a “ukraine” – that is a frontier/border region, you need to be “the ukraine of something”, of some other entity, like say “Serbian Krajina in Croatia” or the “Siberian Ukraine” in Siberia. These myths include all the silly stuff we have already heard (the ancient “Ukrs” built the pyramids, spoke proto-Sanskrit, taught Buddha, dug the Black Sea, came from Mars, were mentioned by Herodotus [who himself was Ukrainian] etc. etc. etc.) but also a few absolutely crucial recent founding myths including:
The Euromaidan was a “revolution for dignity” which was supported by the vast majority of the people of the Ukraine. All the shots that day were fired by “Russian agents”.
The war in the East was started when Russian agents seized official buildings and guns leading to a “covert invasion” (whatever that means) of the Russian armed forces.
The so-called “LDNR” leaders are Russian FSB agents, mafia thugs and terrorists who oppress the local population which does not support them.
The Ukrainian armed forces defeated the “Russian hordes” and successfully stopped “Putin” who was planning to invade the entire Ukraine. The Russians still have such plans and are ready to strike.
The new and improved Ukrainian armed forces are ready to liberate every inch of Ukrainian land.
The White European Ukraine stands ready to defend Europe against the Russian Asiatic hordes threatening it.
The “entire world” (no less!!) is united against Russia in support of the Ukraine.
The Donbass and Crimea will be liberated from the Russian invaders and their local collaborators who will all be carefully interrogated in special filtration camps and all the disloyal elements will be eliminated.
This gentlemen is, according to Ukronazi propaganda, a “defender of Europe from the Russia Asiatic hordes”
3. Now this set of ideological imperatives makes for a very easy to understand “program” for low-IQ wannabe storm-troopers, but it makes for an insurmountable set of obstacles to the Minsk Agreements or the Steinmeier Formula (which is simply an explication of the terms of the Minsk Agreements). The fact that it was “their” President (Poroshenko) who gave his approval to both of these makes no difference to the nationalists. The main psychological/ideological problem is that the Minsk Agreements and the Steinmeier Formula both obligate the regime in Kiev to negotiate directly with the leaders of the LDNR. So far, nobody in the powerful minorities mentioned above is ready for such a compromise. Why? Simply because IF the government in Kiev finally agrees to talk with the Novorussians then the entire recent ideological basis for the Euromaidan (mentioned above) comes tumbling down. IF the LDNR leaders are not Russian agents and terrorists, then they represent the people of Novorussia and if the people of Novorussia have elected these people, then it is the people of Novorussia who want nothing to do with the ugly “Banderastan” which the AngloZionists and the Ukronazis attempted to impose upon the people of the Ukraine in a bloody (and, not to mention, totally illegal) coup.The Russian narrative is winning
Another major problem for Zelenskii are two competing narratives: the Ukronazi one and, shall we say, the “Russian” one. I have outlined the Ukronazi one just above and now I will mention the competing Russian one which goes something like this:
The Euromaidan was a completely illegal violent coup against the democratically elected President of the Ukraine, whose legitimacy nobody contested, least of all the countries which served as mediators between Poroshenko and the rioters and who betrayed their word in less than 24 hours (a kind of a record for western politicians and promises of support!).
All, repeat, ALL the steps taken to sever crucial economic and cultural links between Russia and the Ukraine were decided upon by Ukrainian leaders, never by Russia who only replied symmetrically when needed.
Even with international sanctions directed at her, Russia successfully survived both the severance of ties with the Ukraine and the AngloZionist attempts at hurting the Russian economy. In contrast, severing economic ties with Russia was a death-sentence for the Ukrainian economy which has now become completely deindustrialized.
Now that the Ukraine has been completely deindustrialized, all she can export are either people or land/soil. In the case of people, we are talking primarily about cheap manual labor and prostitutes to the West and engineers and technical specialists towards Russia (especially engineers and scientists of the now defunct, but formerly very powerful, Ukrainian military industrial complex). In terms of land/soil, the party “servant of the people” is now advocating a new law which will do to Ukrainian land/soil what the famous “vouchers” did to the Soviet economy: put it all in the hands of crooks and billionaires.
Crimea is gone and nothing will ever change that, least of all an attempt by Kiev to reconquer Crimea by force (Crimea is currently one of the most defended spots on the planet).
While some western politicians simply cannot make a mea culpa and admit that they completely misread, misunderstood and mismanaged the entire Ukrainian crisis, most folks in the West are already seeing a very simple sentence written on their mental walls: the Ukraine is a dangerous failed state with only one thing left to plunder: the Ukrainian soil. In contrast, Europe really needs Russia on all levels, from energy to defense. This is especially true now that Russia and China are embarking on truly gigantic common projects.
Russia is now strong enough to take on a combined attack of NATO forces. The LDNR forces are smaller than the Ukrainian military, but much better trained, commanded, equipped and supported and they are most likely to defeat any Ukronazi attack. Still, should a Ukrainian attack be successful and the future of the LDNR be at risk, Russia could stop any such invasion without even deploying ground forces into Novorussia.
For Zelenskii or, for that matter, for any other Ukrainian leader the above contradictions are unsolvable and every step taken in a direction of pragmatism, no matter how small (and ALL his steps so far have been small), gets an immediate reaction of outrage and threats by the hardcore Nazis of Poroshenko & Co.
The subtle Ukronazi message to “Ze”
Some of the threats made by these Ukronazis are dead serious and the only person who, as of now, kinda can keep the Ukrainian version of the Rwandan “Interahamwe” under control would probably be Arsen Avakov, but since he himself is a hardcore Nazi nutcase, his attitude is ambiguous and unpredictable. He probably has more firepower than anybody else, but he was a pure “Porokhobot” (Poroshenko-robot) who, in many ways, controlled Poroshenko more than Poroshenko controlled him. The best move for Zelenskii would be to arrest the whole lot of them overnight (Poroshenko himself, but also Avakov, Parubii, Iarosh, Farion, Liashko, Tiagnibok, etc.) and place a man he totally trusts as Minister of the Interior. Next, Zelenskii should either travel to Donetsk or, at least, meet with the leaders of the LDNR and work with them to implement the Minsk Agreements. That would alienate the Ukronazis for sure, but it would give Zelenskii a lot of popular support.
Needless to say, that is not going to happen. While Zelenskii’s puppet master Kolomoiskii would love to stick this entire gang in jail and replace them with his own men, it is an open secret that powerful interest groups in the USA have told Zelenskii “don’t you dare touch them”. Which is fine, except that this also means “don’t you dare change their political course either”.So what might happen next?
The personal future of Poroshenko and his Ukronazis will be decided in the USA. If Trump prevails over the Clinton-Biden gang, then there is a tiny theoretical chance that a joint “go ahead” between the US and Russia could give Zelenskii the go-ahead to begin denazifying the Ukraine. I find this hypothesis most unlikely. Failing that, Russia will embark on a policy of unilateral actions and decisions. What might these be?
To answer that we need to look at Russia’s real conditions (as opposed to the official ones). They are pretty straightforward:
Crimea is Russian forever
Kiev will not be allowed to seize Novorussia by force
The Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO
Russia will not pay alone for the reconstruction costs of the Ukraine
Russia can live with a unitary, but confederated, Ukraine
Russia can also live with whatever is left following a breakup of the Ukraine
Unless a viable solution is found, and in a reasonable time frame, Russia can, and will, recognize the LDNR and even allow it to re-join Russia (under what kind of status legally is yet to be determined as there are several possible options here)
They first obvious key question here is this: can the AngloZionist Empire do anything to prevent the Russians from achieving their goals as outlined above?
My personal answer is no, the Empire does not have the means to impose something different from what Russia wants, at least not in the Ukraine. This is not only because of Putin vs the clueless western leaders, it is simply that the Russians have a huge historical and geographical advantage in the Ukraine over any combination of western powers. True, Russia did pathetically drop the ball, but things are now clearly changing and Russia is now in a rather enviable position in which she can rely mostly on unilateral actions (such as handing out Russian passports) while letting the Ukronazi occupied Ukraine slowly destroy itself.
So what happens if nothing happens?How do you say “Lasciate ogni speranza, o voi che entrate” in Ukrainian?
And since a (currently entirely theoretical) “united West” can’t do anything to prevent Russia from reaching one of the outcomes acceptable to her, neither can any Ukrainian President, Zelenskii or other.
Right now, the supporters of a Banderastan are going through the famous Kübler-Ross stages of griefs: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance: currently, most of them are zig-zagging between bargaining and depression; acceptance is still far beyond their – very near – horizon. Except that Zelenskii has nothing left to bargain with.
The prospects for the future of the Ukraine are rather grim, at least in the short to mid term. What will actually happen is impossible to predict (it is much easier to say what will not happen), but here are a few options I find credible:
A collapse of the central authority followed by a surge in violence and a break-up of the rump-Ukraine into some entity in the West. The south will probably seek quasi-independence to make business with Russia while most of the violence will take place in the north-central region which is very polarized and only silent because of the fear of the SBU and/or Nazi deathsquads. As soon as Kiev loses control, these regions are likely to rise up. If that happens the current line-of-contact will become an international border between the LDNR and the rest of the Ukraine. Most UN members will not recognize the LDNR (fear of Uncle Shmuel) but one will: Russia. And that will be the end of the “independent Ukraine” as we know it.
I would never exclude a last minute patriotic coup or, even more likely, counter-coup by Ukrainian patriots in the armed forces, not necessarily one supported by Moscow, but one which will at least replace frankly rather demented Ukronazis with more pragmatic people. There are plenty of such people in the Ukraine, some are known and some are less known. If I were “Ze” I would keep an eye on Vadim Rabinovich, not because he is my personal ideal candidate, but because he is very smart and very well connected. He is not at all popular in the Ukraine, but he has strong support in the West and in Israel. Check out this rather interesting Wikipedia article on Rabinovich and see why he is a typical “мутный типчик” (roughly, an “unclear” guy – meaning somebody you would suspect of being a crook). He is unlikely to ever be elected by the people. But he, or somebody like him, might make a good “anti-Nazi” front-figure for a coup (or counter-coup) should the need for such a figure become useful to the Empire. By the way, the Kremlin’s reaction to a Rabinovich (or similar) led coup (or counter-coup) would be just like when Iulia Timoshenko came to power: they will work with any person who is a pragmatist and who can deliver on promises.
Finally, a war in the East is always, and by definition, a possibility for as long as a rabidly russophobic regime is in power in Kiev. From a purely military point of view, any Ukrainian attack against the LDNR would be suicidal: either the Novorussians will take care of the attacking force, or the Russians will. But either way, the Ukrainian attacking force will be destroyed. From a political point of view, however, such an attack might make sense simply because this would be a gigantic distraction allowing all the Nazi rats to leave the sinking ship and quietly slip away. Finally, there is no doubt that the Neocons have been dreaming of a (real, not fictional) Russian attack as a way to shock Europe back into total submission to Uncle Shmuel. This is also why I believe that a Russian counter-attack on Ukrainian forces might be limited to long range strikes (kinetic and electronic) and the imposition of a no-fly zone.Conclusion: Russia can wait, the Ukraine cannot
It’s really that simple. In fact, time was always on the Russian side here, even if not necessarily on the side of the people of Novorussia who have suffered through the horrors of this war. However, it appears now that the Novorussians have been successful in their efforts to turn a hodgepodge of more or less trained militias into a credible and disciplined military force capable of tactical and operational actions, in other words, capable of dangerous counter-attacks. Finally, Russian policies towards the rump-Ukraine and Novorussia are now all unilateral in nature, which gives Russia a great deal of flexibility.
With a weak leader like “Ze” the Ukraine looks stuck in the no man’s land somewhere between denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. The faster the Ukrainian leaders get to the “acceptance” phase, the less the people of the Ukraine will have to suffer (not that anybody in the Ukronazi leadership cares about the common people).
At the end of all arguments and theories, there is a crucial fact which cannot be ignored: the Euromaidan Revolution (which is what the coup against Yanukovich and the subsequent civil war in the Donbass are) has failed. In fact, it was stillborn from Day1 being built on an ideology which most Ukrainians did not share. Furthermore, this revolution alienated the most productive and richest parts of the Ukraine: the Donbass and Crimea. Next, the Urkonazi regime was soundly defeated by the Novorussian insurgents not once, but twice. Finally, by severing all economic ties with Russia, the independent Ukraine basically committed seppuku. None of that can be reversed or easily fixed.
As always, in the battle between ideology and reality the latter prevailed. The outcome of this struggle between ideology and reality was never in doubt, at least not for rational, pragmatic, people, and so the blood and tears of all those who needlessly died, were maimed or had to become refugees will forever remain on the consciences of those who started this “revolutionary fire”: the leaders of the united West.Tyler Durden Sun, 11/17/2019 - 07:00 Tags Politics War Conflict
Exposing The Brennan Dossier: All About A Prime Mover Of Russiagate
In the waning days of the Obama administration, the U.S. intelligence community produced a report saying Russian President Vladimir Putin had tried to swing the 2016 election to Donald Trump.
The January 2017 report, called an Intelligence Community Assessment, followed months of leaks to the media that had falsely suggested illicit ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin while also revealing that such contacts were the subject of a federal investigation. Its release cast a pall of suspicion over Trump just days before he took office, setting the tone for the unfounded allegations of conspiracy and treason that have engulfed his first term.
What was Brennan's motive? Among the possibilities is hostility within his camp toward Michael Flynn (foreground), Trump's future reform-minded national security adviser.
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
The ICA's blockbuster finding was presented to the public as the consensus view of the nation's intelligence community. As events have unfolded, however, it now seems apparent that the report was largely the work of one agency, the CIA, and overseen by one man, then-Director John Brennan, who closely directed its drafting and publication with a small group of hand-picked analysts.
Nearly three years later, as the public awaits answers from two Justice Department inquiries into the Trump-Russia probe’s origins, and as impeachment hearings catalyzed by a Brennan-hired anti-Trump CIA analyst unfold in Congress, it is clear that Brennan’s role in propagating the collusion narrative went far beyond his work on the ICA. A close review of facts that have slowly come to light reveals that he was a central architect and promoter of the conspiracy theory from its inception. The record shows that:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe, Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
Leveraging his close proximity to President Obama, Brennan sounded the alarm about alleged Russian interference to the White House, and was tasked with managing the U.S. intelligence community's response.
While some FBI officials expressed skepticism about the Trump/Russia narrative as they hunted down investigative leads, Brennan stood out for insisting on its veracity.
To substantiate his claims, Brennan relied on a Kremlin informant who was later found to be a mid-level official with limited access to Putin’s inner circle.
Circumventing normal protocol for congressional briefings, Brennan supplied then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid with incendiary Trump-Russia innuendo that Reid amplified in a pair of public letters late in the election campaign.
After Trump's unexpected victory, Brennan oversaw the hasty production of the tenuous Intelligence Community Assessment.
Departing from his predecessors’ usual practice of staying above the political fray after leaving office, Brennan has worked as a prominent analyst for MSNBC, where he has used his authority as a former guardian of the nation’s top secrets to launch vitriolic attacks on a sitting president, accusing Trump of "treasonous" conduct.
Now Brennan is among the most vocal critics of the more comprehensive of the two Justice probes, the criminal investigation run by U.S. Attorney John Durham and Attorney General William Barr. "I don’t understand the predication of this worldwide effort to try to uncover dirt, real or imagined, that would discredit that investigation in 2016 into Russian interference," he recently said on MSNBC.
The Trump-Russia collusion theory was not propagated by a few rogue figures. Key Obama administration and intelligence officials laundered it through national security reporters who gave their explosive claims anonymous cover. Nevertheless, Brennan stands apart for the outsized role he played in generating and spreading the false narrative.'Raised Concerns in My Mind'
The government’s official story as detailed in special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s April 18 report casts the Trump-Russia probe as an FBI operation. It asserts that the bureau launched its investigation, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane,” on July 31, 2016, after receiving information that junior Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos was informed that Russians had politically damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
John Durham: His probe aims "to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016," as the New York Times put it.
United States Attorney's Office, District of Connecticut/Wikimedia
But a great deal of evidence – including public testimony and news accounts – undermines that story. It indicates that the probe started earlier, with Brennan a driving force. Many of the clues are buried in public testimony and reports published by the New York Times and Washington Post, the primary vehicles for intelligence community leaks throughout the Russiagate saga.
One signal came in June when the Times reported that the Barr-Durham investigation had "provoked anxiety in the ranks of the C.I.A." Among Barr's aims, the paper noted, was "to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016."
That intelligence "flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I" underscores that the agency played a larger role in the early stages of the Trump-Russia probe than is publicly acknowledged. Late last month, the Times ran a more ominous piece suggesting that the CIA may have been a prime mover of the probe through deception. It reported that Durham has been asking interview subjects "whether C.I.A. officials might have somehow tricked the F.B.I. into opening the Russia investigation." In anticipation of being asked such questions, the paper added, "[s]ome C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers."
If that reflects an accurate suspicion on Durham's part, then Brennan, by his own account, has already outed himself as a key suspect. Brennan has publicly taken credit for the Russia probe's origination and supplying critical information to the FBI after it began. "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about," he told Congress in May 2017. That information, Brennan added, "raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians," which then "served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion-cooperation occurred."
A BBC report suggests that Brennan may be referring to April 2016 – a month before Papadopoulos allegedly mentioned Russian dirt and three months before the FBI launched its probe – when “an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States" provided Brennan with "a tape recording" that "worried him" – "a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the U.S. presidential campaign."
Stefan Halper: This CIA and FBI informant targeted Carter Page as early as May 2016, Page says.
It is not clear whether the BBC account is accurate, but the April date coincides with other activity suggesting an earlier start date to the collusion probe than the official version. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified before a congressional panel that in the “late spring” of 2016 then-FBI Director James Comey briefed National Security Council principals about concerns surrounding newly appointed Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. According to the Guardian newspaper, former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele began briefing the FBI on his discredited dossier in London as early as June; after that, "his information started to reach the bureau in Washington." In mid-July, veteran CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper made contact with Page at a British academic conference; according to Page, the invitation had come at the end of May or early June.
Halper has also been accused of taking part in a smear operation aimed at spreading false information about National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Russian nationals. In May, Halper was sued in the U.S. by Svetlana Lokhova, a Russian-born British academic, for defamation. Lokhova alleges that Halper, while working as a U.S. intelligence asset, spread rumors suggesting that she and Flynn had an improper relationship.
While Russiagate's exact starting point is murky, it is clear that Brennan placed himself at the center of the action. After the investigation officially got underway in the summer of 2016, as Brennan later told MSNBC, "[w]e put together a fusion center at CIA that brought NSA and FBI officers together with CIA to make sure that those proverbial dots would be connected." (It is not clear whether this was a Freudian slip suggesting the center included Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm hired by the Clinton campaign that produced the Steele dossier of fictitious Trump-Russia dirt – but regardless, it is likely that at least some of Brennan's "dots" came from the firm.) According to the New Yorker, also that summer Brennan received a personal briefing from Robert Hannigan, then the head of Britain’s intelligence service the GCHQ, about an alleged "stream of illicit communications between Trump's team and Moscow that had been intercepted." A U.S. court would later confirm that Steele shared his reports with at least one "senior British security official."
As Brennan helped generate the collusion investigation, he also worked to insert it into domestic American politics – at the height of a presidential campaign. Starting in August, Brennan began giving personal briefings to the Gang of Eight, high-ranking U.S. senators and members of Congress regularly apprised of state secrets. Breaking with tradition, he met them individually, rather than as a group. His most consequential private meeting was with Harry Reid.
Harry Reid: Brennan gave this top Senate Democrat an irregular individual briefing, putting the collusion narrative in motion.
AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz.,File
Afterward, the Democrats’ Senate leader sent a pair of provocative public letters to FBI Director Comey. Reid's messages – released to the public during the final months of the presidential race – made explosive insinuations of illicit ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, putting the collusion narrative into motion. "The prospect of individuals tied to Trump, WikiLeaks and the Russian government coordinating to influence our election raises concerns of the utmost gravity and merits full examination," Reid wrote on Aug. 27. Russia, he warned, may be trying to "influence the Trump campaign and manipulate it as a vehicle for advancing the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin."
Two days after Comey's "October surprise" announcement that newly discovered emails were forcing him to reopen the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server while serving as secretary of state, Reid followed up with even more incendiary language: "It has become clear," he complained to Comey, "that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors and the Russian government."
Reid’s letters show the extent to which Brennan maneuvered behind the scenes to funnel collusion to a public audience. In their book "Russian Roulette," Michael Isikoff and David Corn report that Reid "concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the Russia operation, including the information about the possible links to the Trump campaign."Nunes: 'Whatever Brennan Told Reid, He Didn’t Tell Me.'
The separate briefings and the Reid letters gave rise to suspicion that Brennan was driven by what Reid, according to Isikoff and Corn, saw as an "ulterior motive." Although Brennan has claimed publicly that he "provided the same briefing to each gang of eight member," Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) says that is not true. Nunes, who was then the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is quoted in journalist Lee Smith’s new book, "The Plot Against the President," saying, "Whatever Brennan told Reid, he didn’t tell me."
Reid’s letters also undermine a common, but false, talking point used to defend Brennan and other U.S. intelligence officials behind the Russia investigation: If they really sought to hurt the Trump campaign, they would have made their Trump-Russia collusion speculation public. As Comey put it: "If we were 'deep state' Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret?" Reid's extraordinary letters – released at the height of the campaign – were one of the ways in which Brennan did exactly the opposite.
FBI's Peter Strzok texted Lisa Page suggesting the CIA was "leaking like mad." And he wrote colleagues of his concern the agency was deceiving both the bureau and the public.
AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
After Trump's election victory in November, Brennan's CIA was the source of yet more leaks. Reports in early December claimed that the agency had assessed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the explicit aim of helping Trump. The leaks sparked worry inside the FBI.
"Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad," Peter Strzok, the lead FBI agent on the Russia probe, texted his colleague Lisa Page on Dec. 15. "Scorned and worried and political, they're kicking in to overdrive." In an April 2017 email to colleagues, Strzok worried the CIA was deceiving both the bureau and the public. "I'm beginning to think the agency got info a lot earlier than we thought and hasn't shared it completely with us," he wrote. "Might explain all these weird/seemingly incorrect leads all these media folks have. Would also highlight agency as a source of some of the leaks."‘We Needed More’
At the same time that he was sharing his "concerns" about alleged Trump-Russia contacts with the FBI and Congress, Brennan was raising alarm bells at the White House about an alleged Russian interference campaign. In the process, he went to significant lengths to safeguard his claims from internal scrutiny.
In early August, Brennan told the White House about supposed intelligence from a Kremlin mole that Vladimir Putin had personally ordered an interference operation to hurt Clinton and install Trump in the White House. Brennan, the New York Times reported, "sent separate intelligence reports, many based on the source’s information, in special sealed envelopes to the Oval Office." Brennan made sure that those envelopes evaded scrutiny.
On Brennan’s orders, Greg Miller of the Washington Post reported, "no information on Russia's interference was ever included in the president's daily brief." Brennan's purported fear was that even a highly restrictive distribution list might prove too leaky for the CIA’s explosive claims about Putin’s supposed secret orders to elect Trump.
Miller also reported that Brennan holed up in his office to pore over the CIA's material, "staying so late that the glow through his office windows remained visible deep into the night." Brennan ordered up, not just vetted, "'finished' assessments – analytic reports that had gone through “layers of review and revision," but also "what agency veterans call the 'raw stuff,' the unprocessed underlying material," Miller adds.
John Kiriakou, ex-CIA analyst: Brennan's actions were "a very big red flag."
AP Photo/Cliff Owen
To former CIA analyst and whistleblower John Kiriakou, all of this raises "a very big red flag" that suggests Brennan circumvented his colleagues and normal intelligence safeguards. "As a matter of practice, you never, ever give the raw data to the policymaker," Kiriakou says. "That was something that was done during the George W. Bush administration where Vice President Cheney demanded the raw intelligence. But more often than not raw intelligence is just simply incorrect – it’s factually incorrect, or it’s the result of the source who’s a liar, or it’s the result of the source who has only part of the story. And so you can’t trust it. You have to vet it and compare it to the rest of your all-source information to see what’s true, what’s not true, and then only the true information you use in your analysis. For the director of the CIA to be using the raw data is highly unusual because that’s what you have a staff of thousands to do for you."
The timing of Brennan's supposed delivery of the information sourced to the mole – later identified as Oleg Smolenkov – also raises questions. Although it is unclear when Smolenkov would have conveyed his intelligence to the CIA, the Washington Post reported Brennan delivered it to the White House in early August 2016 – just days after the FBI officially launched its Russia investigation. But if Smolenkov was able to capture Putin's orders to conduct a sweeping election interference campaign – which allegedly began in March – it would be odd that this information arrived only after the U.S. election interference investigation began, and not – at minimum – months earlier, when Putin's supposed operation would had to have been ordered.
When Brennan's material did reach eyes outside Obama's inner circle, "other agencies were slower to endorse a conclusion that Putin was personally directing the operation and wanted to help Trump," the Washington Post reported. “‘It was definitely compelling, but it was not definitive,' said one senior administration official. 'We needed more.'" Faced with that skepticism, Brennan "moved swiftly" to brief congressional leaders -- including Reid.The Mole
The internal doubts about Brennan's claims now make more sense in light of the recent outing of the supposed Kremlin mole that he relied on to make them.
Smolenkov has been revealed to be a mid-level Kremlin official who was outside of Putin's inner circle. According to Russian media, Smolenkov disappeared during a visit to Montenegro in June 2017, in what other reports call a CIA extraction over fears that a loose-lipped Trump could put him in peril. After that, Smolenkov turned up in the U.S., remarkably living under his own name – easily discoverable in public records – in the Virginia suburbs.
Even putting aside Putin’s reputation for having operatives abroad hunt down and assassinate those who cross him, Kiriakou said this open visibility is "astounding." CIA informants, Kiriakou says, "were never, ever resettled in their own names and they were almost never resettled in the Washington area. That tells me a couple of things: one, this source wasn’t as sensitive as we may have been led to believe; or, two, even if he was sensitive, the information that he provided either has been overtaken by events, or isn’t really that important in the long run."
Nevertheless, Brennan’s Kremlin mole remains the only known direct source for a central claim that Putin worked to elect Trump.‘Unusually Constrained’
Brennan has countered questions about the intelligence process he directed by insisting that his conclusions were broadly shared and corroborated. That is misleading.
During private briefings to Congress in December 2016, it was the CIA that aggressively pushed the belief that Putin had ordered a secret campaign to elect Trump, while FBI officials said that the intelligence was not conclusive. An unnamed official told the Washington Post that "a secret, new CIA assessment" made "direct and bald and unqualified" statements that the Russian government sought to elect Trump. But days later, "a senior FBI counterintelligence official" appearing before the committee gave "fuzzy and "ambiguous" remarks on the same issue. "It was shocking to hold these [CIA] statements made about Russian intentions and activities, and to hear this guy basically saying nothing with certainty and allowing that all was possible," an official who attended the briefing told the Post.
James Clapper: He suggested the Steele dossier influenced the Intelligence Community Assessment. Brennan denied it.
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File
A March 2018 report from Republican members of House Intelligence Committee fleshed out these concerns. It determined that the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which Brennan managed, was subjected to an "unusually constrained review and coordination process, which deviated from established CIA practice." Contrary to the widespread portrayal of a vetted, consensus-based intelligence product, the ICA was in fact "drafted by CIA analysts" working under Brennan and merely "coordinated with the NSA and the FBI." The report found that the ICA also suffered from "significant intelligence tradecraft failings that undermine confidence in the ICA judgments regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategic objectives for disrupting the U.S. election."
Another question is whether the Steele dossier influenced the ICA's production. Brennan has insisted in congressional testimony that the dossier was "not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community's assessment," and that he was unaware of the fact that Hillary Clinton's campaign had funded it. But multiple accounts, including in RealClearInvestigations, report that the dossier was inserted as an appendix to the ICA, and that Brennan personally advocated its inclusion. In an October 2017 interview with CNN, where he works as analyst, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that "some of the substantive content of the dossier we were able to corroborate in our Intelligence Community Assessment" – suggesting that it was indeed relied on.
President Obama's role in U.S. intelligence is yet one more mystery. In both the final months of his presidency and in the period since, Obama has said very little publicly about the Russia investigation. But he attended various meetings with top officials about Trump-Russia theories. It’s not clear what he said, but their efforts ramped up in the months that followed.
Most of Obama’s documented efforts occurred during his final days in office. On Jan. 5, 2017 he convened a meeting where he and top principals decided to withhold details about the ongoing FBI investigation of the incoming Trump administration. A week later his administration issued a new rule allowing the NSA to disseminate throughout the government “raw signals intelligence information.” Republicans viewed this as an effort to make it easy to leak damaging information against Trump and harder to identify the leakers. Also after the election, Obama made the curious decision to nix a proposal from inside his own administration to form a bipartisan commission that would have scrutinized Russian interference and the U.S. response.‘I Think I Suspected More Than There Actually Was’
Since stepping down from the CIA in January 2017, Brennan's incendiary rhetoric has fanned the flames. From MSNBC to the New York Times to Twitter, Brennan has denounced Trump as "treasonous," "in the pocket of Putin," and dismissed the president's now substantiated "claims of no collusion," as "hogwash." In the final weeks of the Mueller probe, Brennan boldly predicted a wave of indictments against Trump's inner circle for a Russia conspiracy. When Mueller completed his probe with no such indictments, Brennan changed his tone: "I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was," he told MSNBC.
Brennan is now a bitter Trump critic on MSNBC.
MSNBC/"The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell"
The Mueller report accepted Brennan’s claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. But as a previous RCI investigation found, the report's evidence failed to support its claim of a "sweeping and systematic" interference campaign. Nor did it show that such interference impacted the outcome.
It is still not clear why the Obama administration, with major media playing along, not only embraced the false Trump-Russia narrative but also used it as a rationale to spy on a presidential campaign and then on a presidency. Brennan’s reasons also remain opaque.
One early motivation may have been the intelligence community’s broad dislike of Flynn – Trump’s first national security adviser, who was one of the earliest targets of the collusion narrative.
Flynn had served as Obama’s head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, but fell out of favor by 2014, in part because of his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal and the CIA's arming of anti-Assad militants in Syria. Obama had specifically warned Trump against hiring Flynn.
A longtime critic of the bureaucracy, Flynn earned particular enmity from Brennan’s CIA with an effort to create a new Pentagon spy organization, Foreign Policy reported in 2015.
One of Trump’s first high-profile supporters, Flynn was also the subject of the first news articles – starting in February of 2016 – portraying members of the Trump campaign as overly sympathetic to Russia. In February 2017, “nine current and former officials” from multiple agencies leaked about him to the Washington Post over his contacts with the Russian ambassador -- an article that helped the Post win a Pulitzer Prize with the New York Times. The episode also brought Flynn much grief, including a widely questioned “process crime” conviction for lying to the FBI, which he is now trying to reverse. Meanwhile, a CIA “whistleblower” hired and placed in the White House by Brennan has provided the impetus for the current Democrat-led impeachment effort against President Trump.
The Barr-Durham probe is set to determine, among other things, whether Brennan’s actions and faulty information amounted to incompetence or something considerably worse.Tyler Durden Sat, 11/16/2019 - 23:30 Tags Politics
TALK OF THE TOWN: Kate attends the weekly £12 Monkey Music sessions with one-year-old Prince Louis. The classes are led by a monkey puppet who asks mums to sing with their babies.
Laurence Fox, 41, admits in an interview that his new album criticises 'woke culture', while he even reveals that he wanted to call one of the songs MeToo, but was banned by his record label.
This afternoon the city's iconic St Mark's Square was closed again ahead for the second time in three days, as rain lashed the rest of Italy and warnings were issued in Florence and Pisa.
The Good Morning Britain presenter (pictured) praised Newsnight interrogator Emily Maitlis's 'brilliant forensic dissection', but questioned why the Duke of York agreed to the sit down.
Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, 50, is living with his husband, Tony, 55, and his new boyfriend, Scott Hutchison, 25. The three men all live together with their five children in Florida.
House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Saturday attacked President Donald Trump as a [...]
Tim Morrison testified last month that he believed nothing improper occurred during Trump's Jul [...]
Louisiana's incumbent Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards was re-elected to another four year term b [...]
The Ukraine investigation is far from over. Indeed, by the time it is over—or when the essential fac [...]
South Dakota GOP Sen. Mike Rounds has drafted a bill that would help wealthy Chinese buy citizenship [...]
HONG KONG—Fresh violence erupted around a besieged Hong Kong university campus on Nov. 17 morning, a [...]
Democratic incumbent John Bel Edwards is projected to win a second term as Louisiana governor after [...]
TAIPEI, Taiwan—A giant world map appeared at Taiwan’s Liberty Square in Taipei on Nov. 16 after thre [...]
Prolific country music singer Marie Osmond’s 18-year-old son Michael Blosil jumped off the eighth-fl [...]
Shocking mobile phone footage depicts Indian police officers confronting a man holding a swaddled ba [...]
House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Saturday attacked President Donald Trump as a [...]
Tim Morrison testified last month that he believed nothing improper occurred during Trump's Jul [...]
Louisiana's incumbent Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards was re-elected to another four year term b [...]
The Ukraine investigation is far from over. Indeed, by the time it is over—or when the essential fac [...]
South Dakota GOP Sen. Mike Rounds has drafted a bill that would help wealthy Chinese buy citizenship [...]