Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Israeli troops force woman with Down syndrome to strip

Man stands next to demolished building
Israeli occupation forces sought to kill, rather than apprehend, Ahmad Nasser Jarrar, a Palestinian suspected in the January shooting death of a settler, according to an investigation by the rights group Al-Haq.

Maureen Clare Murphy-3 March 2018

Israel waged a weeks-long campaign of “brutal reprisals” following the 9 January killing of Raziel Shevach in the northern occupied West Bank.

Two Palestinians who Israel says were involved in the 9 January shooting – Ahmad Ismail Jarrar and his cousin Ahmad Nasser Jarrar – were killed by Israeli soldiers on 17 January and 6 February, respectively. Israel continues to hold their bodies.

Another Palestinian, Ahmad Samir Abu Ubeid, was killed by soldiers during confrontations that erupted when Israeli occupation forces raided a village in search of Ahmad Nasser Jarrar on 3 February.

“Israel orchestrated a series of attacks against the extended family members of the Jarrar family and the broader communities of Jenin and Nablus,” Al-Haq stated.

The rights group documented acts of collective punishment including “widespread movement restrictions, punitive house demolitions, attacks using police dogs, arrests, indiscriminate killings and the retention of the bodies of the deceased.”

The Israeli rights group B’Tselem has also documented what it calls “reprehensible actions” by soldiers during the month that followed the slaying of the Israeli settler, such as “demolishing a home with inhabitants still inside” and strip searching three women and setting dogs on three other residents.

Israel employed the “pressure cooker technique” – in which construction machinery is used as a weapon, along with firearms and explosives, to compel wanted Palestinians to surrender themselves from a building in which they are hiding – during its 17 January raid in Wadi Burqin. Ahmad Ismail Jarrar was killed during that operation.

Four homes belonging to the extended Jarrar family were demolished in the raid, displacing 17 individuals from four families, including three children, according to Al-Haq.

“The houses were demolished without allowing time to remove any contents,” Al-Haq stated.

Dog attack

Both Al-Haq and B’Tselem detail the terror inflicted on Palestinian residents during another large-scale military operation in the Jenin area on 3 February.

Occupation forces “stormed” the town of Burqin “with two military bulldozers and a military jeep” and surrounded the residence of three Palestinian families, including three young children aged between 6 months and 7 years.

“[Israeli occupation forces] fired shells and bullets into the building, partially destroying it,” Al-Haq stated. Soldiers “destroyed much of the contents of the apartments,” as well as three livestock enclosures outside, and arrested two men living in the building.

That same day, soldiers raided the home of Mabrouk and Inas Jarrar, also in Burqin.

The couple were woken up with “a loud bang – apparently when the forces blew up the front door to their building – and the sound of stun grenades,” according to B’Tselem.

Mabrouk and Inas gathered Mabrouk’s two children from his previous marriage, aged 3 and 9, into their bed. Soon soldiers “blew up the door to the second floor, where they live.”

At that point an Israeli military dog “sank his teeth into [Mabrouk’s] left shoulder and knocked him to the ground.”

Inas tried to free her husband from the dog’s grip, unsuccessfully. “The children hid behind the bed, screaming and crying,” B’Tselem stated.

Man with bandages on his upper arm and chest sits in hospital roomMabrouk Jarrar in Rafidiya Hospital, Nablus, on 14 February. (Abdulkarim Sadi/B’Tselem)
Inas told B’Tselem and Al-Haq that soldiers conditioned the release of Mabrouk from the jaws of the dog on the surrender of Ahmad Nasser Jarrar.

“Several soldiers and the dog dragged my husband down 19 stairs to the first floor,” Inas testified to B’Tselem.

Soldiers ordered Inas and the children to evacuate the home. Half an hour later, she saw soldiers bring her husband out of the first floor apartment, his hands tied behind his back, despite his injury.

“His face was covered in blood and his clothes were torn,” she told B’Tselem.

Mabrouk testified to the rights group that “the dog had its teeth in me for about 15 minutes. One of the soldiers asked me, ‘Where is Ahmad Jarrar?’ and I said I had no idea.”

Once he was finally released from the dog’s grip, a “soldier came up and punched me in the nose twice,” Mabrouk said.

He was taken to an Israeli military camp, where he was told he’d be transferred to a hospital.
“While I waited there, some of the soldiers took photos of me on their phones and also took selfies, laughing,” Mabrouk recalled.

Two and a half hours later he was transported to a hospital inside Israel, where he was shackled to the bed and soldiers stood guard at the door.

He was questioned by officers in civilian clothes the next day and a week later was released without charge and was transferred to a hospital in the northern West Bank for further treatment.

Humiliating strip searches

Some 20 soldiers raided Mabrouk and Inas’ home on 8 February, while Mabrouk was still shackled in an Israeli hospital.

“His wife, Inas, was at home with his mother, Huriyyah, 75, and his sister Dalal, 50, who is mute and suffers from Down syndrome,” B’Tselem stated. “The two women had come to keep Inas company since Mabrouk’s arrest.”

A female soldier subjected all three to humiliating strip searches.

Inas, “stark naked,” was ordered to kneel on the ground for two or three minutes.

“I wished I could die, so I wouldn’t have to experience another second of this,” she recalled.
Inas and the soldier had to help elderly Hurriyah undress.

“The soldier looked at my private parts. I cried the whole time,” Huriyyah told B’Tselem. “How could a young soldier force an old woman like me to take off all my clothes in front of her and expose myself like that?”

The soldier ordered Inas to help her take off Dalal’s clothes as well.

“How did we end up being undressed by a soldier, inside our own house, and exposing our most private parts?” Huriyyah said.

Another Palestinian couple, Nur al-Din and Samahir Awad, were injured by a military dog during a pre-dawn raid on al-Kafeer village near Jenin on 3 February.

They too were awoken when their door was blown open and a dog released in their bedroom.

“The dog bit Nur al-Din in his right arm, while soldiers standing in the entrance to the bedroom stood by, doing nothing,” according to B’Tselem. “The soldiers then removed the dog from the room.”

The soldiers temporarily left the home before the family heard knocking at the back door.

Samahir was holding her 2-year-old son, who was crying. When she opened the back door a dog jumped at her, causing her to drop her child.

The dog bit her in the chest and thigh as the soldiers watched and did nothing for several minutes, and ignored her husband’s pleas to treat her injuries.

“No calls for anyone to surrender”

Witnesses told Al-Haq that soldiers stated their intent to kill Ahmad Nasser Jarrar during the numerous raids on homes across the Jenin area in the lead up to his death in Yamoun village on 6 February.

Resident Bassam Muhammad Abu Seifin told Al-Haq that in the early morning of 6 February, he heard loud explosions next to his building.

“Five minutes later, he heard approximately 10 to 15 bullets fired. There [were] no calls for anyone to surrender,” Al-Haq stated.

Once the shooting stopped, Abu Seifin saw that a building had been partially demolished. He also saw a body covered in a white sheet being carried by soldiers.

Once the military withdrew from the area, Abu Seifin “saw blood stains on the dirt and the remnants of bone and what appeared to be the remnants of the ‘brain’ of a person,” Al-Haq stated.

The rights group, noting that Ahmad Nasser Jarrar’s killing was praised by Israel’s top leadership, stated that it “may amount to a pre-planned case of ‘shoot-to-kill.’”

Al-Haq also stated that the collective punishment imposed on the wider population of the northern West Bank during the search for Ahmad Nasser Jarrar is a violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

“Notably, destruction of property, not [required] by military necessity, may amount to a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a war crime, subject to prosecution in the International Criminal Court,” Al-Haq added.

Netanyahu, Trump and AIPAC: What to expect


Benjamin Netanyahu flies to US to meet with Trump and AIPAC as corruption allegations swirl in Israel

Speculation is rife that Netanyahu will call snap election to try and stall legal proceedings (AFP)

James Reinl's picture
James Reinl-Saturday 3 March 2018

NEW YORK, United States – In general, the advice for an embattled political chief is to hole up in your capital, stiffen your lip and duke it out with adversaries. Not so for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who flies to Washington this weekend as corruption allegations against him gain momentum.
This bucks conventional wisdom, but the visit also affords Netanyahu a golden opportunity to earn some much-needed statesmanship points and bask in the glories of a White House drop-in and the annual confab of America’s biggest pro-Israel lobby.
Back in Israel, police say they have enough evidence to charge Netanyahu in two corruption probes – for receiving $300,000 worth of goodies from rich businessmen and plotting to secure praise from one Israeli newspaper by curtailing the circulation of a rival daily. He denies this.
Ahead of the trip, Middle East Eye picked out what to watch on Monday during Netanyahu’s face-time with US President Donald Trump and his speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meet, which runs from Sunday to Tuesday.

Bibi hopes US visit leverages popularity

The corruption allegations started to look more damaging on 21 February, when Shlomo Filber, a confidant of Netanyahu in Israel’s communication ministry, reportedly agreed to turn state’s witness against his former boss.
Speculation is rife that Netanyahu, 68, a giant of Israeli politics who has been in power since 2009, will call a snap election to try and stall the legal proceedings during the campaign and rally his right-wing power base behind him.
For Michael Koplow, an expert at the Israel Policy Forum, a think-tank, the Washington jaunt allows Netanyahu to leverage his popularity in America against the corruption claims besetting him back home.
READ MORE ►
“Netanyahu argues that his unique history with the US and his unparalleled popularity among American Jews make him the only Israeli politician who can capitalise on the tight bond between the US and Israel in a way that maximizes Israeli interests,” Koplow told MEE.
He will tout the narrative that Washington’s recent decisions to cut Palestinian funding, to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate the US embassy there would not have occurred under another Israeli premier, said Koplow.
It’s not an easy manoeuvre, but Netanyahu is a polished A-lister who will doubtless use his chummy relations with the Trump gang and the feel for US politics he gained while studying and working stateside to full effect.
“He will need to be flawless in using the optics of his meeting with Trump to boost himself politically,” added Koplow.

Promote peace plan?

Trump was dangling the prospect of a Middle East peace plan when he addressed AIPAC back in March 2016 during the election campaign. Administration officials now talk of unveiling their Israeli-Palestinian settlement blueprint “soon”.
Only a handful of folks, like Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt and Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, are privy to it. Analysts will be scouring for tell-tale signals after Netanyahu sits down with Trump on Monday.
For Jonathan Cristol, a scholar at the World Policy Institute, a think-tank, it will resemble previous deals. What’s new is the pressure that can be exerted on Palestinians via an alignment of Israel, the US and Arab states through their shared fears over Iran.
“I’m not convinced that there is such a plan at all, but if there is one, I imagine it will look very similar, if not identical, to previous plans that have been on the table and it will ultimately go nowhere,” Cristol told MEE.
The long-awaited proposal is already on shaky ground. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has rejected US-led mediation efforts as “impossible” since Washington’s decision to shift its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.
It became more precarious this week when one of its architects, Kushner, lost his access to the most valued US intelligence report on hotspots in the Middle East and elsewhere as the White House cracked down on security clearances.
While in the Oval Office, Netanyahu will try to cement recent Israeli gains, perhaps even asking Trump for a green light to annex Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and deliver fodder to right-wingers in his coalition, added Koplow.

Liberals leaving the lobby?

AIPAC prides itself on having broad support among Democrats and Republicans – providing a failsafe that money, arms and diplomatic support keep on flowing to the Jewish state, whoever lives in the West Wing.
Not so, says Seth Morrison, from the foreign policy campaign group Jewish Voice for Peace, pointing to recent data from Pew Research Center suggesting that bipartisan support for Israel is eroding.
“An increasing number of Democrats are realizing that Israel is not such a wonderful ally, and is in fact making the situation in the Middle East worse. They are no longer blindly supporting Israel,” Morrison told MEE.
A survey last month found that 79 percent of Republicans say they sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, compared with just 27 percent of Democrats – a divide that has widened these past two decades, researchers said.
READ MORE ►
The same goes for Netanyahu. Nearly three times as many Republicans (52 percent) as Democrats (18 percent) have favourable impressions of Israel’s conservative leader.
Public opinion is moving, and the AIPAC speaker list may lag behind, added Morrison.
On the right, 2018 orators include such Trump administration heavyweights as Vice President Mike Pence, UN envoy Nikki Haley and ambassador to Israel David Friedman as well Republican hardliners like one-time UN envoy John Bolton.
But the liberal contingent is also strong, boasting Democrat lawmaker Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton’s former aide Jake Sullivan and Ilan Goldberg, who worked with former secretary of state John Kerry on a previous round of doomed Israeli-Palestinian talks.
Analysts note, however, that those better-positioned to secure the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election – the likes of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris – will not grace AIPAC with their presence this year.
While AIPAC takes a hardline on Iran and lobbies Washington to scrap the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, the annual confab of about 18,000 pro-Israel Americans, lawmakers and policy wonks still holds sway on both sides of the aisle, said Cristol.
“It’s sort of trendy to claim that support for Israel is waning in the US, but the numbers don’t necessarily bear that out,” Cristol told MEE.

China pledges friendship with Taiwan amid tensions over U.S. bill

Yu Zhengsheng, chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), speaks at the CPPCC's opening session at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China March 3, 2018. REUTERS/Jason Lee

MARCH 3, 2018 

BEIJING (Reuters) - China wants to deepen friendship with Taiwan, the ruling Communist Party’s fourth-ranked leader said on Saturday, a day after state media warned China could go to war over Taiwan if a U.S. bill promoting closer ties with the island becomes law.

China has been infuriated over the bill, telling Taiwan on Friday it would only get burnt if it sought to rely on foreigners, adding to the warnings from state media about the risk of war.

The legislation, which only needs President Donald Trump’s signature to become law, says it should be U.S. policy to allow officials at all levels to travel to Taiwan to meet their Taiwanese counterparts, permit high-level Taiwanese officials to enter the United States“under respectful conditions” and meet with U.S. officials.

Yu Zhengsheng, the Communist Party’s fourth most senior official, put on a friendlier face at the opening session of a largely ceremonial advisory body to parliament which he heads, making no direct mention of the bill.

“We will deepen solidarity and friendship with our compatriots in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as well as overseas Chinese,” Yu told the 2,000-odd delegates to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in Beijing.

The body will“mobilise all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation to work together for the greater national interests and realisation of the Chinese Dream”, Yu added, referring to President Xi Jinping’s aspiration to restore a rejuvenated China to its full standing globally. 

Yu Zhengsheng, chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), returns to his seat after his speech at the opening session of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China March 3, 2018. REUTERS/Jason Lee

Hong Kong has been another troublesome area for China’s leadership, especially after students organised weeks of protests in late 2014 to push for full democracy.

Young activists in both Hong Kong and Taiwan have irked Beijing in recent years by pushing for greater autonomy or even independence and by organising protests against China’s influence.

Yu Zhengsheng, chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), walks past Chinese President Xi Jinping, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang (front C) at the opening session of the CPPCC at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China March 3, 2018. REUTERS/Jason Lee

Hong Kong and Macau were former European colonial outposts that returned to Chinese rule in the 1990s.

China’s hostility towards Taiwan has risen since the election to president of Tsai Ing-wen from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party in 2016.

China suspects Tsai wants to push for formal independence, which would cross a red line for Communist Party leaders in Beijing, though Tsai has said she wants to maintain the status quo and is committed to ensuring peace.

Beijing considers democratic Taiwan to be a wayward province and integral part of“one China”, ineligible for state-to-state relations, and has never renounced the use of force to bring the island under its control.

With Maldivians confused, threat to regime is largely from outside


logo Saturday, 3 March 2018

Threats to the Abdulla Yameen regime in the Maldives from the outside world appear to be greater than those emanating from the country itself.

The internal situation in the archipelago of 1,200 islands is well under control, partly on account of the regime’s strong arm methods and partly account of an indifference generated by the disappointing conduct of all political parties and State institutions since democracy was ushered in in 2008.

While Yameen ensures stability, albeit with an iron hand, the opposition might usher in an era of instability and infighting among diverse political groups.

Domestic dilemma

The daily Maldives Independent carries a story bringing out the dilemma of the man in the street. Talking of the 1 February ruling of the Supreme Court which freed nine top opposition leaders sentenced for terrorism, murder, bribery, etc., 27-year-old Moosa Hassan said: “The average Maldivian does not benefit from this ruling. Much like other Supreme Court rulings, it was politically motivated. The difference is that this time it favors the opposition.”

Meanwhile, 18-year old Izana Ahmed said: “I do not think some of the opposition figures wrongfully convicted deserve to be freed. That being said, I also think a fair trial is necessary for them.”

She and others spoke of the selective nature of justice. The court had only ordered the release of high-profile inmates.

The young people interviewed did not feel represented by any one politician or party and none of them had connections to any of the country’s political parties.

“I am not sure who I’m supposed to reach out to at this point,” said 23-year-old Anisa Mohamed. “None of the MPs listens to people. It’s not easy to get a hold of them anyway. It’s hard to protest against the Government without accidentally supporting the Opposition that you don’t really believe in. There’s no political leader who seems to care about anything I do,” Anisa said.

“I don’t feel connected at all. Not even the MDP (Maldivian Democratic Party) is helping the people’s cause here,” said 19-year old Saleema Ali.

“Since Nasheed left, I don’t believe the MDP has tried to pump out another aspiring leader. Rallying behind someone is admirable, yes, but not thinking of the future is what’s hurting them.”

Anisa added: “The current crisis is the most helpless I’ve felt. The 2012 coup really destabilised the country, and I really feel people wanted some calm and stability after all the chaos that ensued. That’s one of the reasons people are not motivated to protest. That and the opposition is useless. Perhaps things will change in the next election.”

Threats from outside

However, threats from outside are more formidable because these are rooted in geo-political or regional and world power games. The competing power blocs demand that the Maldives go their particular ways. Maldives, like other weak countries, is unable to take the road of its choice without creating anxieties in one power bloc or the other.

It’s Yameen regime’s lurch towards China since he came to power in 2013, which has irked the Western powers and regional power India. China’s emergence as the single largest aid giver and investor in the Maldives outside the tourism sector is creating, among other powers in the region and beyond, an anxiety that their supremacy in the Eastern India Ocean region is under an unprecedented threat. The belief is that China could convert its economic hold into a political and strategic hold and bolster its strength in the Eastern Indian Ocean.

Opposition icon and former President Mohamed Nasheed’s call for an “Indian military backed diplomatic intervention” was the first to cause anxiety in the Yameen regime. While New Delhi did not react at all, the Indian media and “experts” went to town recalling Operation Cactus of 1988 which interdicted Sri Lankan Tamil militants trying to overthrow the then Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

However, India did eventually say that it expects Yameen to implement the 1 February order of the Maldivian Supreme Court “in letter and spirit”; release the named opposition leaders; restore the independence of the judiciary and the Rule of Law. But there was no word about any kind of intervention. Perhaps India left this to the UN, whose offer Yameen had accepted in principle.

To keep the pot boiling, the Western media carried stories of a small put powerful Chinese flotilla having entered the Indian Ocean and moving toward the Maldives. Although Male should have felt assured by the supposed Chinese movement, it created another kind of tension for it. No one in the Maldives, other than the opposition, wanted the country to become a theatre of war or a playground for international power play.

The Yameen Government issued statements saying that there was no Chinese naval presence in Maldivian waters. Reassuringly, the Indian media too quoted “defence officials” as saying that the said Chinese fleet had been 3,500 km away from the Maldives and had already quit the area.

Alleged breaking of sanctions 

While the Western world and India were worried about Chinese military moves, Japan came up with pictorial evidence about  a Maldives registered vessel, Xin Yuan 18, breaking UN Security Council  sanctions against North Korea by transferring fuel to a North Korean vessel off Shanghai on the Chinese coast.

On its part, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) led by Mohamed Nasheed issued a statement saying that oil tanker Xin Yuan 18 “appears to be linked to Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen’s family”.

“Documents viewed by the opposition show that the Xin Yuan 18 is owned by Ha Fa Trade International, a company based in Hong Kong. A Maldivian company called Green Box, which is owned by Colonel Ziyad, applied for a mortgage at the Bank of Maldives worth $ 4.5 million. The Xin Yuan 18, along with property belonging to Adheel Jaleel, was used as collateral for the mortgage,” the NDP statement said.

“Adheel Jaleel is President Yameen’s nephew. Green Box’s owner, Colonel Ziyad, is a former Colonel in the MNDF, and a close confidant of General Shiyam, the Chief of the Defence Forces.

“The Maldivian Democratic Party is extremely concerned that President Yameen has been caught up, once again, in an illegal scheme to smuggle oil in violation of UN sanctions. In the early 2000s, President Yameen was head of an international smuggling ring that provided oil to the Burmese military junta, in breach of UN sanctions.

“A case against Yameen for fraud was lodged in a court in Singapore. However, days before the case was due to be heard in 2012, President Nasheed was deposed in a coup d’etat. The Grant Thornton investigation was terminated by the administration that replaced President Nasheed.”

Maldives denies 


The Maldivian Government categorically denied all the charges. It said in a communiqué: “The Government of Maldives assures that the Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number 455910000 associated with the vessel named Xin Yuan 18 was never registered in the country. The MMSI is an internationally-recognised 9-digit identification number which is used to identify maritime communication and vessels.

“While the MMSI range for the Maldives is 455XXXXXX, there is no record of the MMSI number 455910000 ever being registered in the Maldives.

“The Communications Authority of Maldives (CAM) administers the registration of all communication equipment on maritime vessels, as well as the issuance of all call signs and numbers. CAM only issues MMSI numbers to vessels registered by the Maldives Transport Authority.

“The Government of Maldives also confirms that the vessel ‘Xin Yuan 18’ is not registered in the Maldives.

“Further we condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the use of our National Flag in a manner so as to tarnish the good standing and reputation of our nation and that of our people.

“The Maldivian authorities do not allow flag of convenience to foreign-owned vessels to operate outside Maldivian waters.

“The Government of Maldives gives high priority to the implementation of all resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, including the Resolutions on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).

“The Administration is currently investigating the matter and wishes to make clear that the Maldives will pursue aggressive action against any such acts which affects the national identity in such a detrimental manner,” the statement said.

Blood on Their Hands?

By condoning corruption and denouncing the press, Slovakia's government created an atmosphere in which journalists became targets.


A man lights a candle in front of the Aktuality newsroom, the employer of the murdered investigative journalist Jan Kuciak, in Bratislava.(VLADIMIR SIMICEK/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)


BRATISLAVA, Slovakia — It was only four months ago that Slovakia’s prime minister, Robert Fico, proudly called his country “one of the most democratic and free in the world.” He made this statement while the world was mourning Daphne Caruana Galizia, a leading investigative reporter in Malta, who was killed by a car bomb on Oct. 16. “In Slovakia, journalists aren’t blown up,” Fico told a local news channel last November.

Now Slovakia is mourning its own journalist, the 27-year-old Jan Kuciak. Kuciak and his fiancée, Martina Kusnirova, were murdered in their home in the village of Velka Maca, their bodies found on Sunday. A police commander confirmed that the killings were “most likely related to the journalist’s investigative work.” Kuciak’s last unfinished story, which on Wednesday was published by most of Slovakia’s print and internet outlets, and is available here in English, focused on tax fraud and links between the Italian mafia operating in eastern Slovakia’s agricultural sector and Fico’s close allies: his chief advisor and former model, Maria Troskova, and his national security council secretary, Viliam Jasan, who in the past served as a member of parliament for Fico’s party.
Contrary to Fico’s claims, Slovakia is not an island of freedom — and never has been.
Contrary to Fico’s claims, Slovakia is not an island of freedom — and never has been.
This mountainous country of 5.4 million inhabitants doesn’t make the headlines as often as its troublemaking neighbors, Hungary and Poland, whose euroskeptic, illiberal turns have set off alarms across Europe. Slovakia is one of the few post-communist eurozone members, and it hasn’t attracted international public attention “because the government didn’t undermine the independence of the judiciary or the media in as spectacular a way as Hungarians or Poles” said Juraj Marusiak, a political scientist at the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava. But when one looks beneath the surface — and Kuciak was one of the few who had the courage to do so — one finds a state controlled by a small group of well-placed, wealthy insiders. Slovakia has long been on the spotlight of anti-corruption watchdogs. In the 2017 edition of the Corruption Perceptions Index, the country ranks sixth from the bottom among EU members. And a 2016-2017 World Economic Forum report listed corruption as the most significant barrier to doing business in Slovakia.

Fico has been prime minister for 10 of the past 12 years. In that time, he has become “a patron of an unhealthy pact between politicians of his party and oligarchs,” argues Marek Vagovic, an award-winning investigative reporter and author of a bestselling book on Fico’s oligarchy, who was a mentor to Kuciak.

For many Slovaks, Fico’s system is symbolized by the luxurious Bonaparte apartment complex, where the prime minister himself rents a flat from controversial entrepreneur Ladislav Basternak, who was charged with tax evasion last March. Fico’s neighbors in the complex have included ministers, politicians-turned-businessmen, and, until recently, another controversial tycoon, Marian Kocner, whose alleged tax fraud Kuciak had been investigating while working on his final story.
Fico’s administration has been characterized by murky relationships between government agencies and energy and construction firms, among others, that depend on government contracts. Last year, these ties prompted three anti-corruption marches organized by secondary school students. The students took to the streets to protest Robert Kalinak, the interior minister and Fico’s closest ally. Protesters accused him of accepting a suspicious payment from Basternak and for failing to conduct a proper investigation of a case in which he was implicated.

Despite such blatant conflicts of interest, the country still seemed safe from violent crime until this week. When Kuciak and his fiancée were gunned down, it reminded many Slovaks of the ghosts of the past. The circumstances surrounding last week’s killings seemed to hark back the murky 1990s, when the newly independent Slovakia was governed by the infamous prime minister Vladimir Meciar. Apart from his authoritarian control over the economy and nationalist rhetoric, it was Meciar’s secretive ties with local mafia bosses that gave the country its image as “a black hole in the heart of Europe,” in the words of Madeleine Albright, the U.S. secretary of state at the time.

Slovakia may not be regressing into that black hole, but the government has not done much to reassure journalists and citizens that it will defend the freedom of the press. For months before Kuciak’s death, police ignored an overt threat he had received.

Last September, journalists explicitly asked the interior minister Kalinak, who oversees the police, about a threat made by Kocner, the businessman close to the ruling party. Kocner had phoned Kuciak to inform the reporter that he would show “special interest” in his mother, father, siblings, and in Kuciak himself.

“What threats do you have in mind?” Kalinak replied. “I rather feel that he [Kuciak] wants to get a job in your newspaper. What you’re doing is looking for dirt.” Kalinak is still in charge of the interior ministry which, along with departments headed by Fico’s close allies, will now be investigating Kuciak’s murder.

The interior minister wasn’t the only one creating an atmosphere of intimidation. Fico himself famously lashed out at reporters, calling them “dirty anti-Slovak prostitutes” in November 2016. In the past, he has also attacked journalists as “ordinary stupid hyenas,” “slimy snakes,” and “toilet spiders.” Fico’s dealings with the media — which range from suing a cartoonist  to verbally attacking individual reporters to refusing questions at press conferences — have served to position the media as an enemy of the Slovak people.

Unsurprisingly, the prospects for bridging the already deep gap between the government and the media after the Kuciak murder seem even bleaker than before. A few hours after Kuciak and his partner were found dead, Stefan Hrib, the editor in chief of the country’s leading weekly Tyzden, wrote in an outraged column that he had no trust in the police, and appealed to journalists to investigate the case on their own. “I maintain my arguments”, Hrib told me a day later. “This murder is not the shocking beginning for Slovakia, but a logical consequence of how the country has been governed over the last years,” he explained.

He has no illusion that this tragedy might finally allow the law enforcement authorities to prove their independence from politicians. “It’s absurd to believe the police and judiciary will solve this case, as they are a part of this case,” he insists. “For years, they have stayed more loyal to the ruling party and its business circle than to the public.”

People in Slovakia are angry, and their anger is growing every day. This week they have gathered in Bratislava’s main square or in front of government ministries to light candles. On Friday, more than 10,000 people are expected to hold a memorial march. Criticism over Fico is growing louder. “Killing two youngsters is a red line,” Jan Budaj, one of the leaders of the 1989 Velvet Revolution and currently a member of parliament for the opposition Ordinary People party, told me. “We live in Europe, not Russia, for God’s sake.” But there is no guarantee that the case will dent Fico’s popularity, given how divided Slovakia has become. For Fico to acknowledge political responsibility for this tragic event would mean admitting that the system he has created over the last decade is not only inefficient and crooked, but also depends on shady links to mobsters, who use violence to get their way.

Facing growing pressure from the public, Fico has resorted to spectacular gestures. At a bizarre press conference on Tuesday, he announced a reward of 1 million euros for information leading to the arrest of the murderers, with the bills displayed theatrically on a table in front of him. His advisors, Troskova and Jasan, who were mentioned in Kuciak’s last story, stepped down, as did the country’s culture minister, saying he “cannot put up with a journalist being murdered” during his tenure.
Meanwhile, Jaromir Ciznar, Slovakia’s chief prosecutor proclaimed he will “unleash hell” to find the killers. “They may find only a hand that pulled the trigger,” the newspaper editor Hrib commented wryly, but the “paymasters are among them.”

When I met the investigative reporter Vagovic last autumn to discuss his book about Slovak oligarchs, I asked him, as an afterthought, if he feared for his life.

“Today, the main danger for us in Slovakia is not criminals, like in the 1990s, but rather economic pressure from business leaders close to the government,” he told me then.

This week, I asked him the same question. “I’ll be more cautious now,” he admitted. “But none of us wants the result of Jan’s death to be fear and silence.”

Future of the Banking Industry – Not without Blockchain

Transferring money involved some other parties who must authorize and control the transactions. That kind of frustrating and arduous processes get vaporized under Blockchain.

by Oliver Aziator-

Views expressed in this article are author’s own
(March 3, 2018, Vienna, Sri Lanka Guardian) If you are reading this article it means you are directly involved in the world of internet, this wonderful innovation has made it possible to connect everyone around the world directly. Through this innovation, the most promising new disrupt technologies have emerged for the future; Thus, the world of the blockchain. It is right to ask if the blockchain technology is a disruptive innovation? why is this novelle technology pacing slowly? This because the technology has only reached the required level of maturity wide mainstream use. What is a disrupting technology? It is the one that displays established technology and revolutionizes industry or ground shaking product that creates a completely new industry.
Today disruption, change and competition dictate the new paradigm for the banking industry, the financial institutions are no exception to the dynamics of industrial advancement which is driven by a fast-growing cost and great pressure. The implementation of the blockchain influences a lot of stakeholders in the financial services which include customers, employees, shareholders, investors, suppliers, industry associates, education institutions, government and non-governmental organizations. The banking world is involved in quick changes of digitalization, a potential cost and labor-saving instrument, the prospects for the global finance market are so appealing that many major financial institutions are investing millions of dollars to research on what will be the best way to implement it.
The high-priced and opaque involvement of a third party in a transaction is the main problem that has been solved by the creation of the Blockchain due to one centralized shared database. In the past, it was impossible because every transaction requires communications between two single databases and thence another authorized controlling layer was needed. A simplified example of remittance can be used in espousing the concept lucidly, your relative who wants to Transfer money from another country to you, but before you receive the money it might take hours perhaps days for you to be able to receive the said money.
This is because transferring money involved some other parties who must authorize and control the transactions. That kind of frustrating and arduous processes get vaporized under Blockchain. The blockchain is a conceptually stored and synchronized distributed ledger that enables safe and transparent transaction across its networks. Every party involved has an identical copy of the shared ledger that is used to record and store information of the asset such as monies and properties.
Every change to the ledger will be synchronized and copied almost directly and transparently to the network where it will be seen as a block. The blocks are linked by cryptographically. An example to illustrate how this works is a situation where A wants to send money to B. The transaction is represented online in a block without a middleman. After the block is sent to every party on the network, approval is given by nodes to validate every transaction. If the transaction is approved the block will be added to the chain which revises the permanent and transparent records of the transactions Finally, the money will move from A to B and this is done in few minutes.
The blockchain network relies on the decentralized systems making it attainable for one person or group of persons to get in control of it. This safe and transparent transaction is facilitated through a decentralized system of the payment system which is allowed by the blockchain technology. Hereby staring in the era that extends beyond financial capital market, global payment, Corporate Governance social institutions and democratic participation Before Digitalization every action in the traditional banking industry had to be done manually. The industry has homogeneously surfaced centralized data stored and many intermediaries linked, this result to poor customer service through complex clearing processes, large amount manual inspections, leaking personal information and high costs.
Graphic courtesy from the www.quora.com
The practice of keeping ledgers dates back in centuries, the blockchain story started in 2008 when an anonymous person or group of persons with pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto published a white paper which proposes an Electronic peer to peer cash system called Bitcoin The blockchain was originally developed to support bitcoin but now it is used for more than thousand cryptocurrencies which resulted in a long trail effect.
The said technology can be used in so many sectors such as cybersecurity, supply chain, forecasting, networking, insurance, private transport, online storage, charity, voting, government, energy, online music, retails, health care, real estate, crowdfunding and identification As explained earlier the blockchain technology eliminates the involvement of a third party in transactions, or as prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic coined: “Hegemony or hegemoney, a debtor empire/s’ fiat-papers.”
This chain is disrupting the banking industry as secured, cut cost, reduce delay and it is hugely efficient. Because it is decentralized and permissionless, it can lead to more disruptions in the financial sector, especially in payment clearing. Recently international organizations as well as developed countries and other countries have been paying close attention to the blockchain technology and are exploring their application in various fields.
For the financial sector, a number of the international financial institution have begun to formally plan for the blockchain technology since 2015, Goldman Sachs and other banking Giants have established their own blockchain laboratories working in close collaboration with the blockchain platforms.
Major Financial Institutions have a relatively positive attitude towards studying and improving the beck and processing efficiency of the blockchain technology and place a significant emphasis on its potential to reduce operational cost. In fact, IBM predicted that in four years sixty-six percent of the banking industry will have commercialized the blockchain at a scale. What are our indigenous Africa banks or Ghanaian own banks doing about this? Will they be part of the sixty-six percent as stated in the prediction above, it is high time we start giving opportunities to the IT department in the banking Industry to study this new technology so that we rise to be counted. Other opportunities with this new technology are a point to point payment, sharing credit data, smart contract all this using the blockchain technology.
This technology can drastically reduce the manual intervention of supply chain in finance and employ smart contract or digitized procedures that rely heavily on paperwork, numerous intermediaries, high risk of illegal transactions, high cost and low efficiency. As transaction occurs simultaneously each transaction will need to be verified by all the nodes in the entire network which is harmful to speed this impact will become especially needy when the nodes in the blockchain increase.
Despite the permission-less and self-govern nature of the blockchain the regulation and the actual implementation of a decentralized system are problems that remain to be resolved, however, it is important to note that any beneficiary technology is accompanied by risks, therefore, the blockchain regulation is necessary and should be considered earnestly. The Financial industry is highly sensitive to technological changes.
To keep up with these changes, banks must invest more into research on the blockchain not forgetting the development and empowerment of its staff in knowing more about this new technology. Although the blockchain technology is still unregulated and it could have its limitations, banks would have to improve their position in the industry.
The banks will try to improve their payment systems and overcome information communication resulting in a better customer experience hence the blockchain will become the core underline technology of the financial sector in the future.
Oliver k. M. Aziator, Senior banking analyst and the Blockchain Advocate
aziatoro@gmail.com

EU citizenship for sale as Russian oligarch buys Cypriot passport

Exclusive: Oleg Deripaska joins hundreds of rich people who have bought Cypriot nationality



Oleg Deripaska attends a meeting for the business community with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. Photograph: Sergei Savostyanov/TASS

Sara Farolfi, Luke Harding and Stelios Ophanides in Nicosia Fri 2 Mar 2018

The Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska has bought a Cypriot passport under a controversial scheme that allows rich investors to acquire citizenship and visa-free access to the European Union, the Guardian can reveal.

Deripaska, an aluminium magnate with connections to Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, is one of hundreds of wealthy individuals who have applied for Cypriot nationality. His application was approved last year.

The revelations will revive concern about oligarchs with Kremlin connections buying EU passports. Large numbers of the Russian and Ukrainian elite featured last year in a list of hundreds of people granted Cypriot citizenship over the past four years.

The island also offered citizenship to Viktor Vekselberg, a major shareholder in the Bank of Cyprus, the country’s biggest bank, documents show. Vekselberg appears to have turned the offer down. His spokesman said he only had Russian citizenship.

Deripaska and Vekselberg appeared on another list issued by the US Treasury in January of oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin. Deripaska has denied claims that he served as a back channel between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, as an investigation by the special counsel Robert Mueller into possible collusion continues.

The Cypriot documents seen by the Guardian and the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) show that Deripaska’s first attempt to become a Cypriot citizen was unsuccessful.
Cyprus has been accused of failing to vet passport candidates vigorously enough, heightening concerns in EU circles about people being able to buy EU citizenship. On this occasion, however, Deripaska was asked to resubmit his case because of a preliminary inquiry into his affairs in Belgium. The inquiry was subsequently dropped in 2016.

Cyprus’s council of ministers sent Deripaska’s case back to the island’s interior ministry, the Cypriot documents say, asking it to investigate further. The oligarch’s naturalisation bid had to be re-examined before a final decision could be made.

Viktor Vekselberg, left, appears to have turned down the offer of a Cypriot passport. Photograph: Vyacheslav Prokofyev/TASS

Deripaska’s name was made public this week when an interior ministry document listing beneficiaries of the collective investment scheme was distributed inside Cyprus’s parliament. Clerks left it in a room used by journalists, and several picked up a copy.

Leaked documents show that the Cypriot “golden visa” scheme remains a lucrative source of revenue for the island, generating at least €4.8bn (£4.3bn). Cyprus has given citizenship to 1,685 “foreign investors” since 2008 – many from the former Soviet Union, and from China, Iran and Saudi Arabia – and 1,651 members of their families.

The finance ministry has previously said it carries out stringent checks on all citizenship by investment applications, with funds required to undergo money laundering controls by a Cypriot bank. Cyprus is not the only EU country to have granted citizenship to high net-wealth Russians, it says. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of beneficiaries.

Vekselberg’s Renova group is one of Russia’s biggest conglomerates. He made a major investment in the crisis-hit Bank of Cyprus in 2014, buying almost 10% of its stock. The move at a time when the island’s economy was depressed meant he was an “exceptional case deserving of honorary naturalisation”, the documents say.

Vekselberg’s spokesman, Andrey Shtorkh, said: “Mr Vekselberg has only one citizenship, of Russian Federation and was never granted any other citizenship including Cypriot.”

Cyprus made it easier for rich foreigners to gain citizenship in September 2016. It had previously required investors to have at least €5m in domestic assets, including real estate, firms and government bonds. Applicants could also take part in a collective investment scheme by spending a minimum of €12.5m, or €2.5m per person. The ruling council reduced the eligibility threshold to €2m and ditched collective schemes.

The fresh trove of scheme beneficiaries obtained by the Guardian and the OCCRP confirms the extent to which Cyprus’s citizen-by-investment programme has become a main avenue for Russian oligarchs who wish to get a European passport.

The Portuguese MEP Ana Gomes described the visa scheme as “absolutely perverse, immoral and increasingly alarming”. The European commission launched its own inquiry last year into citizenship-by-investment programmes in the EU. The outcome is expected to be revealed later this year.

Cyprus, along with Malta, is one of the countries under scrutiny. “Cyprus is the biggest European investor in Russia and a great number of Russian nationals acquired Cypriot passports. We are all aware that there is also a big problem of recycling money. The point is that Cyprus, like other countries, is not just selling its passport. It is marketing European citizenship,” Gomes said. 

Naomi Hirst, a senior campaigner at Global Witness, said EU states that sell citizenship should carry out “the sharpest of checks” on applicants.

“The source of wealth and background of these individuals should be scrutinised,” she said. “If not, then the whole of the EU could be made vulnerable to those who will use these schemes as a ‘get out of jail free card’ to move freely around Europe.”

Topics

Iran Ordered To Pay $920 Million to 1983 Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing Victims

Judgment is among the largest ever issued against a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Beirut bombing

http://www.salem-news.com/graphics/snheader.jpgMar-02-2018 

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - A judgment of $920 million has been obtained against the Iranian government on behalf of more than 80 family members of soldiers who were killed or injured in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, as well as Marines/soldiers who were injured in the attack themselves.

The Beirut Marine Barracks bombing, which killed 241 American servicemembers and injured numerous others, was the deadliest state-sponsored terrorist attack against United States citizens before September 11, 2001.

“Nothing will bring back the brave men and women lost in the 1983 bombing, but this judgment is a step towards bringing justice for the victims’ families and the soldiers who survived but carry the mental and physical scars into today,” said Theodore J. Leopold partner and Chair of the Catastrophic Injury & Wrongful Death, Managed Care Abuse, and Unsafe & Defective Products practices and Co-Chair of the Consumer Protection practice at Cohen Milstein.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a leading national plaintiffs’ law firm, filed the lawsuit in 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the victims were due compensation under the exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that allows citizens to sue foreign countries if they are victims of state-sponsored terror.

Cohen Milstein argued that the attack was carried out by the terrorist organization Hezbollah at the direction and with the support of Iran.

To date, Iran has not participated in the lawsuit, making the ruling a default judgment. However, under the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, the plaintiffs can receive compensatory damages. The lawsuit is one of several against Iran for participating in state-sponsored terrorism.

“Our clients have endured extreme mental anguish, physical pain, and suffered emotional injury because of Iran’s actions,” said Robert A. Braun, an attorney at Cohen Milstein.

“We are dedicated to delivering the full punitive damages to them and also to contributing to the wave of lawsuits against Iran to hold it accountable for sponsoring these acts of terror.”
“This judgment delivers a measure of long-deserved justice to our clients,” said R. Paul Hart, an attorney at Karsman McKenzie & Hart and co-counsel on the case.

“We are grateful that the Court recognizes that Iran must be held accountable for the obscene act it perpetrated in 1983. These judgments operate to punish and deter terrorist activities. Although there is still much work to be done to compensate our clients, this judgment is a necessary milestone in the process.

"We eagerly move to the challenging next stage of identifying and securing Iranian assets to satisfy these judgments.”

Source: Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Days before the election, Stormy Daniels threatened to cancel deal to keep alleged affair with Trump secret

President Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels. (AP file photos)

 
The 2016 election was less than a month away, and Donald Trump’s attorney had blown the deadline for paying Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about her alleged affair with the future president.

In an Oct. 17 email, an attorney for Daniels — a porn star whose real name is Stephanie Clifford — threatened to cancel the nondisclosure agreement by the end of the day.

That very morning, Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, had created a limited liability company, public records show, that ultimately would serve as a vehicle for Daniels’s payoff. But the money had not arrived. A second email to Cohen, a short time after the first, said Daniels was calling the deal off.
“Please be advised that my client deems her settlement agreement canceled and void,” Daniels’s lawyer, Keith Davidson, wrote in the email, which The Washington Post obtained.

Ten days later, the $130,000 payment arrived, according to another email reviewed by The Post. Daniels’s story about her sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier would remain under wraps long past Election Day.
When asked about President Trump's lawyer, who said he paid off adult-film star Stormy Daniels, deputy press secretary Raj Shah avoided the question. 
The account of how the deal came together — and how it briefly fell apart — adds a dimension of brinkmanship to the public understanding of the transaction. On the day that Daniels canceled the deal, protesters gathered in front of Trump Tower in New York City to express outrage over week-old revelations that the Republican presidential nominee had once bragged about grabbing women by the crotch, news that was prompting a number of women to come forward with stories of alleged sexual misconduct by the candidate.

“The media is trying to rig the election by giving credence — and this is so true — by giving credence to false stories that have no validity and make it the front page,” Trump told supporters that Oct. 17 night in Green Bay, Wis. “They take a story with absolutely nothing, that didn’t exist, and they put it in front-page news because they want to poison the minds of the voters.”

Reached by phone late Friday, Cohen asked that questions be sent to him by email and then did not respond to them.

The White House and representatives of the Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

The timing of the Oct. 27 payment, 13 days after the initial deadline and just 12 days before the election, could be significant. Two complaints filed with the Federal Election Commission argue that the payment was intended to influence the Nov. 8 election and violated campaign finance law because it was not reported as an in-kind donation.

In one complaint, the progressive research group American Bridge argues that had Trump been interested only in protecting his reputation, he could have secured Daniels’s silence in 2011, when she first spoke with reporters about the alleged affair. Instead, the complaint says, Cohen waited until October 2016 — when Trump faced the prospect of a news story about his marital infidelity landing shortly before the election.

The second complaint was filed by Common Cause, a government watchdog group.
“The fact that this payment was made immediately before the presidential general election strongly supports Common Cause’s claim that the payment was about the election and to influence the election,” said Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause.

Some campaign-finance experts see parallels to the case of former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), who was indicted by federal authorities in 2011 on charges that he used money from wealthy donors to hide an extramarital affair. The jury acquitted him on one charge and deadlocked on five other counts.

Cohen has denied violating campaign-finance law.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the payment to Daniels in January. The cancellation of the deal and the exact date of the payment have not been previously reported.

After the Journal published its story, Cohen initially dismissed reports of the payment as a “false narrative.” He later issued a statement in which he said he “used my own personal funds to facilitate” a payment of $130,000 to Daniels. He said that neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction and that neither had reimbursed him for the payment.
Gina Rodriguez, a representative for Daniels, did not respond Friday to messages seeking comment.
A spokesman for Davidson said he could not comment on client matters.

Two other FEC complaints focus on a reported $150,000 payment in August 2016 by American Media, publisher of the National Enquirer, to Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who told the New Yorker that she had a nine-month affair with Trump.

Former AMI employees have told The Post that the company would routinely pay money to “catch and kill” stories about celebrities friendly with chairman and CEO David Pecker, and that he was close to Trump.

The complaints, filed by Common Cause and Free Speech for People, a group that seeks to limit corporate money in politics, argue that AMI paid to bury the story of Trump's infidelity and thereby influence the presidential election. The payment was made in coordination with the Trump campaign and constituted an illegal and unreported in-kind campaign contribution, according to the two complaints.

The White House has dismissed those allegations as “fake news.”

In a statement, AMI called the claims “meritless.”

“Despite the level of hysteria and partisanship in American politics, we are surprised and disappointed by the unprecedented attack on a media company by an organization that purports to value free speech,” the company’s statement said.

The FEC may launch an official investigation only if all four current commissioners — two Republicans, a Democrat and an independent — agree to do so. The commission does not comment on the status of any investigation until it has been resolved.

Daniels has said she met the future president at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe in July 2006. He was a reality television star whose wife, Melania, had recently given birth to their son, Barron; she was a porn star working at a booth promoting Wicked Pictures, an adult-film company.

Daniels accepted an invitation from Trump to ride around the lakefront course in his golf cart.
“That was actually my first time on a golf course, and when you’re riding around with Donald Trump in an Escalade golf cart during your first time out on a course, I’d say I was doing all right,” she told Adult Video News, a trade publication.

Two other media outlets recently revealed that she had shared her account of a romantic relationship. Slate reported in January that in the months leading up to the 2016 election, Daniels had told the outlet about the affair and said she was paid in exchange for her silence. Years earlier, in May 2011, she gave a lengthy interview to In Touch magazine. Jordi Lippe-McGraw, the reporter who spoke with Daniels, told The Post that the transcript as published by the magazine last month accurately reflected the interview.

Citing former employees of the tabloid’s publisher, the Associated Press has reported that In Touch killed the story after Cohen threatened to sue.

Blogger Nik Richie who runs a gossip site, thedirty.com, reported on Trump’s alleged infidelity with Daniels in October 2011, five months after the In Touch interview. Daniels’s lawyer later threatened him with a cease-and-desist order, Richie recently wrote.

The payment was routed through a bank account controlled by Davidson. Eleven months later, in September of 2017, the bank, City National Bank in Beverly Hills, asked Davidson about the source of the payment, according to an email reviewed by The Post. The reason for the bank’s interest was not clear.

Bank officials declined to comment on whether the inquiry was provoked by a request or subpoena from law enforcement officials, was the result of a routine audit or came about for some other reason.
 “As a matter of policy, we don’t confirm or comment on inquiries from regulatory agencies or law enforcement, including subpoenas,” read a statement from the bank.

Two House Democrats called Friday for an FBI investigation into the payments to Daniels and McDougal. In a letter, Reps. Ted W. Lieu (Calif.) and Kathleen Rice (N.Y.), both former prosecutors, described the payments as “evidence of moral failings by the President” and said they believed the transactions may have violated federal election law.

Alice Crites contributed to this report.