31 января, 23:59

Приставы принудительно доставили Навального в Киров

В среду утром состоится судебное заседание по делу «Кировлеса»

31 января, 23:55

The Other 'Ban' That Was Quietly Announced Last Week

Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com, Most of the world is in an uproar right now over the travel ban that Donald Trump hastily imposed late last week on citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries. But there was another ban that was quietly proposed last week, and this one has far wider implications: a ban on cash. The European Union’s primary executive authority, known as the European Commission, issued a “Road Map” last week to initiate continent-wide legislation against cash. There are already a number of anti-cash legislative measures that have been passed in individual European member states. In France, for example, it’s illegal to make purchases of more than 1,000 euros in cash. And any cash deposit or withdrawal to/from a French bank account exceeding 10,000 euros within a single month must be reported to the authorities. Italy banned cash payments above 1,000 euros back in 2011; Spain has banned cash payments in excess of 2,500 euros. And the European Central Bank announced last year that it would stop production of 500-euro notes, which will eventually phase them out altogether. But apparently these disparate rules don’t go far enough. According to the Commission, the presence of cash controls in some EU countries, coupled with the lack of cash controls in other EU countries, creates loopholes for criminals and terrorists. So that’s why the European Commission is now working to standardize a ban on cash, or at least implement severe restrictions and reporting, across the entire EU. The Commission’s roadmap indicates that forthcoming legislation, likely to be enacted next year. This is happening. And it may serve as the perfect case study for the rest of the world. A growing bandwagon of academics and policy makers in other countries, including the United States, UK, Australia, etc. has been calling for prohibitions against cash. It’s always the same song: cash is a tool for criminals and terrorists. Harvard economist Ken Rogoff is a leading voice in the War on Cash; his new book The Curse of Cash claims that physical currency makes the world less safe. Rogoff further states “all that cash” is being used for “tax evasion, corruption, terrorism, the drug trade, human trafficking. . .” Wow. Sounds pretty grim. Apparently pulling out a $5 bill to tip your valet makes you a member of ISIS now. Of course, this is total nonsense. A recent Gallup poll from last year shows that a healthy 24% of Americans still use cash to make all or most of their purchases, compared to the other options like debit cards, credit cards, checks, bank transfers, PayPal, etc. And the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco released a ton of data late last year showing that: 52% of grocery purchases, along with personal care products, are made in cash 62% of purchases up to $10 are made in cash But even at much higher amounts over $100, nearly 1 in 5 purchases are still made using physical cash This doesn’t sound life nefarious criminal activity to me. It seems that perfectly normal, law-abiding citizens still use cash on a regular basis. But that doesn’t seem to matter. A bunch of university professors who have probably never been within 1,000 miles of ISIS think that a ban on cash would make us all safer from terrorists. You probably recall the horrible Christmas attack in Berlin last month in which a Tunisian man drove a truck through a crowded pedestrian mall, killing 12 people. Well, the attacker was found with 1,000 euros in cash. The logic, therefore, is to ban cash. I’m sure he was also found wearing pants. Perhaps we should ban those too. This idea that criminals and terrorists only deal in bricks of cash is a pathetic fantasy regurgitated by the serially uninformed. I learned this first hand, years ago, when I was an intelligence officer in the Middle East: criminals and terrorists don’t need to rely on cash. The 9/11 attackers spent months living in the United States, and they routinely used bank accounts, credit cards, and traveler’s checks to finance themselves. And both criminal organizations and terrorist networks have access to a multitude of funding options from legitimate businesses and charities, along with access to a highly developed internal system of credit. A cash ban wouldn’t have prevented 9/11, nor would it have prevented the Berlin Christmas attack. What cash controls do affect, however, are the financial options of law-abiding people. These policymakers and academics acknowledge that banning cash would reduce consumers’ financial privacy. And that’s true. But they’re totally missing the point. Cash isn’t about privacy. It’s one of the only remaining options in a financial system that has gone totally crazy. Especially in Europe, where interest rates are negative and many banks are on the verge of collapse, cash is a protective shelter in a storm of chaos. Think about it: every time you make a deposit at your bank, that savings no longer belongs to you. It’s now the bank’s money. It’s their asset, not yours. You become an unsecured creditor of the bank with nothing more than a claim on their balance sheet, beholden to all the stupidity and shenanigans that they have a history of perpetrating. Banks never miss an opportunity to prove to the rest of the world that they do not deserve the trust that we place in them. And for now, anyone who wishes to divorce themselves from these consequences can simply withdraw a portion of their savings and hold cash. Cash means there is no middleman standing between you and your savings. Banning it, for any reason, destroys this option and subjects every consumer to the whims of a financial system that is stacked against us. Do you have a Plan B?

31 января, 23:10

Алексей Навальный прибыл в Киров в сопровождении судебных приставов

Как сообщил представитель столичного управления Федеральной службы судебных приставов Тимур Коробицын, московские приставы препроводили главу Фонда борьбы с коррупцией Алексея Навального в Киров для его участия в заседании суда по так называемому "делу Кировлеса", которое состоится в среду

Выбор редакции
31 января, 22:46

Приставы принудительно доставили Навального в Киров

Утром они сопроводят главу ФБК на заседание суда по делу "Кировлеса"

31 января, 22:38

У Порошенко нет шансов

Меня сегодня весь день спрашивают: что происходит в Донбассе? В Донбассе происходит война. Уже четвертый год идёт. Что вы говорите? Минские соглашения? А разве они хоть когда-нибудь соблюдались? Ну, были короткие передышки по праздникам: в Новый год, на Пасху, когда карателям надо тоже отдыхать. Только и всего. Практически ни на день не прекращались обстрелы. Я регулярно бываю в Донбассе с июня 2014 года. Я могу сравнивать.  Минские соглашения — это бумага. Бумага, в которую, как говорится, давно пора заворачивать тухлую рыбу. Подписывая их, Порошенко считал, видимо, что это "перемога". Во-первых, что первые, что вторые соглашения подписывались в условиях, когда ВСУ на всех фронтах отступали и перемирие им было нужно, как воздух. Во-вторых, Порошенко рассчитывал получить необходимую его режиму передышку, в ходе которой он мог бы, периодически обстреливая Донбасс, держать регион в страхе, убивая мирных жителей и зная, что связанные минским договором ополченцы будут давать "ответку" только в крайнем случае, а заодно в коротких вылазках утилизировать пассионарное пушечное мясо из числа националистов. Которые, кстати, давно объявили Порошенко врагом номер два после России и не давали чувствовать себя в безопасности даже в Киеве. Но так не могло продолжаться вечно. Так могло продолжаться лишь до тех пор, пока за Украину, что бы они ни сделала, готова была вступаться Америка. Готова была, хоть и скрепя сердце, вступаться Европа — из атлантической солидарности с сюзереном и нежеланием признавать свои ошибки. Готова была терпеть Россия, санкции против которой увязывали с выполнением минских соглашений. Но всё изменилось. Сегодня в Америке новый президент, который в силу своего характера и поставленных перед самим собой задач не станет мучиться с оставленным ему Обамой и совершенно не нужным Штатам токсичным активом под названием "Украина". Сегодня меняется обстановка в Европе, там начинают набирать очки евроскептические силы, ориентированные на дружбу с Россией, а следовательно — не желающие позориться связью с нерукопожатыми украинскими политиками, погрязшими в коррупциях и убивающими свой народ. Меняется ситуация и на Украине. Экономика страны практически уничтожена, социальное положение у людей аховое, обвал гривны, галопирующие цены, "шок-платёжки" за коммуналку, разгул преступности и невозможность государства обеспечить порядок даже в столице. И всё это на фоне усиливающейся агрессивной военной пропаганды. Во всех бедах видят руку Москвы. Это уже какая-то шизофрения. Терпеть это до бесконечности невозможно, и у котла рано или поздно сорвёт крышку. Добавьте к этому то, что страна напичкана оружием и людьми, прошедшими войну. Всё это угрожает просто смести Порошенко и его хунту. И никто на Западе за него не заступится. Возможно, его уже продали. Возможно, во время разговора Трампа с Путиным решалась его судьба. Может, это послужило спусковым крючком для новой отчаянной атаки на Донбасс? А может, его спешный отъезд из Германии был откровенным спектаклем, и его там просто отказались слушать — вот он и отдал приказ наступать, чтобы хоть как-то привлечь к себе внимание и поторговаться, если не за президентское кресло, то за гарантии сохранения жизни? А может и впрямь во всём виноваты "самостийные батальоны", которые не подчиняются Киеву? Что бы там ни было, все варианты означают одно — скорый конец киевского режима. Все эти попытки режима привлечь к себе внимание, как всегда, окончатся ничем. В лучшем случае. Каратели просто получат по зубам, как это было в прошлом месяце под Дебальцевом, когда они пытались вклиниться между ДНР и ЛНР, оставив в донецкой степи, по некоторым данным, несколько сотен человек. В худшем — ополченцы перейдут в контратаку, как под тем же Дебальцевом два года назад, и Порошенко снова запросит мира. Упадёт на землю и крикнет "Лежачего не бьют!" Но только кто его теперь будет слушать. Он надеется на "Минск-3". Но его не будет. И ещё. Жаль только, что цена попыток киевской власти удержаться, как обычно, будет высока. Десятки, а может и сотни жизней прежде всего мирного населения, которое Киев пытается таким способом заставить отречься от своего выбора 11 мая 2014 года. Людей, которые не оставили своих домов даже в самые тяжёлые дни войны, даже под самыми варварскими обстрелами, доказав карателям, что они единый народ, который не поставить на колени. Только с ними каратели и чувствуют себя крутыми, обстреливая пенсионеров, женщин, детей, обстреливая волонтёров, которые помогают людям выживать, обстреливая журналистов (как сегодня они ранили корреспондента Life), которые несут миру правду о том, что происходит в Донбассе. А вот с мужиками Донбасса, оставившими кирки и взявшими в руки автоматы, воевать у них получается плохо. Это понимает Порошенко, посылая в Донбасс всё новые и новые отряды пушечного мяса, бросая его в безнадёжные атаки на минные поля. Но просто уже не может остановиться. Слишком поздно. У него земля под ногами уже больше не шатается. Она горит.

Выбор редакции
31 января, 22:33

Приставы проводили Навального в Киров

Московские приставы препроводили в Киров самолетом главу «Фонда борьбы с коррупцией» Алексея Навального для его участия в заседании суда по «делу Кировлеса» в среду, сообщил представитель столичного управления Федеральной службы судебных приставов Тимур Коробицын.

31 января, 22:00

Freedom House назвала Украину «частично свободной»

Как сообщает «Радио Свобода «, согласно данным рейтинга Freedom House, Украина до сих пор пытается восстановиться после коррупции на высшем уровне после отстранения от власти Януковича. Еще одна проблема в Украине – это политический прессинг и нападения на журналистов-критиков и медиа-организации, ухудшает ситуацию в СМИ.

31 января, 21:55

Who is Really Responsible for the Checks and Balances of the US Government?

Wouldn't the checks and balances of the US government stop most of Donald Trump's acts? originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. Answer by Brad Porter, on Quora. Wouldn't the checks and balances of the US government stop most of Donald Trump's acts? No. Not unless we decide to demand it. I think we misunderstand the whole "checks and balances" thing at our peril. I hear it now from people on the left, or outside observers looking in, hoping that these mysterious "checks and balances" will protect us from Trump. I heard this a lot from prospective Trump voters, that these "checks and balances" things would kick in and curb the worst of his excesses (I feel like at least 7/10ths of being a Trump voter was explaining how he didn't really mean the terrible things he was saying or wouldn't actually be able to do the terrible things he was promising to do). Here is the truth of it: There is absolutely nothing that President Trump can't do. No convention he can't plow through, no statute he can't ignore, no dissent he can't thumb his nose at, no custom he can't cannonball, no perceived "limitation" he can't just walk right through like a pane of glass. Unless we choose to hold him accountable. Checks and balances are not like some automated process. There's no buzzer that goes "bzzzzt" and Xs out a signing statement he produces if it goes beyond constitutional limits. We don't have Timecops. There's no like Krypton High Council that all of Trump's decisions have to go through before they're enacted. "Dude, you can't tweet that - what's the matter with you?" I am a huge proponent of constitutionalism. Our system of government is beautifully designed in the way that it plays three distinct functions of government against each other so no single one could become too powerful. It has been a genius of social engineering, and while many bemoan that it makes taking action difficult, that's a feature, not a bug. Those collective machinations are what we refer to as "checks and balances", not like a crowbar behind a pane of glass we can smash in case of emergency, but rather the aggregate actions of our representatives and others who serve in government. Most of the time, those actions, taken together, do a reasonably good job of keeping things on track. But here is the deep dark secret of any system of government: Ultimately, a law is only worth the paper it is printed on. The constitution is just some old pieces of parchment kicking around behind glass at the National Archives. These are just things, just words on a page. It is not the law itself that matters - rather, it is the collective decision of society to adhere to that law and to punish those who break it. It is not the law itself that sets boundaries - it is the demonstrable and actionable will of those in a position to uphold and/or defend it. And at any point we - we citizens and our elected representatives - can just kind of decide, you know, not to. As it pertains to the powers of the President of the United States of America, this system has worked reasonably well for many, many years, but over time it has more and more drifted towards a, let's say "loose" interpretation of what's legal or not - "well, it says I can only do this, but I really want to do that, so maybe if I just explain how that is kind of like this, I can do it." Nevertheless, enough people in enough positions of power had enough of an interest in asserting their own power that the worst excesses were kept in check most of the time, some big exceptions aside. But in recent years, the trend towards the executive being "the decider" has accelerated greatly. George W. Bush in particular was responsible for perhaps one of the biggest usurpations of authority by a president since FDR, and that trend was certainly not rolled back but was only further normalized and added to by Barack Obama (Dear conservatives: yes, Bush was worse. Dear liberals: yes, Obama was bad). And, one thing that both presidents discovered, was that if you basically asserted something, and nobody had the balls to call you on it, you could make something legal or not, constitutional or not, just by force of will and gumption, no matter what those pieces of paper say. We think of this as only being applicable in the case of coups or revolution - where literally everybody who matters in society wakes up one day and basically decides "Hrm, that whole law thing is stupid, we're not going to do that anymore, we're going to toss that out and do it our way now." It's not like the piece of paper changed, everybody just kind of decided the piece of paper doesn't matter anymore. But that same process happens more gradually too, as a sort of slow atrophy of the rule of law until it's weak enough that you can just start, you know, violating it without consequence. Torture is a great example. There is basically absolutely no way that torture is legal. It is hard to overstate how illegal it is according to basically every body of law we have and ascribe to. This was not and never really has been a "grey area." For America, by the letter of the law, a guy in the military or law enforcement using physical torture to try and extract information or confession is very illegal. And yet, a small cabal of civilians in the Oval Office just kind of started saying one day "Well, you know what, we think it should be legal. So, yeah. We're just gonna go ahead and operate on that assumption from now on." And, guess what, they did! They didn't prove that it was legal in court. They didn't get Congress to write a law saying it was legal. It wasn't put to a vote. They basically just started doing it, and every time someone called them on it they replied with what amounted to "nuh uh." And it worked! At every step when checks and balances ought to have kicked in, there was simply not a strong enough collective will to adhere to the letter of the law and enforce it to overcome the inertia of executive action. Torture is still presumably illegal, but if you engage in it at the behest of the president and with some internally reasoned legal argument for its use, you can just kind of do it and also, as Obama shamefully normalized, you won't suffer any consequences from doing it. It's illegal, but we can do it, nobody will stop us from doing it, and we can get away with it. So, it becomes, well, sort of legal! Bush proved that, in matters pertaining to war, foreign policy, and civil liberties, basically the president can do whatever he wants and, usually, it will overwhelm the will of the people normally tasked with reigning him in. Obama proved (and Bush did too), that in matters pertaining to the national economy, immigration, civil rights, and more, you can basically do the same. In both cases, the Supreme Court of the United States and most of the higher courts were wildly deferential to presidential authority (despite conservative caricatures of all these "activist" judges I keep hearing about), loathe to carte blanche overturn major national initiatives. And in both cases, Congress could never quite get it together enough to act - and that's even assuming the supermajority disagreed enough to want to act, which most of the time, let's be honest, they didn't. And we, as voters and as citizens, tend to let them get away with it because the end goal often seems like a good idea and that goodness of the ends often outweighs the "technicalities" in the means. Who doesn't want to stop terrorists or fix the economy, bro?! And it is into this new milieu of executive authority that Donald Trump steps. In some cases, the lack of checks and balances is literally that - it just simply never occurred to us to write down a law about such and such a thing. Financial transparency for an incoming president, for instance. We just kind of assumed that candidates for president would keep doing that, and if they didn't, they'd be hounded off the stage. But there's no statute making them, just convention. In other cases, it's stuff that we know is illegal - like say receiving money from foreign governments when you're the President of the United States of America for instance - but, well, who is going to show up and serve Trump papers on that? Who is going to initiate that action, and who has to approve it, and then who is going to enforce it? Checks and balances are not self-executing. They require people enforcing them. And, when you're asking "can checks and balances stop this?", often the answer may well be "yes" but the next question is always "ok, so whose going to do it?" And, after that "whose going to make them? What if they don't?" This is, by the way, not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Both parties - and here I mean the voters as much as the representatives - have been terrible at slowly letting a political culture based on a rule of law corrode and dissolve. Because each time the pendulum swings, those same powers a partisan hated when the other guy was using it, well it's now awesome when it's our guy. We have, as a culture, mostly seemed to have drifted to the idea that the ends usually do justify the means, and that we should only seek to enforce rules when they trip up the other guy. So we just spend our time whining about the ends, and the restrictions on the means atrophy and decay. And, ultimately, when we need them most, we find them brittle and frail, and the people we would most need to step in an utilize them are no longer much interested in doing so, and face no real consequences when they don't. The recent Supreme Court fights is another great example. Many liberals wanted Obama to fiat his appointee on his way out the door. Many Republicans wanted "their" team to stonewall indefinitely. But those same Republicans will scream like six year olds if the Democrats stonewall a Trump appointee and declare it an incredibly anti-democratic example of sure loserism. And were Trump to play hardball and recess appointment his nominee, Democrats will go bonkers. Both sides, at nearly every single swing of the pendulum, forget the most basic rule of authority expansion - it is almost always one directional. It's not like the next guy gives it back. Ultimately, the power we demand for our political allies is the power that our political enemies will inherit. And both George W. Bush and Barack Obama - and more importantly their supporters - spent a lot of time demanding they had this or that authority, and that checks and balances did not or should not apply to them, and that they would vote for or against their representatives accordingly. And of course it's not just those two - this is a trend that goes back a long way - but it has certainly accelerated more and more exponentially in recent years. And it is into this new milieu of executive authority that Donald Trump steps. And unless we demand that our representatives in all branches of government respect the rule of law or face the consequences - and mean it - there's no real mechanism for that to happen, no incentive for those representatives to stick out their necks. Unless we begin to view checks and balances as an actual important feature of government and not just a partisan tool, and the law as something that needs to be respected and strictly adhered to whether you agree with it or not, or whether it inconveniences your political agenda or not, I don't see any particular reason why they would. Wouldn't the checks and balances of the US government stop most of Donald Trump's acts? Theoretically, yes. In practice? It depends. Do we want them to or not? Nobody is going to on their own, so long as the incentives are stacked in such a way where doing nothing is less painful for those in power than doing something. The power is ours - but we have to have the will and wherewithal to use it. Will we? We shall see. This question originally appeared on Quora. - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:​ Politics and Government of the United States of America: Why did Republicans approve Obama's cabinet picks so much more quickly than the Democrats are approving Trump's picks? Government: What is the most corrupt practice by the United States government? Donald Trump: What are your thoughts on President Trump's accusation that millions voted illegally in the 2016 election? -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

31 января, 21:48

Christie hits rock bottom in polls

Former Gov. Brendan Byrne now shares the distinction of being the least popular New Jersey governor in memory with Gov. Chris Christie. A poll released Tuesday by Quinnipiac University shows Christie’s approval rating with New Jersey voters at 17 percent — a record low for Christie, and tying the worst approval rating for any governor in memory that was set by Byrne, a Democrat, in 1977.Seventy-eight percent of voters disapproved of Christie, a Republican. In early December, Quinnipiac measured Christie’s approval rating at 19 percent and his disapproval at 77 percent.“It’s interesting, in an unfriendly way, to wonder how low Gov. Christopher Christie’s job-approval numbers might drop,” said Mickey Carroll, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. “Still, he’s got 11 more months as the most powerful governor in the land and the State Legislature still sustains his vetoes. It might be an interesting year.”According to a separate Fairleigh Dickinson PublicMind poll released Tuesday morning, the governor’s approval rating was similarly low at 18 percent.President Donald Trump is also unpopular in New Jersey. Fifty-five percent disapprove of his job performance so far, while 36 percent approve. The Democrat-led state Legislature isn't faring any better, with an approval rating of just 26 percent. New Jersey voters aren’t in such a sour mood about all their politicians — even one under indictment. Democratic U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, who faces federal corruption charges, has a 51 percent approval rating. Democratic U.S. Sen. Cory Booker is even more popular, at 58 percent.The poll results for Christie are nearly identical to a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey released earlier Tuesday morning, which had the governor’s approval rating at 18 percent. Byrne’s low point was measured in a Rutgers-Eagleton poll after he signed into law the state income tax. Back then, 17 percent of voters rated Byrne’s performance as either “excellent” or “good.” Nevertheless, Byrne was able to win re-election later that year.“I knew I’d get re-elected when people started waving at me using all five fingers,” Byrne famously said.Christie has now surpassed the depths of unpopularity suffered by former Democratic Gov. Jim Florio in 1990 when he signed a series of tax increases to balance the budget. Florio narrowly lost re-election in 1993. Christie — who just signed a bill to raise the gas tax by 23 cents per gallon while pairing it with a series of other tax cuts — is in the final year of his second term and cannot seek re-election this year. He won a landslide re-election in 2013 after reaching stratospheric approval ratings in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. But his popularity began declining in the wake of the Bridgegate scandal, and fell further when he spent the majority of his time out of state during his bid for president.Quinnipiac also asked voters about a hypothetical gubernatorial match-up between Democratic candidate Phil Murphy and Republican Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, both of whom are running for governor but face primary opponents in June. Murphy leads Guadagno 45 percent to 29 percent. But there’s plenty of room for movement on those numbers, given how little voters know about either candidate.Seventy percent of voters didn’t know enough about Murphy to form an opinion, despite his spending millions on TV and internet ads to boost his name recognition. Sixty-one percent didn’t know enough about Guadagno, even though she has been Christie’s number two for seven years. Murphy is viewed favorably by 21 percent and unfavorably by eight percent. Those who know about Guadagno are split on their opinions of her, with 18 percent giving her a favorable rating and 19 percent an unfavorable one. “Following Gov. Christie, who – popular or unpopular – has dominated New Jersey news from the day he took office, the 2017 contenders are all but anonymous,” Carroll said.Quinnipiac surveyed 1,240 New Jersey voters from Jan. 26 - 30. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

Выбор редакции
31 января, 21:40

Ложь НТВ: лапшеснимание

Лапшеснимание! На прошлой неделе вышел очередной "разоблачительный" фильм НТВ, где пропагандисты "рассекречивают тайные миллионы Навального" - а на самом деле как обычно врут про его образ жизни и работу Фонда борьбы с коррупцией. Пресс-секретарь Навального Кира Ярмыш разобрала примеры самого очевидного вранья НТВ.(https://www.youtube.com/w...)

Выбор редакции
31 января, 21:01

Romanians rally in biggest anti-corruption protest in decades

BUCHAREST (Reuters) - More than 250,000 Romanians demonstrated on Wednesday against a government decree decriminalizing some graft offences, seen as the biggest retreat on reforms since the country joined the European Union in 2007.

31 января, 20:55

The Fix-Nothing Farce Of Symbolic Politics

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog, Solutions gut the rackets by breaking down the status quo's regulatory walls protecting the privileged elites who are strip-mining the bottom 95%. Much of what passes for politics these days is symbolic. Anyone who studies the issue of illegal immigration concludes that the solution lies not in building $10 billion walls but in changing the incentive structure of citizenship, legal and illegal immigration. As long as successfully crossing the border enables access to free healthcare, education and sanctuary and the potential for cash work--the equivalent of winning the lottery for those with none of these benefits--walls will be tunneled under, overflown or bypassed by sea. The Trump Administration's proposed policies on tariffs, walls to stop illegal immigration, etc. are defended as symbolic gestures--in other words, their value is in communicating "things have changed", not actually solving the problems facing the nation. On the other side of the spectrum, protests in defense of a corrupt, failed status quo are also symbolic. No thinking person can claim that the status-quo policies on illegal immigration are fair, just or functional; how is letting illegal immigrants "jump the queue" ahead of the hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants who have labored patiently for years, paying all the outrageous costs of navigating the Kafkaesque complexities of legal immigration fair or just? Protesting in defense of a racket-based status quo fixes nothing and solves nothing. Protests are also purely symbolic: the indignant express their indignation, gather to support a corrupt, venal system of rackets and then go home to stroke their egos on social media: I struck a blow today for... a corrupt system of rackets that enrich self-serving vested interests and privileged elites. Dear Trump insiders and protesters: did either of you propose a real solution to the college debt-serfdom racket? No, you didn't. Your symbolic gesture was nothing but a fix-nothing farce. If you think a trillion dollars of debt to pay for mostly worthless credentials is sustainable, fair, just or functional, you're willfully blind to the ugly reality: higher education is just another cartel-state racket: As Jim Kunstler as often observed, the status quo in the U.S. is nothing but an interconnected network of rackets run by protected technocrats to benefit a plutocracy of wealthy insiders and their political-class lackeys. These rackets--higher education, healthcare, defense weaponry, the corporate media, and on and on--are nothing but institutionalized extortion, embezzlement and fraud, systems that enrich the top 5% at the expense of the bottom 95%: Dear protesters and Trump insiders: do either of you understand that the whole tragi-comedy of rackets passing for politics is a house of cards that depends on ever-expanding debt? Once the debt bubble pops, the rackets implode, and the real value of symbolic politics--zero-- will be revealed. The farce of symbolic politics fixes nothing. Solutions are not symbolic; solutions gut the rackets by breaking down the regulatory walls protecting the privileged elites who are strip-mining the bottom 95%, "snowflakes" and "deplorables" alike. That's how the fraud and the rackets are enforced: get each camp to view the other as the enemy in the great coliseum of symbolic, do-nothing politics. Mix and stir, then stand back and continue skimming the nation's wealth in whatever racket is buttering your bread while the two camps distract themselves with symbolic battles.

Выбор редакции
31 января, 20:51

В Мурманске осуждены члены группы, похитившей у лизинговой компании 8,9 млн рублей

Сотрудники отдела экономической безопасности и противодействия коррупции УМВД по Мурманску в ходе оперативно-разыскных мероприятий установили факт хищения у лизинговой компании денежных средств в особо крупном размере. Об этом сообщает пресс-служба Управления МВД России по Мурманской области.

31 января, 20:43

Индия готовится совершить экономический рывок

Ни демонетизация, ни победа Трампа, ни Brexit не помешают Индии оставаться быстрорастущей крупнейшей экономикой в мире, говорится в ежегодном экономическом отчете правительства Наренда Моди.

31 января, 20:43

Индия готовится совершить экономический рывок

  • 0

Ни демонетизация, ни победа Трампа, ни Brexit не помешают Индии оставаться быстрорастущей крупнейшей экономикой в мире, говорится в ежегодном экономическом отчете правительства Нарендры Моди.

Выбор редакции
31 января, 20:33

Romania’s govt decriminalizes official misconduct

The ordinance deals a blow to the yearslong drive to curb corruption in the eastern European country.

31 января, 20:02

Мнения: Илья Ремесло: Главные заблуждения о новом «деле Кировлеса»

Спустя 3,5 года «дело Кировлеса» вновь стало актуальным. 31 января судебным приставам пришлось принудительно доставлять в Ленинский суд города Кирова Алексея Навального и Петра Офицерова, которые не явились на заседание. Спустя три с половиной года дело Кировлеса вновь стало актуальным. 31 января судебным приставам пришлось принудительно доставлять в Ленинский суд города Кирова Алексея Навального и Петра Офицерова, которые не явились на заседание. Дело Навального и Офицерова было направлено на новое рассмотрение в Кировский суд после решения Верховного суда, что породило множество спекуляций вроде «ВС не исполнил решение ЕСПЧ, обязавшего полностью отменить приговор». Но решение ЕСПЧ, которое многие не удосужились прочитать, говорит совсем о другом. Для начала вспомним обстоятельства, которые уже установили следствие и обвинение по «делу Кировлеса». Ущерб – есть По версии обвинения, Навальный является организатором преступления, ответственность за которое предусмотрена ч. 4 ст. 160 УК РФ – растрата в особо крупном размере. Навальный и Офицеров (генеральный директор ООО «Вятская лесная компания») организовали заключение договора поставки лесопродукции с унитарным предприятием «Кировлес» на заведомо невыгодных для последнего условиях, после чего осуществили растрату переданных ООО «ВЛК» по этому договору лесоматериалов на сумму 16 165 826 рублей. Полученная лесопродукция была перепродана ООО «ВЛК» в пользу других покупателей. По версии Навального, его действия не могут считаться хищением (растратой), так как лично он не получал от ООО «ВЛК» деньги за полученные лесоматериалы. Договор между ООО «ВЛК» и ГУП «Кировлес» был заключен в целях повышения рынка сбыта лесоматериалов. Защитники главы ФБК утверждают, что в действиях Навального и Офицерова отсутствуют такие признаки растраты, как безвозмездность, противоправность, причинение ущерба, корыстный мотив и цель. Но в заключении правозащитной организации «Агора» (поддержавшей Навального) признается, что «разница между стоимостью лесопродукции, закупленной ООО «ВЛК» у Кировлеса, и стоимостью ее реализации бывшим контрагентам Кировлеса (шесть организаций) составила 589 110, 87 рублей». Данную сумму мог бы получить Кировлес при непосредственной продаже этой же продукции своим постоянным шести контрагентам, без всякого посредничества ВЛК. Это и есть сумма ущерба, которую так упорно отрицает Навальный. Показания свидетелей в уголовном деле тоже подтверждали наличие ущерба: «Средняя отпускная цена со складов лесхозов за лесопродукцию составляла 4190 рублей за 1 куб. По договорным обязательствам с ВЛК средняя цена составила 3415 рублей за 1 куб. Т. о. убытки предприятия составили 775 руб. с 1 куб.». Почти такую же сумму – 774 рубля убытков по договорам с ВЛК – называет проводившее аудит предприятия ООО «Центр управленческих консультаций «Вятка-Академаудит». Ущерб от действий Навального и Офицерова весьма сложно опровергнуть, если о нем говорят не только свидетели, но даже правозащитные организации. Секретная переписка Надо понимать, что статья 160 УК РФ, по которой обвиняется Навальный, не предполагает в качестве элемента состава преступления обязательного обращения похищенного в собственность похитителя. В пункте 19 постановления Пленума Верховного суда от 27.12.2007 № 51 указано: «Как растрата должны квалифицироваться противоправные действия лица, которое в корыстных целях истратило вверенное ему имущество против воли собственника путем потребления этого имущества, его расходования или передачи другим лицам». То есть сам факт неправомерной передачи имущества уже образует состав преступления, вне зависимости от того, обогатился ли при этом сам растратчик. Это окончательно сводит на нет доводы Навального. И последний вопрос, на который очень не любят отвечать Навальный и его сотрудники. Как быть с перепиской между Навальным и директором ВЛК Офицеровым, почему она велась с такими секретами, почему в ней фигурируют в завуалированном виде губернатор Кировской области, сим-карты на чужое имя, условия вознаграждения? К чему это, если речь идет просто о «помощи лесному хозяйству области»? Разобравшись с существом дела, перейдем к анализу решения ЕСПЧ и тем тезисам, которые распространяют подсудимые. Заблуждение № 1: ЕСПЧ признал незаконным приговор Навальному ЕСПЧ в силу его регламента не наделен правом ни отменять решения национальных судов, ни признавать их незаконными. Он лишь констатирует нарушение конкретных статей Конвенции о правах человека. Смотрим, что сказано в пункте 97 Решения ЕСПЧ по делу Навального: «При решении вопроса о том, было ли судебное разбирательство по делу заявителей справедливым, Суд не заступает на место национальных судов, которые находятся в более выгодном положении, чтобы произвести исследование представленных доказательств, установить необходимые факты и осуществить толкование национального законодательства. В задачи Суда входит ответ на вопрос о том, являлось ли справедливым судопроизводство в целом». В пункте 102 суд также указывает: «В настоящем деле уместно рассматривать данные жалобы как элементы справедливости судопроизводства в целом». ЕСПЧ оперирует не понятием «законности», а более размытым и оценочным понятием «справедливости», и прямо указывает, что он не заступает на место национальных судов. Заблуждение № 2: ЕСПЧ установил политический характер преследования Навального Европейский суд дал такую оценку доводам о политическом преследовании: «Заявители утверждали, что они подверглись уголовному преследованию и были осуждены по основаниям, не связанным с привлечением к правосудию, в частности с целью помешать общественно-политической деятельности первого заявителя...Тем не менее Суд отмечает, что положения данных статей в части, относимой к настоящему делу, не содержат явных или подразумеваемых ограничений, которые могли бы стать предметом рассмотрения Суда по статье 18 Конвенции. Поэтому Суд отклоняет данную жалобу как не соответствующую положениям Конвенции». Таким образом, слова Навального и его сторонников о политическом преследовании представляют собой обыкновенную ложь, что признал даже ЕСПЧ. Заблуждение № 3: ЕСПЧ обязал отменить приговор Навальному и прекратить уголовное дело Это заблуждение озвучивал сам Навальный, требовавший от Верховного суда «исполнить решение ЕСПЧ» и прекратить уголовное дело. Вот резолютивная часть решения ЕСПЧ. Попробуйте найти там хоть что-нибудь о том, что власти РФ обязаны прекратить дело против Навального. Вместо этого ЕСПЧ решил, что в отношении Навального имело место нарушение определенных статей Конвенции о правах человека. И все. Верховный суд, отменив решение по «делу Кировлеса», даже перевыполнил требования ЕСПЧ. Ну а Навальный в очередной раз солгал. Новый суд: что светит Навальному? В настоящее время Ленинский суд в Кирове изучил доказательства обвинения и находится на стадии допроса свидетелей. Вопреки той информации, которую распространяют Навальный и его сторонники, обвинение и свидетели сообщили немало интересного о его деятельности «на пользу лесного хозяйства Кировской области». Из прослушки Навального известно, что они с коллегой по лесной промышленности обсуждали такие темы, как: – проведение проверок в Кировлесе; – отстранение Опалева; – обсуждение кандидатур «Васи» и Офицерова на его место; – согласие Офицерова на то, чтобы стать гендиректором Кировлеса и не нести реальную ответственность; – защита Навальным позиции ВЛК; – намерение Навального и Офицерова подвергнуть проверке Кировлес; – желание Навального включить в состав рабочей группы Офицерова; – намерение Офицерова включить в состав рабочей группы Навального. В переписке Навальный и Офицеров обсуждают некую программу, через которую можно «обмениваться шифрованными файлами». Зачем это нужно, если деятельность была законной? Среди свидетелей была допрошена бывший замгендиректора Кировлеса Бастрыгина, давшая суду следующие показания, касающиеся договора между ВЛК (компания-«прокладка» Навального и Офицерова) и Кировлесом: «Единственное, когда я его увидела, я была в шоке, потому что он был нам очень невыгоден, для предприятия. Я уже не помню всех условий, но у меня, с кем я работала, был принцип прочтения документа с двумя фломастерами, красным и синим. Красный – это против нас. Когда я прочитала, он был весь красный. Я этот договор увидела уже тогда, когда директора стали возмущаться, что им невыгодно работать по этому договору. То есть было обещано, что будут забирать всю продукцию, а директора говорили, что забирают только лучшую, то есть кругляк забирают, а неликвид оставляют, и лесхоз сам вынужден убирать его в счет своих затрат». Данные показания Навальный предпочитает «не замечать», зато пишет в «Твиттер», когда свидетели признаются, что не помнят ранее данных показаний, и делает на этом основании вывод, что дело сфабрикованное. На самом деле нет ничего необычного в том, что свидетели не помнят того, о чем они говорили более пяти лет назад, когда дело расследовалось. Более того, было бы странным, вызубри они все ранее данные следствию показания. Это было бы явным доказательством того, что обвинение «поработало» со свидетелями. Видно, что свидетелей никто не готовил, а стало быть – у суда и обвинения нет явной заинтересованности в исходе дела. Стратегия подсудимых Навальный понимает, что шансы на его оправдание невелики. Поэтому он выбрал тактику дискредитации суда и использования процесса в политических целях. Суду постоянно заявляются отводы – причем документы оформлены юридически безграмотно, с ошибками и написаны корявым языком. Вот что написано в последнем ходатайстве об отводе судьи: «Основанием для отвода послужил комплекс взаимосвязанных фактических обстоятельств, указывающих, по мнению защиты, на то, что: - судья он несвободен от влияния из вне». Выдающиеся адвокаты Навального (в количестве трех человек) умудрились в одном предложении важнейшего документа сделать две ошибки, а их подзащитный счел документ правильным и сам выложил его в интернет. Письменный оборот «судья он...» свидетельствует о квалификации юристов Навального (или его самого) более чем красноречиво. При этом и с юридической точки зрения документ составлен безграмотно. Цель Навального – не добиться оправдательного приговора, а, наоборот, заставить суд применить жесткие меры, получить основания для новой жалобы в ЕСПЧ (и получения новой компенсации за счет «дорогих налогоплательщиков»). С этой же целью было принято решение вовсе не являться в суд, чтобы добиться своего задержания и снова выставить себя невинной жертвой. Навальный любит обвинять суд в предвзятости и политической ангажированности. Но, как видите, этот же упрек можно с полным основанием адресовать и ему самому. Источник: Ruposters.ru Теги:  ЕСПЧ, Алексей Навальный, Кировлес, борьба с коррупцией

31 января, 19:38

Trump abruptly punts on order to hold Cabinet accountable for cyber failures

President Donald Trump is putting the onus on Cabinet officials to secure data at their respective agencies.The directive will come via an executive order Tuesday afternoon. “What we’re doing moving forward is attempting to make the agency heads aware that they have a deep responsibility here,” a senior administration official told reporters, describing the order that Trump will sign later today.“As opposed to delegating it down to their [chief information officers] or more junior staffs, we want them to stay on top of it, and we believe that President Trump’s Cabinet will do so,” the official said.The executive order is Trump’s first move to lock down the country’s networks after an election rattled by cyberattacks.But the directive will not address the alleged Russian digital assault that roiled the 2016 presidential election and undermined Democrats, including Trump’s rival Hillary Clinton.Instead, the order is meant to target the government's own networks, which have been repeatedly breached in recent years by countries believed to include Russia and China.As part of the order, the Office of Management and Budget will conduct a government-wide study of federal data security and make recommendations for upgrades.“This will be critical,” the senior administration official said, “and it's a long overdue step.”Additionally, the executive fiat will direct agencies to implement a cybersecurity framework created by NIST, which establishes expert guidelines.The framework proselytizes a risk-based security approach, encouraging organizations to direct resources to the systems most at risk of being infiltrated.The order will also direct the DHS secretary to work more closely with the private-sector owners of the nation’s critical infrastructure, such as power plants and hospitals.Notably, the directive will include “a section discussing the attempts and the Cabinet’s recommendations on [maintaining] a free and open internet from foreign attack and anyone that would seek to undermine the internet’s viability or corrupt its awesomeness,” according to the official, who did not provide specifics.The executive order will not ask Congress to allocate new funding for upgraded computer systems. But the official said it was “fair to say that Congress will be a key partner on” implementing the executive order, “especially modernization of IT.”In preparing Trump’s new directive, the White House studied recent cyber recommendations from President Barack Obama’s cybersecurity commission, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and other groups. “We have taken some of those recommendations,” the official said.Notably, the administration is not reversing former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson’s controversial decision to dub the election system "critical infrastructure." Johnson’s 11th-hour directive, issued at the end of 2016, riled some state election officials who saw it as federal overreach.But the move is “not contemplated” in the executive order, the official said. Newly confirmed DHS Secretary John Kelly “inherited that responsibility, and that will remain.”“I don’t want this to sound like a pre-baked campaign promise,” the official told reporters. “This was President Trump, and then-President-elect Trump, pointing out the obvious, and that is that cyberattacks … have clearly increased in terms of their appearance” in public life.

Выбор редакции
31 января, 19:31

Defiant Duterte vows to stay course on drugs war

Philippine leader backs bloody campaign despite admitting police are ‘corrupt to the core’

31 января, 19:19

DeVos Makes Clear She'll Trash Rules That Curb Predatory Colleges

There were plenty of hints in the past few weeks, but now it seems clear as day: The Trump Administration plans, with the leadership of designated Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, to trash the work of the Obama Administration to protect students from the abuses for predatory for-profit colleges. Billionaire DeVos, whose nomination is scheduled to be voted on by the Senate HELP committee this morning, is under fire for her lack of enthusiasm for public education, her weak commitment to civil rights, and her shaky performance at her confirmation hearing, where she demonstrated only limited knowledge of policy issues. Amid a pile of disturbing answers (and possibly plagiarized passages) from DeVos to written questions by Democrats on the HELP committee, DeVos responded this way to a question from Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) about whether she would enforce the Department's 2015 gainful employment rule, which cuts off federal student aid to career education programs that, year-after-year, leave graduates with debt they cannot afford to repay: "The Department has had significant implementation issues with this regulation, including questions as to the accuracy of the data originally reported, the design of a system that would allow schools to challenge incorrect data, and the ability to provide the necessary technical assistance required. The last thing any of us want is to unnecessarily close down important programs -- putting students on the street with limited or no other options." DeVos deserves credit for being candid.  She could have gotten away with saying a lot less. But her answer is ominous, because it clearly echoes the talking points of lobbyists for predatory for-profit colleges, particularly those of the discredited trade association of for-profit colleges, CECU, which is headed by former congressman Steve Gunderson (R-WI). Gunderson has repeatedly thundered that the gainful employment rule would cause millions of students to "lose access to higher education." The point of the rule is indeed to shut down some higher education programs -- those that, because of high prices and low quality, leave even their graduates earning too little money to pay down their student loans. Programs that leave for-profit college students -- veterans, single mothers, and others -- worse off than when they started are often sold through high-pressure, deceptive sales practices. Such programs absolutely should be shut down; indeed the gainful employment rule, while helpful, should be much stronger. New data released by the Department confirms what for-profit colleges feared as they have lobbied fiercely against the rule: Although the rule applies to career education programs at every kind of college -- for-profit, non-profit, and public -- 98 percent of the programs flunking the test in its first year were for-profits. Now, DeVos has laid the groundwork to destroy the rule. Although predatory for-profit colleges were salivating over the prospect of Trump, and pressuring his transition team, one could have at least hoped that he might continue the valuable work of the Obama Administration to fight against fraud by for-profit colleges, which have been getting as much as $32 billion a year in taxpayer dollars.  Many of these institutions have been under investigation for fraud by multiple federal and state law enforcement agencies. Candidate Trump had pledged to fight against waste, fraud, and abuse with taxpayer dollars, to help working people get good jobs, to honor our veterans, and to drain the swamp of Washington corruption. And before the recent era, in which industry money has bought the GOP outright, Republican Administrations were traditionally committed to cracking down on for-profit college misconduct. But all the signs were there for Trump, through DeVos, to break yet another promise to working Americans: -- At her confirmation hearing, DeVos declined to endorse the gainful employment regulation, telling Warren: "We will certainly review that rule and see that it is actually achieving what the intentions are." -- For-profit college lobbyist Gunderson's close family friend is former House speaker, lobbyist, and Trump cheerleader Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who has been a booster for Gunderson's industry and opponent of the gainful employment rule. -- One of DeVos's handlers at her hearing was Lauren Maddox, a Bush Administration Assistant Secretary of Education for Communications and Outreach who served on the Trump transition staff. A principal at the Podesta Group mega-lobbying firm, Maddox was a long-time registered lobbyist for CECU (previously called APSCU), for the predatory for-profit college company Career Education Corp., and for the student loan companies Sallie Mae and ECMC.  Word among education lobbyists and Department of Education bureaucrats is that other for-profit college lobbyists are under consideration for top Trump Education Department jobs, including Dennis Cariello, who was involved with preparing DeVos for her hearing, and Diane Auer Jones. -- DeVos retains an investment in AEA Investors, which has a stake in Sextant Education, operator of a group of for-profit colleges, and she may also have an investment in for-profit giant Laureate Education. -- Of course, Trump himself has only one professional experience with career education, as the proprietor of the predatory, deceptive Trump University, which late last year paid $25 million to settle fraud claims by students and New York's attorney general. When DeVos gave her hedged response to Warren at the confirmation hearing, Warren shot back: "Swindlers and crooks are out there doing backflips when they hear an answer like this. If you can't commit to use the tools that are already available to you ... then I don't see how you can be the Secretary of Education." But DeVos likely will be Secretary of Education, simply because Senate Republicans, in thrall to the Trump regime, appear ready to vote for her -- although Senator Lisa Murkowski just said at the committee meeting that, while she would vote for DeVos in committee, she had not yet decided how she would vote on the Senate floor. Fortunately the swindlers and crooks backflips will be tempered by the reality of their dismal schools. DeVos's confirmation hearing answer produced a rally in publicly-traded for-profit college stocks, but it basically lasted a day. Even without the gainful rules, and other accountability measures that DeVos may be ready to throw away, continued investigative reporting on for-profit college abuses, advocacy work by pro-student organizations, and enforcement efforts by state attorneys general can help deter bad actors and protect the public from predatory schools. But a DeVos education department that sides with wealthy college operators over struggling students will disgrace itself and harm our country. This article also appears on Republic Report. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.