Will Netanyahu Be Indicted? The Pressure’s on This Man to Decide

NY Times

When Avichai Mandelblit was being considered for the post of Israeli attorney general, the selection committee had a question: If there was enough evidence, would he prosecute the man who was then his boss, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

Mr. Mandelblit did not hesitate, according to a person involved in the vetting process.

Yes, he said.

Now that answer is about to be tested.

Mr. Mandelblit, a soft-spoken jurist, is expected to announce as early as Thursday whether he intends to indict the prime minister in any of three separate corruption cases. His decisions, coming amid an election campaign in which Mr. Netanyahu is seeking a fourth consecutive term, are bound to anger the prime minister’s supporters, his opponents, or both.

“Everybody in Israel knows today that Mandelblit will be accused by 50 percent of the population no matter what he decides,” said Yedidia Z. Stern, a law professor and senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute. “There is no way he can go out in the rain and not get wet.”

But the fact that there is nothing Mr. Mandelblit could do to make everyone happy may finally be liberating. “So he’ll get wet,” Mr. Stern said. “Now he can go out in the rain.”

The possible charges against Mr. Netanyahu are bribery, fraud and breach of trust. But neither side was waiting for a decision to start assailing the attorney general.

Mr. Netanyahu and his conservative allies have accused Mr. Mandelblit of caving in to pressure from the left and the liberal media, and racing toward an indictment before the April 9 election.

“One of the most fateful decisions in the country’s history, a decision that could bring the left to power, is being taken hastily and with record speed,” Mr. Netanyahu, who denies all wrongdoing, said this month.

Mr. Netanyahu’s critics on the left have accused Mr. Mandelblit of foot-dragging, questioning whether he has the stomach to turn on his former boss. Before he was Mr. Netanyahu’s choice for attorney general, Mr. Mandelblit served for three years as Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet secretary, a position of deep trust.

Given that intimate relationship, argued Eldad Yaniv, a leftist lawyer and activist, Mr. Mandelblit is better suited to be “an essential witness for the police investigation,” not the prosecutor.

In the parlor game that has captivated Israel in recent weeks, some on the right, though, fear that Mr. Mandelblit could take a tough line against his one-time patron to prove his independence, burnishing his credentials for what they suspect is his ambition to serve on the Supreme Court.

The attacks on Mr. Mandelblit have been intense and personal.

His father’s gravestone was desecrated.

Left-wing protesters heckled him at the supermarket and on his way to synagogue.

And good-government activists brought a conflict-of-interest case against him, because as the government’s top lawyer, he continued to hold one-on-one meetings with his main client, Mr. Netanyahu, while simultaneously investigating him as a criminal suspect.

Judges rejected the petition, saying the presumption was that Mr. Mandelblit could maintain a “Chinese Wall.”

The attorney general has said little publicly, either to respond to the criticism or comment on the cases. The Justice Ministry declined a request for an interview with him for this article.

In a brief interview with Israeli television, Mr. Mandelblit said his main responsibility was to protect the institution of the attorney general’s office. “I didn’t invent it, it was here for 70 years before,” he said, “and it will continue to exist for decades to come.”

A senior justice ministry official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the matter, said that Mr. Mandelblit was “not sitting in a dark room by himself,” and was consulting with a group of 20 to 30 experts.

But in the end, he said, the decision was Mr. Mandelblit’s alone.

The Israeli justice system has a record of independence, having convicted a former president, Moshe Katsav, of rape, and a former prime minister, Ehud Olmert, of bribery.

“We’ve prosecuted chief rabbis and mayors,” the official said. “There’s no doubt in my mind that Mandelblit will make the decision he thinks is the right decision. And I don’t envy him at all.”

In response to criticism from Mr. Netanyahu that announcing preliminary charges before the election could sway the vote without sufficient time for Mr. Netanyahu to plead his case in a formal hearing, Mr. Mandelblit’s office cited the principle of equality before the law and argued that the public had a right to know.

In a letter this month, the attorney general’s office also noted that it was Mr. Netanyahu’s government that moved the election, originally scheduled for November, forward by seven months. The early election, it said, “did not accelerate the work nor slow it down.”

Mr. Mandelblit’s life has been an endless balancing act. Friends and colleagues describe him as modest yet tenacious, with an mix of shyness and ambition, inscrutability, correctitude and warmth.

His father, Baruch, fought with the right-wing, pre-state militia and went on to become active in the Herut Party, a precursor to Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud. His mother, a friend said, came from the other side of the political map. Mr. Mandelblit grew up in a secular home in Tel Aviv but in his 20s became strictly Orthodox.

People close to him say that he never had political ambitions and that he did not befriend the Netanyahus. They maintain that they have no idea what his politics are.

When Mr. Mandelblit served as military advocate general, the army’s chief legal adviser and prosecutor, he welcomed complaints from human rights organizations critical of the military’s conduct toward Palestinians, saying they helped him do his job. He also approved contentious actions like the surprise bombing of a police academy in Gaza in late 2008 that killed dozens of police officers at the opening of a three-week war.

Mr. Netanyahu tapped Mr. Mandelblit as his cabinet secretary after being impressed by his defense of Israel against allegations of war crimes during the 2008-2009 Gaza war.

Mr. Netanyahu also needed an international law expert like Mr. Mandelblit to find creative ways to retroactively legalize settler outposts built without authorization on private Palestinian lands in the West Bank. Mr. Mandelblit suggested offering the Palestinian owners compensation or land swaps.

Mr. Mandelblit also led negotiations to resolve a dispute over the Western Wall in Jerusalem between Orthodox traditionalists who controlled the holy site and adherents of more progressive streams of Judaism who wanted a more egalitarian prayer space there. “He saw it as a religious calling,” said Anat Hoffman, a founder of the pluralistic, feminist Women of the Wall group.

After three years of talks, a deal was struck to upgrade a space where men and women could worship together.

When Mr. Netanyahu backtracked on the deal the following year, Mr. Mandelblit kept any frustration to himself.

Since beginning his six-year term in early 2016, Mr. Mandelblit has openly clashed with the government over bills he viewed as anti-democratic and unconstitutional.

When he believed the government had gone too far passing a law authorizing Jewish settlement built on private Palestinian land, he took the unusual step of refusing to defend it against challenges in the Supreme Court.

In September 2017, Mr. Mandelblit announced his intention to bring fraud charges against Sara Netanyahu, the prime minister’s wife, accusing her of misusing some $100,000 in public funds in her management of the official residence.

With that decision, said Mr. Stern, the law professor, Mr. Mandelblit “crossed the Rubicon.”

A version of this article appears in print on Feb. 28, 2019, on Page A7 of the New York edition with the headline: A Decision Sure to Infuriate Half of Israel: Will Netanyahu Be Indicted?. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

 

War on Al-Aqsa: What Price Netanyahu’s Victory

by Ramzy Baroud 

On February 18, members of extremist Jewish groups raided the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Occupied Al-Quds (Jerusalem). They clashed with Palestinian worshippers, as the settlers attempted to shut down the gate of Al-Aqsa itself.
The clashes involved the Israeli army and police as well, who opened fire and brutally assaulted Palestinians, leading to scores of injuries.
On February 19, the Israeli army carried out the unusual step of shutting down Al-Rahma Gate, which leads to a section of the Al-Aqsa compound that has, itself, been shut down by the Israeli army since 2003.
The provocative decision to seal the gate was clearly made in advance, and the lock and key have the fingerprints of Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
It is quite typical for Israeli politicians to carry out confrontational measures against Palestinians shortly before general elections are due. The nature of these measures is determined by the kind of political constituency that Israeli leaders aim to appease.
However, a war on Gaza, at least for now, is too risky an option for Netanyahu as it would take place too close to the April 9 elections date. Moreover, a botched Israeli attack on the Strip on November 11 caused Netanyahu a major embarrassment, forcing him to shelve the Gaza option for now.
That said, if the Israeli Prime Minister’s political standing grows too desperate in the coming weeks, a Gaza war may, once again, be placed on the table.
Indeed, the political union between Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, which was declared on February 21, has certainly upped the ante for Netanyahu who has assumed that his election victory is a foretold conclusion.
Gantz and Lapid merged their two parties into one election list called Kahol Lavan ("Blue and White"), the single most serious electoral challenge for Netanyahu in years.
For the time being, Netanyahu has decided to appeal to the most messianic religious segments of Israeli society in order to keep his challengers at bay. This should come as no surprise as the religious, ultra-national far right has been backbone of the Israeli leader’s coalitions for a decade.
In fact, weeks before the Gantz and Lapid union, Netanyahu had taken several measures to show signs of goodwill towards his religious constituency.
One such overture was made on January 28, when Netanyahu ordered the UN unarmed international observers to leave the Occupied Palestinian city of Al-Khalil, where a few hundred armed Jewish settlers have been a constant source of violence. The Jewish settlers of Qiryat Arba’a live under the protection of a massive Israeli army contingent. Both groups have worked together to terrorize the Palestinian inhabitants of the city for many years.
A joint statement issued by several humanitarian organizations, including Oxfam, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and Save the Children warned of the terrible fate awaiting the Palestinian community as a result of Netanyahu’s decision in Al-Khalil.
"Hundreds of civilians, including children, will see their safety put at risk by the withdrawal of international observers deployed in the city of Hebron," the statement read.
True to form, attacks by Jewish settlers followed, as media and rights group reports point to a surge of violence against Palestinian civilians in the city.
By unleashing the wrath of Jewish settlers in Al-Khalil, Netanyahu wanted to communicate to his supporters that he remains committed to their settlement project, an unworthy cause that violates international law and comes at the price of protracted human suffering.
Similarly, the Israeli decision to shut down Al-Rahma Gate on February 19 was a pre-calculated move, aimed at uniting the entirety of the Israeli right, including the most extremist of all religious and settler groups behind Netanyahu’s leadership in the coming elections.
In fact, a trend began a few weeks earlier. On January 9, the Palestinian Ministry of Endowment documented a sharp increase of Israeli violations, involving the Israeli army and Jewish settlers at holy Palestinian sites throughout the month of December. According to the Organization, over 100 such violations were reported, including 30 different incursions into Al-Aqsa itself.
A raid on Al-Aqsa on January 7 involved more than the usual suspects, but was led by Israeli Agriculture Minister and a strong ally of Netanyahu, Uri Ariel.
This type of politically-motivated and highly militarized "visits" to Al-Aqsa are reminiscent of the infamous “visit" by late Israeli right-wing leader, Ariel Sharon in September 2000. At the time, Sharon wanted to increase his chances of becoming Israel’s next prime minister, and to ensure that his arch-rival (then, interestingly enough, the very Benjamin Netanyahu) did not win the Likud Party nomination. The gambit worked. Sharon sparked the Second Palestinian Uprising (2000-05), leading to the deaths of thousands and, of course, securing his seat at the helm of Israeli politics for years.
Netanyahu, ever studious and resourceful, has, indeed, mastered the art of political manipulation as his mentor and, once again, Al-Aqsa is the platform for this sinister Israeli politicking.
Netanyahu’s decision to strike an alliance with Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) – the rebranded party of the extremist late Meir Kahane – further demonstrates how the current surge of violence around the holy Palestinian sites is a pre-calculated political move by Netanyahu and his government.
The fact that Netanyahu would bring into his future coalition groups that are the ideological mutation of the Jewish Defense League – which is classified as "terrorist organization" by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – speaks volumes about the changing relationship between the US and Israel. Thanks to Washington’s blind support of Israel, Netanyahu feels politically triumphant and invincible, even above US’ own laws.
However, to achieve his pathetic dream of being Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister, Netanyahu should be wary of the bloody consequences that his reckless action is sure to yield. Indeed, Netanyahu may be provoking the kind of violence that is much bigger than his own ability to contain.
Al-Aqsa Mosque has served not only as a religious symbol for Palestinians, but a national symbol as well, representing their coveted freedom and serving as a source of hope and unity over the course of generations.
While the blood of Palestinians is irrelevant in Netanyahu’s quest for political dominance, the international community should take immediate measures to prevent what could become an Israeli-induced bloodbath in the coming weeks.

Pakistan shoots down two Indian fighter jets

Pakistan military claims that they shot down two Indian aircraft inside Pakistani airspace and captured two pilots.

by Asad Hashim

 

Islamabad, Pakistan - Pakistan shot down two Indian air force fighter jets and launched air strikes at six targets in Indian-administered Kashmir, its military says, in a dramatic ratcheting up of tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

The Indian air force jets were shot down over Pakistani airspace in Pakistan-administered Kashmir on Wednesday, a day after Indian aircraft launched air raids on Pakistani territory, Pakistani military spokesperson Major General Asif Ghafoor said.

Two Indian air force pilots were taken into custody, Ghafoor said, with one of them being treated for wounds at a military hospital.

India's foreign ministry spokesperson has confirmed that one of their pilots is missing and that they are "ascertaining the facts".
"In this engagement, we have unfortunately lost one Mig-21. The pilot is missing in action. Pakistan has claimed that he is in their custody," Raveesh Kumar told a briefing.
Kumar also announced that a Pakistan jet was hit as it took part in an operation "to target military installations on the Indian side". "The Pakistani aircraft was seen by ground forces falling from the sky on Pakistan."
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan called on Wednesday for talks with India and hoped "better sense" would prevail so that both sides could de-escalate.
"History tells us that wars are full of miscalculation. My question is that given the weapons we have can we afford miscalculation," Khan said during a brief televised broadcast to the nation. "We should sit down and talk."
Separately, Ghafoor said that Pakistani aircraft had fired on six targets in Indian-administered Kashmir, hitting "open spaces" as a demonstration of Pakistan's capability to hit Indian targets. The intention, the military spokesperson said, was not to cause any civilian or military casualties.
"[The] sole purpose was to demonstrate our right, will and capability for self-defence," read a Pakistani foreign office statement released shortly after the attacks. "We have no intention of escalation but are fully prepared to do so if forced into that paradigm."
Speaking to reporters at military headquarters in Rawalpindi, Ghafoor said Pakistan did not wish to escalate hostilities and urged India to engage in dialogue.
"This was not a retaliation in a true sense, but to tell Pakistan has capability; we can do it, but we want to be responsible, we don't want an escalation, we don't want a war," he told a news conference.

Airspace closed

Police officials in Indian-administered Kashmir said that two pilots and a civilian had died after an Indian air force plane crashed in Kashmir, but did not confirm if the plane had been shot down by Pakistani forces.
Also on Wednesday, Pakistan closed its airspace for all commercial flights, the Civil Aviation Authority said in a notice.
Several airports in northern India were also closed, forcing airlines to cancel service to at least six cities.
Tensions have been high between the two nuclear powers since a February 14 suicide attack killed at least 42 Indian security forces personnel in the Indian-administered Kashmir town of Pulwama.
India blamed Pakistan for "controlling" that attack, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed to take military action to retaliate. The attack was claimed by armed group Jaish-e-Muhammad, which has had a presence in Pakistan. The Pakistan government and military deny any involvement in the attack.
On Tuesday, Indian aircraft entered Pakistani airspace in Pakistan-administered Kashmir to fire four bombs that landed in the village of Jaba, about 10km outside of Kashmir in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
In a foreign ministry statement, India claimed it had destroyed a "Jaish-e-Muhammad camp" in Jaba, but Pakistan's military and witnesses at the scene said the bombs struck a mostly uninhabited forest. One man was wounded in the attacks, with local hospital officials reporting no other casualties.
It was the first time Indian jets had entered and fired while within Pakistani airspace since a war between the two countries in 1971.
India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir, which both claim in full but administer separate portions of, divided by the Line of Control.

Jewish Rohingya Justice Network Statement on The Genocide of The Rohingya

The American Jewish community stands united against the genocide of the Rohingya people and the persecution of all ethnic minorities in Burma.

Inspired by the Jewish commitment to justice, the Jewish Rohingya Justice Network (JRJN)* works to promote a robust U.S. and international response to the Rohingya genocide. Convened by American Jewish World Service (AJWS), we are the coalition of 19 American Jewish organizations that together encompass the support of millions of American Jews, including all four major branches of American Judaism. Together, we are committed to ending the atrocities against the Rohingya people. 

“Today, we stand up as Jews and Americans against the ongoing genocide of the Rohingya people by the Burmese military, as we believe deeply from our own historical experience and understand from our ethical values that we cannot remain silent when any people is on the brink of destruction simply because of race, ethnicity or religion. American Jewish World Service, which provides direct support to the Rohingya and other oppressed ethnic minorities and human rights activists in Burma, is proud to join with the millions of Jews represented by the Jewish Rohingya Justice Network to demand that the killing cease and that justice is pursued, “ said Robert Bank, President and CEO of American Jewish World Service.

“The American Jewish community is united in the belief that the atrocities being perpetrated against the Rohingya people constitute a genocide—the deliberate and intentional destruction of a community based on ethnicity and religion,” said David Bernstein, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and a member of the Jewish Rohingya Justice Network. “Recently, JCPA’s members, which include the four denominations, unanimously voted to adopt a resolution expressing this belief and calling on the United States government and the international community to take immediate action.”

The Jewish Rohingya Justice Network recognizes that the Rohingya people are facing a genocide. “The Myanmar [Burmese] military has been slowly erasing the Rohingya for quite some time, fanning the flames of hate and dehumanization,” said Ann Strimov Durbin, director of advocacy and grantmaking at JRJN member Jewish World Watch. Burmese military forces escalated their coordinated campaign against the Rohingya people on August 25, 2017. Soldiers, along with Burmese civilians, burned Rohingya villages to the ground and indiscriminately massacred Rohingya men, women and children. More than 720,000 people were forced to flee to refugee camps in Bangladesh.

“We will not stand idly by while this calculated destruction of human beings continues apace. We are committed to calling this act of genocide by its name, and to taking action before it’s too late,” expressed Rabbi Jay Kornsgold, chair of the Rabbinical Assembly Social Justice Commission. Naomi Steinberg, Vice President for Policy and Advocacy at HIAS, said, “In the face of another genocide that aimed to rid a country of an entire ethnic and religious group, we must let our elected officials know where we stand. HIAS wants the U.S. to take a leadership role to help ensure that the rights of Rohingya refugees, and those still in Rakhine State, are respected.”

Credible reports from the UN Fact Finding Mission, the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG), and The US Holocaust Memorial Museum, now say sufficient evidence exists that the Burmese military maintained a clear intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Rohingya people – the legal hallmarks of the crime of genocide. The United States Holocaust Memorial Burmese military committed ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Rohingya.” These statements are based on irrefutable facts. 

“In the Talmud, our sages teach that if we can speak out against injustice but choose not to, we become complicit in said injustices. Our history as the Jewish people has shown us the grave consequences when people fail to act in the face of genocide. Now, as we witness the genocide of the Rohingya people, we call upon the United States government to hold those responsible accountable and work toward ensuring the complete restoration of human rights for the Rohingya community,” said Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. 

Throughout Jewish history, we have known what it is like to face genocide, expulsion, and exclusion from society. The persecution and government-sanctioned brutality against Rohingya people echoes the persecution suffered by Jews throughout history. The JRJN is acting powerfully on our promise that “never again” means no genocide ever again against any people.

The Jewish community calls upon the U.S. government to respond to the magnitude of this genocide by leading in bringing justice for the Rohingya people. We will continue be at the forefront of this fight, working together to build a unified response to the Rohingya crisis.

The Jewish Rohingya Justice Network is the powerful consortium of Jewish NGOs advocating for the rights of the persecuted Rohingya people of Burma. JRJN’s membership includes 19 organizations and all four major branches of American Judaism.

*Members include American Jewish World Service, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, American Jewish Committee, Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, Union for Reform Judaism, HIAS, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish World Watch, JACOB, The Orthodox Union, T’ruah, Reconstructing Judaism, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, and the Rabbinical Assembly. Allies include Hebrew College, The New York Board of Rabbis, Uri L’Tzedek, Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, The Shalom Center.

  * * *

About American Jewish World Service (AJWS)

American Jewish World Service (AJWS) is the leading Jewish organization working to pursue justice and fight poverty in the developing world. By supporting hundreds of social change organizations in 19 countries, we respond to the most pressing issues of our time—from disasters, genocide and hunger to the persecution of women and minorities worldwide. With Jewish values and a global reach, AJWS is making a difference in millions of lives and bringing a more just and equitable world closer for all. Learn more at www.ajws.org.

About American Jewish World Service’s work in Burma

For more than 15 years, AJWS has supported the human rights of ethnic minorities in Burma, including the Rohingya people. AJWS provides direct financial support to more than 30 human rights organizations in Burma that have been working to advance the rights of minority ethnic groups and to create a truly pluralistic and democratic society. Please read more about our work in Burma here.

For all media inquiries, please contact:
David L. Marcus
212.792.2857

Michael Cohen testifies in the US Congress against President Trump - full transcript

You can read the full text of the testimony by clicking here, which is also shared below.
----

I am ashamed that I chose to take part in concealing Mr. Trump’s illicit acts rather than listening to my own conscience.

I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is.

He is a racist.

He is a conman.

He is a cheat.

He was a presidential candidate who knew that Roger Stone was talking with Julian Assange about a WikiLeaks drop of Democratic National Committee emails.

I will explain each in a few moments.

I am providing the Committee today with several documents. These include:

• A copy of a check Mr. Trump wrote from his personal bank account – after he became president - to reimburse me for the hush money payments I made to cover up his affair with an adult film star and prevent damage to his campaign;

• Copies of financial statements for 2011 – 2013 that he gave to such institutions as Deutsche Bank;

• A copy of an article with Mr. Trump’s handwriting on it that reported on the auction of a portrait of himself – he arranged for the bidder ahead of time and then reimbursed the bidder from the account of his non-profit charitable foundation, with the picture now hanging in one of his country clubs; and

• Copies of letters I wrote at Mr. Trump’s direction that threatened his high school, colleges, and the College Board not to release his grades or SAT scores.

I hope my appearance here today, my guilty plea, and my work with law enforcement agencies are steps along a path of redemption that will restore faith in me and help this country understand our president better.

***

Before going further, I want to apologize to each of you and to Congress as a whole.

The last time I appeared before Congress, I came to protect Mr. Trump. Today, I’m here to tell the truth about Mr. Trump.

I lied to Congress about when Mr. Trump stopped negotiating the Moscow Tower project in Russia. I stated that we stopped negotiating in January 2016. That was false – our negotiations continued for months later during the campaign.

Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not how he operates.

In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell 5 me there’s no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie.

There were at least a half-dozen times between the Iowa Caucus in January 2016 and the end of June when he would ask me “How’s it going in Russia?” – referring to the Moscow Tower project.

You need to know that Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before I gave it.

To be clear: Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. He lied about it because he never expected to win the election. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project.

And so I lied about it, too – because Mr. Trump had made clear to me, through his personal statements to me that we both knew were false and through his lies to the country, that he wanted me to lie. And he made it 6 clear to me because his personal attorneys reviewed my statement before I gave it to Congress.

****

Over the past two years, I have been smeared as “a rat” by the President of the United States. The truth is much different, and let me take a brief moment to introduce myself.

My name is Michael Dean Cohen. I am a blessed husband of 24 years and a father to an incredible daughter and son. When I married my wife, I promised her that I would love her, cherish her, and protect her. As my father said countless times throughout my childhood, “you my wife, and you my children, are the air that I breathe.” To my Laura, my Sami, and my Jake, there is nothing I wouldn’t do to protect you.

I have always tried to live a life of loyalty, friendship, generosity, and compassion – qualities my parents ingrained in my siblings and me since childhood. My father survived the Holocaust thanks to the compassion and selfless acts of others. He was helped by many who put themselves in harm’s way to do what they knew was right.

That is why my first instinct has always been to help those in need. Mom and Dad…I am sorry that I let you down.

As many people that know me best would say, I am the person they would call at 3AM if they needed help. I proudly remember being the emergency contact for many of my children’s friends when they were growing up because their parents knew that I would drop everything and care for them as if they were my own.

Yet, last fall I pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with Individual #1.

For the record: Individual #1 is President Donald J. Trump.

It is painful to admit that I was motivated by ambition at times. It is even more painful to admit that many times I ignored my conscience and acted loyal to a man when I should not have. Sitting here today, it seems unbelievable that I was so mesmerized by Donald Trump that I was willing to do things for him that I knew were absolutely wrong.

For that reason, I have come here to apologize to my family, to the government, and to the American people.

Accordingly, let me now tell you about Mr. Trump.

I got to know him very well, working very closely with him for more than 10 years, as his Executive Vice President and Special Counsel and then personal attorney when he became President. When I first met Mr. Trump, he was a successful entrepreneur, a real estate giant, and an icon. Being around Mr. Trump was intoxicating. When you were in his presence, you felt like you were involved in something greater than yourself — that you were somehow changing the world.

I wound up touting the Trump narrative for over a decade. That was my job. Always stay on message. Always defend. It monopolized my life. At first, I worked mostly on real estate developments and other business transactions. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Trump brought me into his personal life and private dealings. Over time, I saw his true character revealed.

Mr. Trump is an enigma. He is complicated, as am I. He has both good and bad, as do we all. But the bad far outweighs the good, and since taking office, he has become the worst version of himself. He is capable of behaving kindly, but he is not kind. He is capable of committing acts of generosity, but he is not generous. He is capable of being loyal, but he is fundamentally disloyal.

Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation – only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Mr. Trump would often say, this campaign was going to be the “greatest infomercial in political history.”

He never expected to win the primary. He never expected to win the general election. The campaign – for him – was always a marketing opportunity.

I knew early on in my work for Mr. Trump that he would direct me to lie to further his business interests. I am ashamed to say, that when it was for a real estate mogul in the private sector, I considered it trivial. As the President, I consider it significant and dangerous.

I knew early on in my work for Mr. Trump that he would direct me to lie to further his business interests. I am ashamed to say, that when it was for a real estate mogul in the private sector, I considered it trivial. As the President, I consider it significant and dangerous.

But in the mix, lying for Mr. Trump was normalized, and no one around him questioned it. In fairness, no one around him today questions it, either.

A lot of people have asked me about whether Mr. Trump knew about the release of the hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead of time. The answer is yes.

As I earlier stated, Mr. Trump knew from Roger Stone in advance about the WikiLeaks drop of emails.

In July 2016, days before the Democratic convention, I was in Mr. Trump’s office when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone. Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone. Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of “wouldn’t that be great.”

Mr. Trump is a racist. The country has seen Mr. Trump court white supremacists and bigots. You have heard him call poorer countries “shitholes.”

He once asked me if I could name a country run by a black person that wasn’t a “shithole.” This was when Barack Obama was President of the United States.

While we were once driving through a struggling neighborhood in Chicago, he commented that only black people could live that way.

And, he told me that black people would never vote for him because they were too stupid.

And yet I continued to work for him.

Mr. Trump is a cheat.

As previously stated, I’m giving the Committee today three years of President Trump’s financial statements, from 2011-2013, which he gave to Deutsche Bank to inquire about a loan to buy the Buffalo Bills and to Forbes. These are Exhibits 1a, 1b, and 1c to my testimony.

It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes, such as trying to be listed among the wealthiest people in Forbes, and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes.

I am sharing with you two newspaper articles, side by side, that are examples of Mr. Trump inflating and deflating his assets, as I said, to suit his financial interests. These are Exhibit 2 to my testimony.

As I noted, I’m giving the Committee today an article he wrote on, and sent me, that reported on an auction of a portrait of Mr. Trump. This is Exhibit 3A to my testimony.

Mr. Trump directed me to find a straw bidder to purchase a portrait of him that was being auctioned at an Art Hamptons Event. The objective was to ensure that his portrait, which was going to be auctioned last, would go for the highest price of any portrait that afternoon. The portrait was purchased by the fake bidder for $60,000. Mr. Trump directed the Trump Foundation, which is supposed to be a charitable organization, to repay the fake bidder, despite keeping the art for himself. Please see Exhibit 3B to my testimony.

And it should come as no surprise that one of my more common responsibilities was that Mr. Trump directed me to call business owners, many of whom were small businesses, that were owed money for their services and told them no payment or a reduced payment would be coming. When I advised Mr. Trump of my success, he actually reveled in it.

And yet, I continued to work for him.

Mr. Trump is a conman.

He asked me to pay off an adult film star with whom he had an affair, and to lie to his wife about it, which I did. Lying to the First Lady is one of my biggest regrets. She is a kind, good person. I respect her greatly – and she did not deserve that.

I am giving the Committee today a copy of the $130,000 wire transfer from me to Ms. Clifford’s attorney during the closing days of the presidential campaign that was demanded by Ms. Clifford to maintain her silence about her affair with Mr. Trump. This is Exhibit 4 to my testimony.

Mr. Trump directed me to use my own personal funds from a Home Equity Line of Credit to avoid any money being traced back to him that could negatively impact his campaign. I did that, too – without bothering to consider whether that was improper, much less whether it was the right thing to do or how it would impact me, my family, or the public.

I am going to jail in part because of my decision to help Mr. Trump hide that payment from the American people before they voted a few days later.

As Exhibit 5 to my testimony shows, I am providing a copy of a $35,000 check that President Trump personally signed from his personal bank 14 account on August 1, 2017 – when he was President of the United States – pursuant to the cover-up, which was the basis of my guilty plea, to reimburse me – the word used by Mr. Trump’s TV lawyer — for the illegal hush money I paid on his behalf. This $35,000 check was one of 11 check installments that was paid throughout the year – while he was President.

The President of the United States thus wrote a personal check for the payment of hush money as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws. You can find the details of that scheme, directed by Mr. Trump, in the pleadings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

So picture this scene – in February 2017, one month into his presidency, I’m visiting President Trump in the Oval Office for the first time. It’s truly awe-inspiring, he’s showing me around and pointing to different paintings, and he says to me something to the effect of…Don’t worry, Michael, your January and February reimbursement checks are coming. They were FedExed from New York and it takes a while for that to get through the White House system. As he promised, I received the first check for the reimbursement of $70,000 not long thereafter.

When I say conman, I’m talking about a man who declares himself brilliant but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores.

As I mentioned, I’m giving the Committee today copies of a letter I sent at Mr. Trump’s direction threatening these schools with civil and criminal actions if Mr. Trump’s grades or SAT scores were ever disclosed without his permission. These are Exhibit 6.

The irony wasn’t lost on me at the time that Mr. Trump in 2011 had strongly criticized President Obama for not releasing his grades. As you can see in Exhibit 7, Mr. Trump declared “Let him show his records” after calling President Obama “a terrible student.”

The sad fact is that I never heard Mr. Trump say anything in private that led me to believe he loved our nation or wanted to make it better. In fact, he did the opposite.

When telling me in 2008 that he was cutting employees’ salaries in half – including mine – he showed me what he claimed was a $10 million IRS tax refund, and he said that he could not believe how stupid the government was for giving “someone like him” that much money back.

During the campaign, Mr. Trump said he did not consider Vietnam Veteran, and Prisoner of War, Senator John McCain to be “a hero” because he likes people who weren’t captured. At the same time, Mr. Trump tasked me to handle the negative press surrounding his medical deferment from the Vietnam draft.

Mr. Trump claimed it was because of a bone spur, but when I asked for medical records, he gave me none and said there was no surgery. He told me not to answer the specific questions by reporters but rather offer simply the fact that he received a medical deferment.

He finished the conversation with the following comment. “You think I’m stupid, I wasn’t going to Vietnam.”

I find it ironic, President Trump, that you are in Vietnam right now.

And yet, I continued to work for him.

Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions.

Sometime in the summer of 2017, I read all over the media that there had been a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 involving Don Jr. and others from the campaign with Russians, including a representative of the Russian government, and an email setting up the meeting with the subject line, “Dirt on Hillary Clinton.” Something clicked in my mind. I remember being in the room with Mr. Trump, probably in early June 2016, when something peculiar happened. Don Jr. came into the room and walked behind his father’s desk – which in itself was unusual. People didn’t just walk behind Mr. Trump’s desk to talk to him. I recalled Don Jr. leaning over to his father and speaking in a low voice, which I could clearly hear, and saying: “The meeting is all set.” I remember Mr. Trump saying, “Ok good…let me know.”

What struck me as I looked back and thought about that exchange between Don Jr. and his father was, first, that Mr. Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Don Jr. had the worst judgment of anyone in the world. And also, that Don Jr. would never set up any meeting of any significance alone – and certainly not without checking with his father.

I also knew that nothing went on in Trump world, especially the campaign, without Mr. Trump’s knowledge and approval. So, I concluded that Don Jr. was referring to that June 2016 Trump Tower meeting about dirt on Hillary with the Russian representative when he walked behind his dad’s desk that day — and that Mr. Trump knew that was the meeting Don Jr. was talking about when he said, “That’s good…let me know.”

Over the past year or so, I have done some real soul searching. I see now that my ambition and the intoxication of Trump power had much to do with the bad decisions I made.

To you, Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan, the other members of this Committee, and the other members of the House and Senate, I am sorry for my lies and for lying to Congress.

To our nation, I am sorry for actively working to hide from you the truth about Mr. Trump when you needed it most.

For those who question my motives for being here today, I understand. I have lied, but I am not a liar. I have done bad things, but I am not a bad man. I have fixed things, but I am no longer your “fixer,” Mr. Trump.

I am going to prison and have shattered the safety and security that I tried so hard to provide for my family. My testimony certainly does not diminish the pain I caused my family and friends – nothing can do that. And I have never asked for, nor would I accept, a pardon from President Trump.

And, by coming today, I have caused my family to be the target of personal, scurrilous attacks by the President and his lawyer – trying to intimidate me from appearing before this panel. Mr. Trump called me a “rat” for choosing to tell the truth – much like a mobster would do when one of his men decides to cooperate with the government.

As Exhibit 8 shows, I have provided the Committee with copies of Tweets that Mr. Trump posted, attacking me and my family – only someone burying his head in the sand would not recognize them for what they are: encouragement to someone to do harm to me and my family.

I never imagined that he would engage in vicious, false attacks on my family – and unleash his TV-lawyer to do the same. I hope this committee and all members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will make it clear: As a nation, we should not tolerate attempts to intimidate witnesses before congress and attacks on family are out of bounds and not acceptable.

I wish to especially thank Speaker Pelosi for her statements in Exhibit 9 to protect this institution and me, and the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Adam Schiff and Chairman Cummings for likewise defending this institution and my family against the attacks by Mr. Trump, and also the many Republicans who have admonished the President as well.

I am not a perfect man. I have done things I am not proud of, and I will live with the consequences of my actions for the rest of my life.

But today, I get to decide the example I set for my children and how I attempt to change how history will remember me. I may not be able to change the past, but I can do right by the American people here today.

Thank you for your attention. I am happy to answer the Committee’s questions.

#####

Forced to Resign in 24 hours for anti-war view in Modi's India

India attacked a border town in Pakistan creating a situation that may turn out similar responses from Pakistan. It was a haughty move by Modi's Hindutvadi government, which created an environment of hate crime against minority Muslims and Christians. The so-called terrorist attack by a disgruntled Kashmiri mujahid that killed dozens of Indian occupation forces was not a question of why but when, something that Indian government and its extremist Hindus have not come to grip with.

War does not solve any problem but makes things worse. Sadly, when hysteria for war runs high it is always difficult to speak out the plain truth, which is unpopular.
Read the story below about an academic who spoke her mind and how she was treated in Modi's India.
----------
Madhumita Ray, an assistant professor with the School of Rural Management in KIIT University, had to resign from her post for her anti-war and ‘anti-army’ views in a discussion on leading Odia TV channel Kanak TV on February 18.

The nationwide war mongering that has followed the Pulwama terrorist attack claimed its first victim in Odisha when Madhumita Ray, an assistant professor with the School of Rural Management in KIIT University, had to resign from her post for her anti-war and ‘anti-army’ views in a discussion on leading Odia TV channel Kanak TV on February 18. Notably, Achyut Samanta, the founder of KIIT, is also a Rajya Sabha member from the ruling Biju Janata Dal (BJD).

There was a heated debate between Ray and a retired Colonel of Indian Army Purna Chandra Patnaik on the desirability of war with Pakistan with the former sticking to her ‘no war’ views and calling for a political process in Kashmir and the Colonel calling her an ‘anti-national’ on live television. Significantly, this particular edition of the popular show ‘Manoranjan Mishra Live’, however, is not available on the channel’s website.

Ray says she was asked to resign ‘within 24 hours’ by the university authorities two days after the show was aired on February 18 despite the fact that she was entitled to a one-month notice as per the terms of service. “I chose to resign rather than give up my freedom of expression. The next morning I got a message saying my resignation had been accepted, and within 15 minutes I had a man from HR in my room asking me to sign the relieving letter. I did not want to engage with anyone after that, so February 21 was my last day,” she says.

 

But the university flatly denied the allegation that Ray was forced to resign. “She has resigned citing some personal reason as per the information received from the HR department of our institute,” Ms. Shradhanjali Nayak, chief public relations officer (CPRO) of KIIT, told Outlook.

Asked why Kanak TV took down the show from its website, Tanaya Patnaik, Executive Editor, Eastern Media Limited (EML), the media house that owns the channel, said; “First of all, the show was never uploaded. So, there is no question of taking it down. Second, it did not go down well with the general sentiment at that point. That’s why we didn’t want to aggravate the issue further,” she told Outlook.

But how did the channel determine that the general sentiment was against the views expressed by Ray during the show? “Well, our Editor Manoranjan Mishra received a lot of phone calls after the show was aired. Then there were plenty of reactions on the social media too,” she said.

Patnaik, daughter of Soumya Ranjan Patnaik, the owner of EML and BJD Rajya Sabha member, also denied that the decision had anything to do with her father’s political affiliation. “It’s completely baseless. The decision had nothing to do with politics. It is just that given the mood of the people, we did not want to exacerbate the issue further,” Tanaya said.

Notwithstanding the denial of Tanaya Patnaik, there is no end to speculation that the decision not to upload the show on its website was taken after a nudge from the party supremo. What lends a semblance of credibility to the speculation is the fact that like the senior Patnaik, KIIT founder Achyuta Samanta is also a RS MP.

BJD supremo and Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik has acted according to the ‘public mood’ earlier too, most notably in the Abhijit Iyer case when he suddenly decided to drop all charges against the Delhi based defence analyst after keeping him in jail for over 40 days for some ‘anti-Odia’ tweets once he realised that sympathy for Iyer was growing among the people due to his long incarceration.

 

UNSC Report: Myanmar

Myanmar

Expected Council Action

The Council anticipates a possible briefing in February on the situation in Myanmar from Special Envoy Christine Schraner Burgener, who visited the country at the end of January. There may also be interest in hearing from UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore and High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi, who are both planning to visit Myanmar in the coming weeks. 

Key Recent Developments

In consultations on 16 January, Council members were briefed on Myanmar by Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo, Grandi, and Assistant Secretary-General and Director of the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific for the UN Development Programme Haoliang Xu. Fighting between armed separatists and the national security forces has been ongoing for several months, but the 4 January attack on four military border posts by the Arakan Army, a separatist group demanding greater autonomy for Rakhine State, signalled an escalation of the violence.

On 24 October 2018, Marzuki Darusman, chair of the fact-finding mission of the Human Rights Council (HRC), briefed the Security Council on the mission’s report. Among its findings was that Myanmar security forces had committed what amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity in their treatment of several ethnic and religious minorities in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States and that there was sufficient information regarding the treatment of the Rohingya ethnic group in Rakhine State for senior officials in the Tatmadaw to be investigated to determine their liability for genocide.

The meeting had been requested on 16 October by nine members of the Council—Côte d’Ivoire, France, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Sweden, the US and the UK. On 18 October, Bolivia, China, Equatorial Guinea and Russia responded with a letter to the president of the Council expressing their objection to such a briefing on the grounds that there was no precedent for a briefing from an HRC special mechanism on a country-specific issue, and that it was not within the mission’s mandate. The provisional agenda was put to a vote, and received nine votes in favour, three votes against, and three abstentions. In the briefing, Darusman stressed the importance of accountability and urged the Council to impose sanctions against those responsible for serious crimes under international law. He also called for the Council’s support for an independent inquiry into UN involvement in Myanmar since 2011.

Burgener visited Myanmar from 19 to 28 January. During her visit she met with government ministers, Rakhine State government officials, political parties, humanitarian agencies, and civil society. Among the issues covered were plans to develop the state freedom of movement in Rakhine State. She also visited displacement camps that have housed Rohingya Muslims since 2012 and visited Rakhine and Hindu refugee camps in Sittwe. She also met representatives of the Tatmadaw.

Human Rights-Related Developments

In a statement on 18 January, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar Yanghee Lee expressed alarm over escalating violence in northern and central Rakhine state and in Chin state. Since November 2018 the Myanmar military has been engaged in heavy fighting, resulting in deaths and injuries to civilians and the displacement of 5,000 people, the statement said. Lee called for full and unfettered humanitarian access to the region following a 10 January order by the Rakhine State government blocking humanitarian activities of international agencies in several areas.

Issues and Options

Key issues include:

* the lack of appropriate conditions for the repatriation of Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh;

* restricted access in Rakhine state, affecting the provision of humanitarian aid;

* the need for full implementation of the memorandum of understanding between the Myanmar government, UNDP and                UNHCR, as well as of the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on the Rakhine State, which was established at the      request of the State Counsellor of Myanmar, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and mandated to make recommendations to improve        the  situation in Rakhine State; and

* addressing accountability issues.

The Council could consider a visiting mission, possibly of a sub-group of its members, to assess developments since its visit in April-May 2018. It could also consider a resolution setting out a regular reporting cycle which could provide for more regular Council oversight.

A briefing by Burgener and others who have visited the region can inform the Council of the impact of the increased instability in Rakhine state on efforts to repatriate Rohingya refugees and on the national peace process, which are of concern to members. Briefers will also be able to provide an update on any progress made in the implementation of the trilateral MOU.

An issue is the Myanmar government’s reluctance to work with the Council. Whether it might be useful to have greater involvement of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in working with the Myanmar government on humanitarian assistance and repatriation of refugees may be worth consideration.

Council Dynamics 

Council members appear open to hearing from the Special Envoy and others who have recently visited Myanmar. However, agreement on a robust product may be more difficult. In December 2018, Council members were negotiating a draft resolution on Myanmar that would have set out a regular reporting cycle on the implementation of the recommendations of the Advisory Commission and progress in investigations of alleged human rights violations. However, China and Russia did not engage on the resolution, and the UK, the penholder on Myanmar, decided in late December not to table the draft for a vote. While it is not off the table, it is unclear when the UK, which has pursued a policy of incremental pressure on this issue, will take it up again.

It is too early to say how the change in the Council’s composition might affect support for its more active engagement on Myanmar. While China is seen as having the potential to play a key role, given its geographic proximity and its more active role in the peace process, its position has been that the Council should not get too involved, and it is likely to continue to advocate a bilateral approach to the repatriation of refugees from Bangladesh.

Among those who joined the Council in January, Indonesia is in the unique position of being a member of ASEAN, which includes Myanmar. It brings a deep understanding of the Myanmar situation to the Council, but its association with ASEAN could also be a complicating factor. Indonesia and Kuwait are also members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has called for the protection of the rights of the Rohingya. 

UN DOCUMENTS ON MYANMAR

Security Council Presidential Statements
6 November 2017S/PRST/2017/22	This was a presidential statement on the situation in the Rakhine.
Secretary-General’s Reports
29 October 2018S/2018/956	This was the Secretary-General’s report on children and armed conflict in Myanmar.
31 January 2019
Security Council Letters
29 October 2018S/2018/956	This was the Secretary-General’s report on children and armed conflict in Myanmar.
16 October 2018S/2018/926	This was a letter from nine Council members, requesting a briefing by the Chairperson of the Human Rights Council’s Fact-Finding Mission.
Security Council Meeting Records
24 October 2018S/PV.8381	Marzuki Darusman, the chair of the Independent International Fact‑Finding Mission on Myanmar, briefed the Council on the Mission’s 27 August report.
Human Rights Council Documents
12 September 2018A/HRC/39/64	This was the report of the independent international fact-finding mission on Myanmar.