Tuesday, March 31, 2020

The return of Susan Rice

Tom Rogan (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) reports:

Susan Rice just reminded Xi Jinping why he misses her presence in the president's ear.
President Barack Obama's former national security adviser did so with two arguments on Tuesday to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell.
First, and admittedly at Mitchell's pushing, Rice stated that the Trump administration's description of the coronavirus as the "Wuhan virus" is unacceptable and undermines global cooperation. Viruses can arise anywhere, Rice said, adding that "Wuhan virus" is "race-baiting" and "shameful."
This was news to me. I was under the impression that Wuhan is not a race, but rather a Chinese industrial city where the virus first infected humans.
But Rice wasn't done, adding, "It doesn't serve us well, it doesn't serve the objective of squelching the virus globally, to brand in nationalistic, or xenophobic, or racist terms. We all have to work together..."
Rice's first implication here is that the need for cooperation means it is wrong to criticize China in any regard over the virus, even though the Chinese Communist Party's deception led to its catastrophic mishandling of the virus in the outbreak's earliest stages. You know, when the virus might just have been stopped from becoming a global pandemic.
But then Rice shifted her cooperation-at-all-costs argument on its head.
The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations did so with a scathing tirade against the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic. And unlike with China, she didn't spare her language here. Trump's response has been "circle of hell" style, Rice suggested, adding that Trump's incompetence will leave much American blood on his hands.

I love how Ms. Rice wants to insist that we are all in this together and let us all be kind oh, and by the way, President Trump is the devil.

I do not know what is funnier, Ms. Rice's hypocrisy or that she thinks the American people have been awaiting her sermons.  Back up the mountain, Ms. Rice, no one needs you just yet but we will let you know when we do -- please, please hold your breath while you wait.


This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 
Tuesday, March 31, 2020.  Joe Biden continues to stumble and bumble around, while the corporate media treats him like he's the nominee there are still 27 primaries to take place and over 1300 delegates up for grabs, the corporate media ignores that and they ignore Tara Reade.


Starting in the US where Joe Biden is not the Democratic Party's presidential nominee despite spin from the media.  1991 delegates are needed to win the nomination.  Currently, Bernie Sanders has 914 and Joe Biden has 1217 -- neither has reached the 1991 threshold.  More to the point,  Setting aside territories and DC, there are still 23 states that have yet to hold a primary.  Joe Biden is not the nominee.

When over 20 candidates were vying for the nomination, the corporate media insisted they couldn't cover all of them, they could only cover the top ones.  Well there are now only two candidates for the nomination and yet MEET THE PRESS and MSNBC and other garbage keeps bringing on Joe and acting as though he's the nominee.

No, we don't have a nominee until the primaries are over or one of the candidates reaches 1991.

That's reality.  The corporate media needs to be covering Bernie Sanders' campaign as much as they are Joe Biden's or they are not a free press, they are not journalists.  There are two candidates and the nomination could go to either right now.  The corporate media's decision to freeze out one candidate in an active primary is not journalism and needs to be called out.  Repeating -- neither has reached 1991 delegates and there are 23 states who have yet to hold their primaries.  Counting states, DC and territories, there are 27 primaries still to be held in this race and over 1300 delegates still up for grabs. The race is not over.

Appearing on in-the-tank-for-Joe MSNBC yesterday, Tim Haines (REAL POLITICS) reports Joe was still faced with the question on people's minds: "Where is Joe Biden?"

MSNBC, YASMIN VOSSOUGHIAN: Mr. Vice President, I've got to be honest with you, over the last two weeks or so I've had a lot of people ask me online, every single day, where is Joe Biden? As a candidate for president, are you making yourself visible enough, especially during this crisis, because it is a fine line to walk. You certainly don't want to be seen as the candidate who is politicizing a pandemic when Americans face this crisis.

His answers included "I've been on the phone."  Yes, Joe, we saw that video.



It's rather embarrassing but if Joe wants to bring it up again, so be it.


Jack Brewster (FORBES) notes Joe declared in the MSNBC interview yesterday that the coronavirus has not led to him changing his mind about Medicare For All -- he still opposes it.  Is that really a surprise?  When has Joe Biden ever been able to learn from a mistake?

Never.

Eoin Higgins (COMMON DREAMS) adds:

"Are you now reconsidering your position when it comes to single-payer healthcare?" asked Vossoughian.
"Single payer will not solve that at all," Biden replied, referring to the strained U.S. healthcare system. 
The former vice president's rejection of Medicare for All in the midst of a global pandemic was not lost on observers.
"The primary voice speaking out against single-payer right now in the middle of an epidemic is Joe Biden," noted Dig Left researcher Andrew Perez.
Biden's remaining rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has made his outspoken support for Medicare for All a central plank of his campaign. 
Critics of the former vice president bemoaned his "doubling down" on a position which seemed sure to result in electoral ruin. 

"This is a losing politics," tweeted The Nation literary editor David Marcus. "In almost every state that's held a primary so far, including those Biden has won, exit polls show a majority of Democrats prefer single payer."
The question of whether the U.S. would be better suited to handle the crisis with a Medicare for All system has persisted throughout the coronavirus outbreak, which is expected to get worse and peak in the coming weeks and months. Progressives mourned a California teen who died last week, likely from the coronavirus, after being turned away from a hospital for a lack of insurance and questioned the viability and morality of a healthcare system where something like that could happen during a raging pandemic. 

"How can anyone defend this system?" tweeted Claire Sandberg, the Sanders campaign's national organizing director. "Treatment must be free for all."
In addition to the California teen's death, progressives have cited mass layoffs and unemployment as a reason to transition to a healthcare access arrangement not dependent on one's employer providing health insurance.


While Joe was denying the need for Medicare For All yesterday, Bernie was explaining the need.



Joe's inability to grasp why Medicare For All is a need is a lot like the people who refuse to grasp the need to address climate change.


On MSNBC, Joe gave  a very poor interview.  Joshua Caplan (of the right-wing BRIETBART) notes, "Appearing Monday on MSNBC, former Vice President Joe Biden erroneously referred to Wuhan — the Chinese city (of the Hubei province) in which the deadly coronavirus originated — as 'Luhan province."  William Davis (THE DAILY CALLER) adds that Joe stumbled throughout the interview and had to repeatedly refer to notes in his hand because he repeatedly got lost while answering basic questions.  Senility is not pretty.  Right-winger Pat Buchanan (at CNS NEWS) states, "He pops up infrequently in interviews out of the basement of his Delaware home where, sheltering in place, he reads short scripted speeches from a teleprompter."  No, Pat, that's not true.  He also does interviews from his basement where he has to repeatedly refer to note cards.  For those not grasping why we, a left-wing site, note right-wing outlets, have you forgotten that Joe's 'electable' -- or claims to be?  He keeps swearing he's going to bring in right-wing votes.  Right-wing outlets and polling (of independents, moderates and swing voters) are not bearing that out, but that is his claim.

RING OF FIRE notes:

Joe Biden’s latest poll numbers against Donald Trump should make every Democrat in this country nervous. The former Vice President is suffering from a near-complete lack of enthusiasm with American voters, including his own supporters, and that’s exactly what happened with Hillary in 2016. The establishment and the voters are making the same mistakes they made in 2016, and they’re going to yield the same results, as Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains. 





Farron Cousins: A new ABC news and Washington post poll was released over this weekend that shouldn’t leave anybody that calls themselves a Democrat feeling hopeful about the 2020 presidential election. This latest poll looked at the head to head match-ups between Donald Trump and Joe Biden and it looked at enthusiasm. It looked at where each candidate stood on the issues in terms of support from the public and it revealed that yes, we are reliving 2016 folks. Not only is Joe Biden statistically tied now with Donald Trump and head to head matches, whereas just a month ago before the whole pandemic, Biden was beating him by a fairly decent margin and now they’re tied. Even after Donald Trump bungled the response for the pandemic, he is still tied with Joe Biden. So impeachment didn’t affect him. Pandemics not affecting him. Joe Biden’s in trouble. But honestly, folks, that’s not even the worst part of this poll. The worst part is that much like Hillary Clinton, there is absolutely no enthusiasm among Democrats to vote for Joe Biden.
Only 24% of Democrats say that they are very enthusiastic about voting for Joe Biden. That number is over 50% by Republicans who say they’re very enthusiastic about voting for Donald Trump. That spells disaster, and that’s Joe Biden’s biggest problem. That enthusiasm gap. Why, why should we vote for you? What are you offering? How are you going to make our lives better? Here’s the thing I think a lot of people don’t quite understand. You know, we have sat here every single day for the last three plus years talking about all of the horrible things that Donald Trump has done. All of the people he is injured, all of the economic harm he has inflicted. All the attacks on healthcare, all the empty promises, all of it. But here’s the thing. Most of the things that Donald Trump has done do not personally affect most Americans. The trade wars have absolutely devastated American farmers.
That’s, that’s true. That is a policy that is 100% Trump that had a very real impact on these people’s lives. They have lost a lot. But look at the average person walking down the street. Okay. Has their life changed since Donald Trump came into office? Did it get worse? Did it get better or did it stay the same? For most people, the answer is it stayed the same. And that’s the problem, folks. If things aren’t getting worse for too many people and you have a candidate who’s not offering anything different than those people are thinking, well, nothing’s changed for me as it is. You’re telling me nothing’s going to change under you. So why should I switch horses right now in mid stream? Like, why not, why not just keep with the guy who hasn’t effected my life?

And that’s where the enthusiasm gap comes in. Now, if Joe Biden were actually out there offering something to benefit most people instead of a health insurance plan that still leaves 10 million to die, maybe he’d have a little bit more support. If he was offering debt-free college, student loan forgiveness, a green new deal, anything like that, there would be enthusiasm. But he’s not offering that. He’s offering people more of the same without realizing most people’s lives haven’t actually changed under Donald Trump. And I know that’s a sad reality for people to accept, but it’s reality nonetheless. Honestly, look at your day to day life. Tell me what’s different between now and five years ago. You’re still paying astronomical cost for pharmaceuticals, but you also did that under democratic presidents. If you’re not a minority, and I know that sounds horrible, but you’re not experiencing the hate crimes that we have seen increase under Donald Trump and most people don’t even think about those things.



Alex Swoyer (WASHINGTON TIMES) adds:

Exit polls from Michigan and Missouri on Super Tuesday, when more than a dozen states cast their ballot for a Democratic nominee, revealed less than half of all Democratic voters were enthusiastic about Mr. Biden.

The lack of enthusiasm for Mr. Biden could be concerns over his age and health, said Towson University professor Richard E. Vatz, a scholar of political rhetoric and campaigning.


In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, Joe has no answers.  When asked -- like on THE VIEW -- he refers people to his website where a confusing paper that someone wrote exists.  Branko Marcetic (IN THESE TIMES) notes that the paper answers nothing and we'll zoom in on this section of Branko's report:

On the other hand, Biden is supporting the coronavirus emergency bill that has been the subject of days of congressional wrangling, including its provisions of direct checks of $1,200 per American making less than $75,000 a year, and $500 per child. Biden has cautioned that “it’s not everything that I would want,” and indeed, these provisions have come under heavy criticism from progressives. Not only does the bureaucracy involved mean the payments will come far too late for many families, but the means-tested, one-time sum of $1,200 falls far short of the proposals for universal payments of $2,000 a month per family for the duration of the crisis, $1,000 a month per American until a year after the crisis is over following an initial payment of $2,000, and $2,000 a month per adult and $1,000 per child, all respectively proposed by progressives like Sanders, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA).
Does Biden prefer a larger payment? If so, how much larger? Would it be means-tested or universal? Would it be a one-time check or continuous? How does he feel about the potentially months-long delay involved? And does he still prefer to devolve power to state and local governments to distribute this money?
Biden himself hasn’t clarified. His defenders say he’s trying not to step on Democrats’ toes during negotiations; yet as the prospective nominee, not only is he meant to be setting the party’s agenda, but he should also be putting forward ideas that will compete against Trump come the general election, who has improbably ridden his catastrophically bungled response to the crisis to his best-ever approval ratings.

Biden’s approach to mortgages and evictions faces similar confusion. Contrary to his statement on The View, there is no eviction freeze laid out in Biden’s plan. Rather, he leaves it up to governors and mayors to draw on the Emergency Fund “to implement rental assistance, no-interest forbearance or mortgage payment relief.”


Now Bernie and Elizabeth Warren were repeatedly hounded by the media with 'how will you pay for it' on plans related to Medicare For All, college tuition, etc.  But no one asks Joe how he will pay for his plan, nor do they even try to pin him down on specifics.

As for the $2,000 a month that Americans need?  Jake Johnson (COMMON DREAMS) explains why that will probably not happen -- the GOP and Donald Trump are saying last Friday's stimulus will be the last.  If that surprises you, you weren't paying attention.  It's now up to Nancy Pelosi to show some leadership and demand the American people get the money they need.

At THE NATIONAL, Toby Harnden points out:

Now he is unable to hold fundraisers at the homes of wealthy donors or whip up enthusiasm with large rallies. Trying to ask people facing economic ruin to donate cash to a politician can look unseemly. So, too, does running television advertisements lambasting Mr. Trump.
Mr Biden, a full-time politician for five decades, is a traditionalist who shows little aptitude for the mastery of digital tools. On camera, he is an uncertain performer prone to stumbles and misstatements of fact.
The former vice president’s impromptu home television studio is an imperfect setting for broadcasts. In a speech last week, he apparently lost track of his teleprompter and suddenly stopped talking before frantically motioning to off-screen aides.

Coughing repeatedly and often touching his eyes and nose, Mr Biden was chastised by one host for sneezing into his hand rather than his arm. At times he has been plain puzzling, such as when he stated: “We have to take care of the cure. That will make the problem worse no matter what.”

Regarding the first paragraph above, it wouldn't be that hard for Joe to note that, if he became the nominee, he would accept public financing for the general election.  That's what everyone did post-Watergate until Barack Obama's Wall Street contributions (passed off as small donors until the press finally took a serious look) in 2008 led him to become the first to opt out of public finance.

Meanwhile "Did Joe Biden assault staffer Tara Reade"?  That's a key question.  In RELEVANT MAGAZINE's latest podcast, they explore the charges of assault that Tara Reade, former staffer of then-Senator Joe Biden, has made against the nominee.  As  Mike noted in last week's community roundtable:

This week, Tara Reade became an issue for Joe when Ryan Grimm reported on her allegations for THE INTERCEPT and noted that TimesUp! refused to help her.  He then discussed that on THE HILL's RISING with Krystal BallKatie Halper interviewed Tara about her story.  Those late to the party can refer to my "Tara Reade was assaulted by Joe Biden" and "Joe Biden assaulted Tara Reade" and C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot."  Anna North (VOX) explains, "Reade says Biden sexually assaulted her, pushing her against a wall and penetrating her with his fingers. When she pulled away, she says, he said he thought she 'liked' him."  The corporate media has been reluctant to cover the issue all week. 


Robby Soave (REASON) notes the corporate media's silence on Tara Reade:

The mainstream media have remained bafflingly silent about Tara Reade, a former member of then-Senator Biden's staff who claims that he sexually assaulted her in 1993. Reade's name has only appeared twice in The Washington Post, and both were quick asides: A news roundup from April of last year briefly acknowledged an earlier, milder version of Reade's accusation, and a recent rapid-fire Q&A asked a Post political reporter to weigh-in on the political ramifications "of the Tara Reade bombshell." (The nature of the bombshell is not described.)
And while the coronavirus pandemic is obviously dominating news coverage, CNN has made plenty of time for Biden. Chris Cillizza is still ranking Biden's potential veep choices, and the network conducted a virtual townhall event with the candidate last Friday. Reade's name didn't come up, and it has never appeared at CNN.com. At NBC, it's the same story: Chuck Todd interviewed Biden but didn't ask about the allegation.

At INDIANA DAILY STUDENT, Liam O'Sullivan notes:

Sexual assault allegations obviously didn’t prevent President Donald Trump from winning the White House in 2016. But at the time, mainstream media networks urged us to believe the president’s accusers. This time, however, legacy news media has largely ignored the allegations. Tara Reade, a former staffer for then-Sen. Biden, told her story in an interview with podcast host Katie Halper that circulated across social media nearly a week ago, but mainstream liberal news organizations have not reported on it.
That same practice of believing women when they come forward has apparently not applied to Reade. If we are to believe the president’s many accusers, which I do, then we also need to accept that Reade’s accusations are being made in good faith.

Conservative outlets have seized the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy. The National Review, for example, published a story with the headline “Joe Biden, Democrats, and Sexual Assault: They Never Learn.”

[. . . ]

For some, Biden’s alleged conduct isn’t a barrier to support at all. Podcaster Stephanie Wittels Wachs said in a now-deleted tweet, “For the sake of argument, say Biden is a rapist. Trump is also a rapist. So why not vote for the rapist with better policies?”
That ghoulish sentiment is wrong on the face of it. We should not trust someone with credible sexual assault allegations against him with women’s policy, regardless of his political record.
Believing Reade and holding Biden to this standard may hand Trump the presidency. That’s a very real possibility, but if the Democratic Party has principles, it needs to follow them now.

Personally, when faced with a choice between two alleged rapists, I would elect to choose neither. It’s not like he has the nomination quite yet anyway. Bernie Sanders is still running and thus far has had no sexual assault allegations publicized against him. It’s time for principles to prevail, and that means not risking the election of another sexual predator.


We'll close with this ALJAZEERA report on Iraq's healthcare system:



New content at THIRD:





The following sites updated:




Iraq snapshot

Tuesday, March 31, 2020.  Joe Biden continues to stumble and bumble around, while the corporate media treats him like he's the nominee there are still 27 primaries to take place and over 1300 delegates up for grabs, the corporate media ignores that and they ignore Tara Reade.


Starting in the US where Joe Biden is not the Democratic Party's presidential nominee despite spin from the media.  1991 delegates are needed to win the nomination.  Currently, Bernie Sanders has 914 and Joe Biden has 1217 -- neither has reached the 1991 threshold.  More to the point,  Setting aside territories and DC, there are still 23 states that have yet to hold a primary.  Joe Biden is not the nominee.

When over 20 candidates were vying for the nomination, the corporate media insisted they couldn't cover all of them, they could only cover the top ones.  Well there are now only two candidates for the nomination and yet MEET THE PRESS and MSNBC and other garbage keeps bringing on Joe and acting as though he's the nominee.

No, we don't have a nominee until the primaries are over or one of the candidates reaches 1991.

That's reality.  The corporate media needs to be covering Bernie Sanders' campaign as much as they are Joe Biden's or they are not a free press, they are not journalists.  There are two candidates and the nomination could go to either right now.  The corporate media's decision to freeze out one candidate in an active primary is not journalism and needs to be called out.  Repeating -- neither has reached 1991 delegates and there are 23 states who have yet to hold their primaries.  Counting states, DC and territories, there are 27 primaries still to be held in this race and over 1300 delegates still up for grabs. The race is not over.

Appearing on in-the-tank-for-Joe MSNBC yesterday, Tim Haines (REAL POLITICS) reports Joe was still faced with the question on people's minds: "Where is Joe Biden?"

MSNBC, YASMIN VOSSOUGHIAN: Mr. Vice President, I've got to be honest with you, over the last two weeks or so I've had a lot of people ask me online, every single day, where is Joe Biden? As a candidate for president, are you making yourself visible enough, especially during this crisis, because it is a fine line to walk. You certainly don't want to be seen as the candidate who is politicizing a pandemic when Americans face this crisis.

His answers included "I've been on the phone."  Yes, Joe, we saw that video.



It's rather embarrassing but if Joe wants to bring it up again, so be it.


Jack Brewster (FORBES) notes Joe declared in the MSNBC interview yesterday that the coronavirus has not led to him changing his mind about Medicare For All -- he still opposes it.  Is that really a surprise?  When has Joe Biden ever been able to learn from a mistake?

Never.

Eoin Higgins (COMMON DREAMS) adds:

"Are you now reconsidering your position when it comes to single-payer healthcare?" asked Vossoughian.
"Single payer will not solve that at all," Biden replied, referring to the strained U.S. healthcare system. 
The former vice president's rejection of Medicare for All in the midst of a global pandemic was not lost on observers.
"The primary voice speaking out against single-payer right now in the middle of an epidemic is Joe Biden," noted Dig Left researcher Andrew Perez.
Biden's remaining rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has made his outspoken support for Medicare for All a central plank of his campaign. 
Critics of the former vice president bemoaned his "doubling down" on a position which seemed sure to result in electoral ruin. 

"This is a losing politics," tweeted The Nation literary editor David Marcus. "In almost every state that's held a primary so far, including those Biden has won, exit polls show a majority of Democrats prefer single payer."
The question of whether the U.S. would be better suited to handle the crisis with a Medicare for All system has persisted throughout the coronavirus outbreak, which is expected to get worse and peak in the coming weeks and months. Progressives mourned a California teen who died last week, likely from the coronavirus, after being turned away from a hospital for a lack of insurance and questioned the viability and morality of a healthcare system where something like that could happen during a raging pandemic. 

"How can anyone defend this system?" tweeted Claire Sandberg, the Sanders campaign's national organizing director. "Treatment must be free for all."
In addition to the California teen's death, progressives have cited mass layoffs and unemployment as a reason to transition to a healthcare access arrangement not dependent on one's employer providing health insurance.


While Joe was denying the need for Medicare For All yesterday, Bernie was explaining the need.



Joe's inability to grasp why Medicare For All is a need is a lot like the people who refuse to grasp the need to address climate change.


On MSNBC, Joe gave  a very poor interview.  Joshua Caplan (of the right-wing BRIETBART) notes, "Appearing Monday on MSNBC, former Vice President Joe Biden erroneously referred to Wuhan — the Chinese city (of the Hubei province) in which the deadly coronavirus originated — as 'Luhan province."  William Davis (THE DAILY CALLER) adds that Joe stumbled throughout the interview and had to repeatedly refer to notes in his hand because he repeatedly got lost while answering basic questions.  Senility is not pretty.  Right-winger Pat Buchanan (at CNS NEWS) states, "He pops up infrequently in interviews out of the basement of his Delaware home where, sheltering in place, he reads short scripted speeches from a teleprompter."  No, Pat, that's not true.  He also does interviews from his basement where he has to repeatedly refer to note cards.  For those not grasping why we, a left-wing site, note right-wing outlets, have you forgotten that Joe's 'electable' -- or claims to be?  He keeps swearing he's going to bring in right-wing votes.  Right-wing outlets and polling (of independents, moderates and swing voters) are not bearing that out, but that is his claim.

RING OF FIRE notes:

Joe Biden’s latest poll numbers against Donald Trump should make every Democrat in this country nervous. The former Vice President is suffering from a near-complete lack of enthusiasm with American voters, including his own supporters, and that’s exactly what happened with Hillary in 2016. The establishment and the voters are making the same mistakes they made in 2016, and they’re going to yield the same results, as Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains. 





Farron Cousins: A new ABC news and Washington post poll was released over this weekend that shouldn’t leave anybody that calls themselves a Democrat feeling hopeful about the 2020 presidential election. This latest poll looked at the head to head match-ups between Donald Trump and Joe Biden and it looked at enthusiasm. It looked at where each candidate stood on the issues in terms of support from the public and it revealed that yes, we are reliving 2016 folks. Not only is Joe Biden statistically tied now with Donald Trump and head to head matches, whereas just a month ago before the whole pandemic, Biden was beating him by a fairly decent margin and now they’re tied. Even after Donald Trump bungled the response for the pandemic, he is still tied with Joe Biden. So impeachment didn’t affect him. Pandemics not affecting him. Joe Biden’s in trouble. But honestly, folks, that’s not even the worst part of this poll. The worst part is that much like Hillary Clinton, there is absolutely no enthusiasm among Democrats to vote for Joe Biden.
Only 24% of Democrats say that they are very enthusiastic about voting for Joe Biden. That number is over 50% by Republicans who say they’re very enthusiastic about voting for Donald Trump. That spells disaster, and that’s Joe Biden’s biggest problem. That enthusiasm gap. Why, why should we vote for you? What are you offering? How are you going to make our lives better? Here’s the thing I think a lot of people don’t quite understand. You know, we have sat here every single day for the last three plus years talking about all of the horrible things that Donald Trump has done. All of the people he is injured, all of the economic harm he has inflicted. All the attacks on healthcare, all the empty promises, all of it. But here’s the thing. Most of the things that Donald Trump has done do not personally affect most Americans. The trade wars have absolutely devastated American farmers.
That’s, that’s true. That is a policy that is 100% Trump that had a very real impact on these people’s lives. They have lost a lot. But look at the average person walking down the street. Okay. Has their life changed since Donald Trump came into office? Did it get worse? Did it get better or did it stay the same? For most people, the answer is it stayed the same. And that’s the problem, folks. If things aren’t getting worse for too many people and you have a candidate who’s not offering anything different than those people are thinking, well, nothing’s changed for me as it is. You’re telling me nothing’s going to change under you. So why should I switch horses right now in mid stream? Like, why not, why not just keep with the guy who hasn’t effected my life?

And that’s where the enthusiasm gap comes in. Now, if Joe Biden were actually out there offering something to benefit most people instead of a health insurance plan that still leaves 10 million to die, maybe he’d have a little bit more support. If he was offering debt-free college, student loan forgiveness, a green new deal, anything like that, there would be enthusiasm. But he’s not offering that. He’s offering people more of the same without realizing most people’s lives haven’t actually changed under Donald Trump. And I know that’s a sad reality for people to accept, but it’s reality nonetheless. Honestly, look at your day to day life. Tell me what’s different between now and five years ago. You’re still paying astronomical cost for pharmaceuticals, but you also did that under democratic presidents. If you’re not a minority, and I know that sounds horrible, but you’re not experiencing the hate crimes that we have seen increase under Donald Trump and most people don’t even think about those things.



Alex Swoyer (WASHINGTON TIMES) adds:

Exit polls from Michigan and Missouri on Super Tuesday, when more than a dozen states cast their ballot for a Democratic nominee, revealed less than half of all Democratic voters were enthusiastic about Mr. Biden.

The lack of enthusiasm for Mr. Biden could be concerns over his age and health, said Towson University professor Richard E. Vatz, a scholar of political rhetoric and campaigning.


In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, Joe has no answers.  When asked -- like on THE VIEW -- he refers people to his website where a confusing paper that someone wrote exists.  Branko Marcetic (IN THESE TIMES) notes that the paper answers nothing and we'll zoom in on this section of Branko's report:

On the other hand, Biden is supporting the coronavirus emergency bill that has been the subject of days of congressional wrangling, including its provisions of direct checks of $1,200 per American making less than $75,000 a year, and $500 per child. Biden has cautioned that “it’s not everything that I would want,” and indeed, these provisions have come under heavy criticism from progressives. Not only does the bureaucracy involved mean the payments will come far too late for many families, but the means-tested, one-time sum of $1,200 falls far short of the proposals for universal payments of $2,000 a month per family for the duration of the crisis, $1,000 a month per American until a year after the crisis is over following an initial payment of $2,000, and $2,000 a month per adult and $1,000 per child, all respectively proposed by progressives like Sanders, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA).
Does Biden prefer a larger payment? If so, how much larger? Would it be means-tested or universal? Would it be a one-time check or continuous? How does he feel about the potentially months-long delay involved? And does he still prefer to devolve power to state and local governments to distribute this money?
Biden himself hasn’t clarified. His defenders say he’s trying not to step on Democrats’ toes during negotiations; yet as the prospective nominee, not only is he meant to be setting the party’s agenda, but he should also be putting forward ideas that will compete against Trump come the general election, who has improbably ridden his catastrophically bungled response to the crisis to his best-ever approval ratings.

Biden’s approach to mortgages and evictions faces similar confusion. Contrary to his statement on The View, there is no eviction freeze laid out in Biden’s plan. Rather, he leaves it up to governors and mayors to draw on the Emergency Fund “to implement rental assistance, no-interest forbearance or mortgage payment relief.”


Now Bernie and Elizabeth Warren were repeatedly hounded by the media with 'how will you pay for it' on plans related to Medicare For All, college tuition, etc.  But no one asks Joe how he will pay for his plan, nor do they even try to pin him down on specifics.

As for the $2,000 a month that Americans need?  Jake Johnson (COMMON DREAMS) explains why that will probably not happen -- the GOP and Donald Trump are saying last Friday's stimulus will be the last.  If that surprises you, you weren't paying attention.  It's now up to Nancy Pelosi to show some leadership and demand the American people get the money they need.

At THE NATIONAL, Toby Harnden points out:

Now he is unable to hold fundraisers at the homes of wealthy donors or whip up enthusiasm with large rallies. Trying to ask people facing economic ruin to donate cash to a politician can look unseemly. So, too, does running television advertisements lambasting Mr. Trump.
Mr Biden, a full-time politician for five decades, is a traditionalist who shows little aptitude for the mastery of digital tools. On camera, he is an uncertain performer prone to stumbles and misstatements of fact.
The former vice president’s impromptu home television studio is an imperfect setting for broadcasts. In a speech last week, he apparently lost track of his teleprompter and suddenly stopped talking before frantically motioning to off-screen aides.

Coughing repeatedly and often touching his eyes and nose, Mr Biden was chastised by one host for sneezing into his hand rather than his arm. At times he has been plain puzzling, such as when he stated: “We have to take care of the cure. That will make the problem worse no matter what.”

Regarding the first paragraph above, it wouldn't be that hard for Joe to note that, if he became the nominee, he would accept public financing for the general election.  That's what everyone did post-Watergate until Barack Obama's Wall Street contributions (passed off as small donors until the press finally took a serious look) in 2008 led him to become the first to opt out of public finance.

Meanwhile "Did Joe Biden assault staffer Tara Reade"?  That's a key question.  In RELEVANT MAGAZINE's latest podcast, they explore the charges of assault that Tara Reade, former staffer of then-Senator Joe Biden, has made against the nominee.  As  Mike noted in last week's community roundtable:

This week, Tara Reade became an issue for Joe when Ryan Grimm reported on her allegations for THE INTERCEPT and noted that TimesUp! refused to help her.  He then discussed that on THE HILL's RISING with Krystal BallKatie Halper interviewed Tara about her story.  Those late to the party can refer to my "Tara Reade was assaulted by Joe Biden" and "Joe Biden assaulted Tara Reade" and C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot."  Anna North (VOX) explains, "Reade says Biden sexually assaulted her, pushing her against a wall and penetrating her with his fingers. When she pulled away, she says, he said he thought she 'liked' him."  The corporate media has been reluctant to cover the issue all week. 


Robby Soave (REASON) notes the corporate media's silence on Tara Reade:

The mainstream media have remained bafflingly silent about Tara Reade, a former member of then-Senator Biden's staff who claims that he sexually assaulted her in 1993. Reade's name has only appeared twice in The Washington Post, and both were quick asides: A news roundup from April of last year briefly acknowledged an earlier, milder version of Reade's accusation, and a recent rapid-fire Q&A asked a Post political reporter to weigh-in on the political ramifications "of the Tara Reade bombshell." (The nature of the bombshell is not described.)
And while the coronavirus pandemic is obviously dominating news coverage, CNN has made plenty of time for Biden. Chris Cillizza is still ranking Biden's potential veep choices, and the network conducted a virtual townhall event with the candidate last Friday. Reade's name didn't come up, and it has never appeared at CNN.com. At NBC, it's the same story: Chuck Todd interviewed Biden but didn't ask about the allegation.

At INDIANA DAILY STUDENT, Liam O'Sullivan notes:

Sexual assault allegations obviously didn’t prevent President Donald Trump from winning the White House in 2016. But at the time, mainstream media networks urged us to believe the president’s accusers. This time, however, legacy news media has largely ignored the allegations. Tara Reade, a former staffer for then-Sen. Biden, told her story in an interview with podcast host Katie Halper that circulated across social media nearly a week ago, but mainstream liberal news organizations have not reported on it.
That same practice of believing women when they come forward has apparently not applied to Reade. If we are to believe the president’s many accusers, which I do, then we also need to accept that Reade’s accusations are being made in good faith.

Conservative outlets have seized the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy. The National Review, for example, published a story with the headline “Joe Biden, Democrats, and Sexual Assault: They Never Learn.”

[. . . ]

For some, Biden’s alleged conduct isn’t a barrier to support at all. Podcaster Stephanie Wittels Wachs said in a now-deleted tweet, “For the sake of argument, say Biden is a rapist. Trump is also a rapist. So why not vote for the rapist with better policies?”
That ghoulish sentiment is wrong on the face of it. We should not trust someone with credible sexual assault allegations against him with women’s policy, regardless of his political record.
Believing Reade and holding Biden to this standard may hand Trump the presidency. That’s a very real possibility, but if the Democratic Party has principles, it needs to follow them now.

Personally, when faced with a choice between two alleged rapists, I would elect to choose neither. It’s not like he has the nomination quite yet anyway. Bernie Sanders is still running and thus far has had no sexual assault allegations publicized against him. It’s time for principles to prevail, and that means not risking the election of another sexual predator.


We'll close with this ALJAZEERA report on Iraq's healthcare system:



New content at THIRD:





The following sites updated:




Monday, March 30, 2020

Seth Rich

They love to bait me.  Maybe they know how to?  Seems like when I read an e-mail and they say, "You'll never note this," I know I have to in order to prove them wrong. 

So a guy named Damon e-mailed and wrote, "Gateway Pundit has a really important story and it is explosive but you won't link to it or let people know about it because GP is right wing and this story is one no one wants to touch.  I know you'll blow me of and ignore my e-mail."

Here is the link he did not think I would provide and here is an excerpt to the story:

New evidence confirms FBI is lying again after a former Assistant US Attorney claims under oath that the FBI did examine Seth Rich’s computer.

Previously we reported that after getting caught lying to the Courts and claiming there were no documents related to Seth Rich, emails between FBI Deep State lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were uncovered by Judicial Watch with the title “Seth Rich” .

Next the FBI claimed the Strzok-Page emails were redacted to protect the investigation they claim never happened.

After bringing in the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York to argue against an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the judge denied attorney Ty Clevenger’s request for an evidentiary hearing but provided no explanation for the verdict.

Clevenger has now uncovered that the former Assistant US Attorney related to the case admitted that Rich’s computer was inspected by the FBI and that there would be records related to this investigation.



This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:''
 
Monday, March 30, 2020.  New Zealand follows France's lead in announcing a withdrawal from Iraq, thug Moqtada al-Sadr states same-sex marriage caused the coronavirus, Joe Biden continues to struggle but it helped by a corporate media that refuses to say the name "Tara Reade."


Starting in the US where nonsense prevails.  Senile and struggling Joe Biden remains a car wreck.  Mark Moore (NEW YORK POST) reports:

Former Vice President Joe Biden and President Trump are virtually neck and neck in the 2020 presidential race, a new poll released Sunday found.
Registered voters opted for Biden by 49 percent over Trump’s 47 percent, the Washington Post-ABC News poll shows — with the president closing a 7 percentage point gap from February as his administration responds to the coronavirus outbreak.
Registered voters by 47 to 43 percent said they “trust” Trump to handle the coronavirus pandemic over Biden, but thought the Democratic presidential candidate would be better able to manage health care than the president by 50 to 41 percent.

On who they trust on the economy, registered voters picked Trump 52 to 42 percent.

Martin Pengelly (GUARDIAN) reporting on the same poll notes:

Biden has not yet secured the Democratic nomination for 2020 but he is well ahead of the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders in the delegate count. Amid widespread public lockdowns as the coronavirus spreads, many primaries have been delayed, leaving the race in limbo.
The Post-ABC poll put Biden 55%-39% up over Sanders among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.


Bernard Goldberg (THE HILL) offers, "Joe Biden is the presumptive candidate for his party’s nomination for president. As such, he’s also, or should be, the one visibly leading the party. But that role has been left to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) who, unlike Biden, aren’t under quarantine, self-imposed or otherwise. And since Biden didn’t lead the fight to get the bill passed, he’ll have a hard time taking credit for it if it works."  Emily Zanotti (THE DAILY WIRE) drops back to the WASHINGTON POST-ABC NEWS poll to point out that "the poll found that fewer than 35% of Democrats are 'enthusiastic' about casting a ballot for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee."  Fewer than 35% of Democrats are enthusiastic.  This 35% is "the lowest on record for a Democratic presidential candidate in 20 years of ABC [-] Post polls." Rick Klein and Mary Alice Parks (ABC NEWS' THE NOTE) report on that enthusiasm gap and explain, "Biden is behind where Hillary Clinton was in terms of enthusiasm four years ago, even though Biden's delegate edge over Sanders is larger than Clinton's was at the time."  Brad Polumbo (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) offers, "Turnout and enthusiasm are a big part of what wins elections. On this front, Trump looks strong while Biden looks downright awful. This poll suggests that Biden’s voters lean toward him because they think he’s the least-worst option, not because they’re passionate about supporting his candidacy. That’s a recipe for low-turnout and bad news for the former vice president."  REAL CLEAR POLITICS notes:

The "Joe Rogan Experience" host predicted that President Trump would eat Joe Biden alive in a general election: "Trump is going to eat him alive. He’s going to eat that guy alive. The guy can barely remember what he’s talking about while he’s talking."

"You have to be able to call out s**t that’s wrong on your side. That’s the problem the Democratic Party is having right now with that Joe Biden guy. You guys have to be able to call it out. You can’t let this slide, because everybody else sees it, and Trump is going to eat him alive," Rogan said. "He’s going to eat that guy alive."

"The guy can barely remember what he’s talking about while he’s talking," Rogan said. "I'm looking at this like a medical condition."



Call him on his s**t?  The corporate media won't even ask him about his former staffer Tara Reade who has accused him of assault.  Hayley Miller (HUFFINGTON POST) reports:

A former Senate aide to Joe Biden accused him this week of sexually assaulting her nearly 30 years ago. But television hosts who have interviewed the former vice president since she went public with her allegation have so far failed to ask him about it.
In an interview with podcast host Katie Halper published in part on Wednesday, Tara Reade said she had been working in Biden’s Senate office in 1993 when he kissed her and penetrated her with his fingers without her consent. Biden’s presidential campaign has denied the allegation.
Since Wednesday, Biden has appeared on CNN and NBC, as well as a makeshift quarantine edition of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live” that aired on YouTube. But none of the hosts broached the subject of the recent assault claim.

Neither ABC, CNN nor NBC immediately responded to HuffPost’s requests for comment.






Javier Manjarres (THE FLORIDIAN), in his round up of news stories, notes:

“Biden sexual assault allegation goes unmentioned in another televised interview” by Fox News’ Gregg Re – Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden, who has previously said that women leveling misconduct accusations should be presumptively believed, sat for another television interview Sunday — and again wasn’t asked about the recent accusation by former Senate staffer Tara Reade that the former vice president sexually assaulted her in 1993. Speaking to NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Biden discussed everything from whether sanctions on Iran should be suspended during the coronavirus pandemic (“I would need more information to make that judgment,” Biden responded) to whether Bernie Sanders should drop out of the race (“I think it’s up to Bernie to make the judgment whether or not he should stay in the race or not stay in the race,” Biden said.)  


Turning to Iraq, yesterday New Zealand made news by announcing they were withdrawing all of their troops from Iraq.   The NEW ZELAND HERALD reported, "Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Ron Mark made the announcement today, saying it followed the successful conclusion of the mission at Taji to train Iraqi forces."  This follows last Thursday's announcement by the French government that France would be pulling all of its troops out of Iraq.  And the US?  Keeping the same troop numbers, just shuffling them around.  AP reports:

The U.S.-led coalition in Iraq withdrew Sunday from a military base in the country's north that nearly launched Washington into an open war with neighboring Iran.

The K1 Air Base is the third site coalition forces have left this month, in line with U.S. plans to consolidate its troops in two locations in Iraq.



In other news, Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt (NEW YORK TIMES) report,  "The Pentagon has ordered military commanders to plan for an escalation of American combat in Iraq, issuing a directive last week to prepare a campaign to destroy an Iranian-backed militia group that has threatened more attacks against American troops."  Louisa Loveluck and Missy Ryan (WASHINGTON POST via PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE) report that this is in response to increased rocket attacks on US bases is prompting the move and that "American requests that Iraqi authorities track down and prosecute those responsible for rocket attacks have made little  headway."  Gregory Aftandilian (ARAB WEEKLY) adds, "The US military said the Katyusha rocket attacks that killed two US soldiers and one British soldier at Camp Taji base on March 11, which were preceded by other attacks, were coordinated by Kata’ib Hezbollah. In response, the United States struck the militia but the Iraqi government accused the United States of killing and wounding Iraqi soldiers and civilians in the process."  i24 NEWS notes:



The US Department of Defense issued an order last week commanding top generals to come up with a plan to step up the action against an Iraqi Tehran-backed militia seen as the force behind a string of rocket attacks at bases hosting international troops, New York Times reported Friday.
Citing officials with knowledge on the matter, the newspaper says the Pentagon was seeking a plan to destroy Kataeb Hezbollah in a drastic escalation against the Iranian proxy that is formally operating within the Iraqi chain of command.
The order was authorized by US Defense Secretary Mark Esper, the officials told the NYT.


THE NATIONAL explains:

The Pentagon blamed Kataib Hezbollah for a March 11 rocket attack that killed one British and two US personnel in Iraq.
The order was described by officials with knowledge of the internal communications to the New York Times.

But the order faced resistance from within, the military's top commander in Iraq, Lt Gen Robert P White, who said thousands more US troops were required in the country for any such campaign to take place. He also said that such an operation would risk war with Iran.

Karwan Faidhi Dri (RUDAW) observes, "This comes amid the recent US handover of two key military bases to Iraqi forces. Al-Qaim and Qayyarah military bases were signed over to the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) recently, and a US withdraw from Kirkuk’s K1 airbase is expected in the coming weeks."                                                                         

Maira Fantappie and Sam Heller offer their take at WAR ON THE ROCKS:


This dynamic is two-sided, of course, but the armed factions demanding a U.S. exit have little reason to stop it. The asymmetric campaign paramilitaries are waging is low cost and sustainable. And for them, violence is working — they now seem on their way to dramatically reducing U.S. influence in Iraq, tilting Iraqi politics toward their agenda, and, if they run the United States out of the country entirely, scoring a major strategic victory regionally.
If anyone is going to break this retaliatory cycle, then, it has to be the United States. But it cannot be done by doubling down on threats and reflexive deterrent responses. Nor can the United States realistically expect the Iraqi security forces to confront these paramilitary factions, risking wide-open civil conflict. Instead, America’s best chance is to exercise restraint, consult with its Iraqi partners, and provide an opportunity for the formation of a new Iraqi government.
With a new government in place, the United States and its coalition partners could negotiate a new agreement on the deployment of foreign forces in the country that reasserts Iraqi authority and supervision; reduces the U.S. footprint in Iraq, even if only symbolically; and ensures countries other than the United States are the face of the coalition effort to support Iraq. An agreement of this kind would both solidify the legitimate legal basis for coalition forces’ presence and undercut the argument of those denouncing the U.S. presence as a foreign occupation violating Iraqi sovereignty. If the controversy over the legitimacy of foreign forces’ presence can be dialed down, political and popular forces that advocate more balanced relationships with both the United States and Iran should be in a stronger position to reassert themselves. Washington will also be freer to partner with Baghdad on initiatives that could win lasting Iraqi goodwill for the United States, such as support for the country’s coronavirus response.
This broader political shift could also constrain anti-American paramilitaries, which would be defying the country’s government and laws if they continued armed “resistance” against U.S. and foreign forces. These factions are not wholly immune to Iraqi politics; they have an ideology and an agenda, but they also must take into account Iraqi public opinion.

It may be a long shot. Still, this could be the United States’ best hope to remain in the country under relatively stable conditions, both to continue a counter-ISIL fight that is an important U.S. priority and to balance Iran’s influence in Iraqi politics. De-escalation in Iraq is a U.S. interest — it can help create conditions for the formation of a new government and for putting U.S.-Iraqi relations on more solid footing. That is what would represent a genuine strategic victory, albeit not a victory won on the battlefield.


Meanwhile, Thursday, the US Treasury Dept issued the following:


WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today designated 20 Iran- and Iraq-based front companies, senior officials, and business associates that provide support to or act for or on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) in addition to transferring lethal aid to Iranian-backed terrorist militias in Iraq such as Kata’ib Hizballah (KH) and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH). Among other malign activities, these entities and individuals perpetrated or supported: smuggling through the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr; money laundering through Iraqi front companies; selling Iranian oil to the Syrian regime; smuggling weapons to Iraq and Yemen; promoting propaganda efforts in Iraq on behalf of the IRGC-QF and its terrorist militias; intimidating Iraqi politicians; and using funds and public donations made to an ostensibly religious institution to supplement IRGC-QF budgets. The terrorist militias supported by the Iranian regime such as KH and AAH have continued to engage in attacks on U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq.
“Iran employs a web of front companies to fund terrorist groups across the region, siphoning resources away from the Iranian people and prioritizing terrorist proxies over the basic needs of its people,” said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. “The United States maintains broad exceptions and authorizations for humanitarian aid including agriculture commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices to help the people of Iran combat the coronavirus.”
Today’s designations were taken pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, as amended, which targets terrorists and those providing support to or acting for or on behalf of designated terrorists or supporting acts of terrorism.

RECONSTRUCTION ORGANIZATION OF THE HOLY SHRINES IN IRAQ

The Reconstruction Organization of the Holy Shrines in Iraq (ROHSI) is an IRGC-QF-controlled organization based in Iran and Iraq whose leadership was appointed by the late IRGC-QF Commander Qassem Soleimani. Though ostensibly a religious institution, ROHSI has transferred millions of dollars to the Iraq-based Bahjat al Kawthar Company for Construction and Trading Ltd, also known as Kosar Company, another Iraq-based entity under the IRGC-QF’s control. Kosar Company has served as a base for Iranian intelligence activities in Iraq, including the shipment of weapons and ammunition to Iranian-backed terrorist militia groups. 
Additionally, Kosar Company has received millions of dollars in transfers from the Central Bank of Iran, which was designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 in September 2019 for its financial support of the IRGC-QF and Lebanese Hizballah. Both the IRGC-QF and Hizballah have been designated by the U.S. Department of State as Foreign Terrorist Organizations under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
In addition, IRGC-QF officials have used ROHSI’s funds to supplement IRGC-QF budgets, likely embezzling public donations intended for the construction and maintenance of Shiite shrines in Iraq. 
ROHSI and Kosar Company are being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, directly or indirectly, the IRGC-QF.
OFAC is also designating Mohammad Jalal Maab, the current head of ROHSI, who was personally appointed to the position by former IRGC-QF Commander Soleimani. Jalal Maab succeeded Hassan Pelarak, an IRGC-QF officer and co-owner of Kosar Company, who was selected by Soleimani to serve as his special assistant on an IRGC-QF-led committee focused on sanctions evasions activity. Pelarak also worked with IRGC-QF officials to transfer missiles, explosives, and small arms to Yemen, intensifying the Yemeni conflict and exacerbating one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes.
Mohammad Jalal Maab is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being a leader or official of ROHSI. Hassan Pelarak is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the IRGC-QF. 
Alireza Fadakar, another co-owner of Kosar Company, has worked in Iraq on behalf of the IRGC-QF for several years and is an IRGC-QF commander in Najaf, Iraq. Muhammad al-Ghorayfi is an IRGC-QF affiliate and employee of Kosar Company who provides administrative support to Fadakar and has facilitated the travel of IRGC-QF officials between Iraq and Iran.
Alireza Fadakar is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the IRGC-QF. Muhammad al-Ghorayfi is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Alireza Fadakar.
Masoud Shoustaripousti, another co-owner of Kosar Company, has worked in Iraq on behalf of the IRGC-QF for several years and has laundered money for the group. Shoushtaripousti worked with Mashallah Bakhtiari, who used Kosar Company to launder money and worked with officials at the Baghdad-based branch of Iran’s Bank Melli to deposit funds for the IRGC-QF in Iraq. OFAC designated Bank Melli in November 2018, pursuant to E.O. 13224, for acting as a conduit for payments to the IRGC-QF which also used Bank Melli to dispense funds to Iranian-backed terrorist groups in Iraq.
Masoud Shoustaripousti is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the IRGC-QF. Mashallah Bakhtiari is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the IRGC-QF.

AL KHAMAEL MARITIME SERVICES

Separately, OFAC is taking action against Al Khamael Maritime Services (AKMS), an Iraq-based company operating out of Umm Qasr port in which the IRGC-QF has a financial interest. The IRGC-QF leveraged Shiite militia group contacts to evade Iraqi government inspection protocol at Umm Qasr port and has charged foreign companies and vessels fees for services at its terminal at the port. AKMS also worked to sell Iranian-origin petroleum products in contravention of U.S. sanctions against the Iranian regime.
AKMS is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, directly or indirectly, the IRGC-QF. 
OFAC is also designating Hasan Saburinezhad, also known as Engineer Morteza, who is involved in the finances of AKMS. As a representative of AKMS, Saburinezhad worked to facilitate the entry of Iranian shipments into Iraqi ports for the benefit of the IRGC-QF. Saburinezhad is also involved in IRGC-QF financial and economic activities between Iran, Iraq, and Syria, including smuggling activities along the Syria/Iraq border. Saburinezhad also runs smuggling routes to help Iraqi terrorist group KH and the IRGC-QF smuggle goods into Iraq from Iran, and has assisted KH in funding the acquisition and transfer of goods out of Iran.  
Saburinezhad is the Managing Director and a member of the board of directors of Mada’in Novin Traders (MNT), an Iran- and Iraq-based company associated with multiple IRGC-QF officials, including Vali Gholizadeh, who has worked with Saburinezhad for the benefit of both AKMS and MNT. 
Hasan Saburinezhad is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the IRGC-QF. Mada’in Novin Traders is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Saburinezhad. Gholizadeh is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being a leader or official of Mada’in Novin Traders.
OFAC is also designating Mohammed Saeed Odhafa Al Behadili, the Managing Director of AKMS, and Ali Hussein Falih Al-Mansoori, also known as Seyyed Rezvan, the company’s deputy managing director and head of its board of directors. Additionally, as of 2018, Al Behadili was focused on facilitating shipments and business transactions to circumvent U.S. sanctions against the Iranian regime. Al-Mansoori has worked with IRGC-QF officials on business issues related to AKMS. 
Mohammed Saeed Odhafa Al Behadili is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, AKMS. Ali Hussein Falih Al-Mansoori is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being a leader or official of AKMS.
Sayyed Reza Musavifar, who is responsible for the accounts and finances of AKMS, has worked with the IRGC-QF to transfer money to terrorist militias, including KH and Lebanese Hizballah. In 2014, Musavifar transferred the equivalent of millions of dollars of foreign currency to senior IRGC-QF officials. 
Musavifar is a part owner of Middle East Saman Chemical Company, an Iran-based company that maintained an account at Rashed Exchange, an Iran-based exchange house used to convert currency for the IRGC-QF that was designated in May 2018 for being owned or controlled by Mohammadreza Khedmati, an individual designated for support to the IRGC-QF. 
Sayyed Reza Musavifar is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the IRGC-QF. Middle East Saman Chemical Company is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Sayyed Reza Musavifar.
Additionally, Ali Farhan Asadi is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, AKMS.

SAYYED YASER MUSAVIR AND MEHDI GHASEMZADEH

IRGC-QF official Sayyed Yaser Musavir has been deployed to Iraq extensively since early 2014 in support of the IRGC-QF, and he has coordinated operations between the group and Iraqi terrorist militia group officials. In 2019, Musavir coordinated with IRGC-QF officials to sell Iranian petroleum products to Syria. In 2018, Musavir coordinated propaganda efforts with AAH on behalf of senior IRGC-QF officials. AAH was designated in January 2020 by the U.S. Department of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and as Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) pursuant to E.O. 13224.
Sayyed Yaser Musavir is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the IRGC-QF.
Mehdi Ghasemzadeh is an IRGC-QF official and is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the IRGC-QF.

SHAYKH ‘ADNAN AL-HAMIDAWI

Shaykh ‘Adnan Al-Hamidawi is a Special Operations Commander for KH who in 2019 planned to intimidate Iraqi politicians who did not support the removal of U.S. forces from Iraq. KH, an Iranian-backed terrorist militia group that has been a U.S. Department of State-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization and SDGT since 2009, receives lethal support from the IRGC-QF, and has been responsible for numerous terrorist acts against Iraqi, U.S., and Coalition forces in Iraq for over a decade, including bombings, rocket attacks, and sniper operations.  
Shaykh ‘Adnan Al-Hamidawi is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, KH.

SANCTIONS IMPLICATIONS

As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of these persons that are in or come within the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC. OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all dealings by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve and property or interests in property of blocked persons.
In addition, persons that engage in certain transactions with the persons designated today may themselves be exposed to sanctions. Furthermore, any foreign financial institution that knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction on behalf of individuals and entities designated today could be subject to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through account sanctions.
Identifying information on the entities designated today.
####



In coronavirus news, TREND NEWS AGENCY notes, "Iraq's Health Ministry on Saturday confirmed two more deaths from COVID-19 and 48 new cases of infections with the virus, Trend reports citing Xinhua. The new cases included nine in the capital Baghdad, 10 in Najaf, six in Basra, five in Erbil and Duhok each, four in Muthanna, three in Karbala, two in Wasit and one in the provinces of Kirkuk, Sulaimaniyah, Diyala and Maysan each, the ministry said in a statement."  KURDISTAN 24 notes that the number of confirmed cases is now 506.


AFP notes:

Fearing the respiratory illness could somehow spread from the corpses to nearby population centres, Iraqi religious authorities, tribes and townspeople have sent the bodies of COVID-19 victims back to hospital morgues, where they are piling up. 
"We couldn't hold a funeral for him and haven't been able to bury his body, even though it's been more than a week since he died," Malik told AFP, his voice laced with bitterness.
Armed men claiming to be tribal leaders threatened Malik, his family and his friends, saying they would set fire to his car if they tried to bury the body in their area. 
"Can you imagine that across this huge country Iraq, there aren't a few square meters to bury a small number of bodies?"


Still on coronavirus, The whispers on social media that Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is gay won't go away.  In Iraq, you can be killed if someone suspects you are gay and Moqtada's thugs have killed many thought to be gay over the years.  Moqtada?  He'll never be killed even though many suspect he is gay because Moqtada has his own militia -- his only claim to power beyond his shrinking cult at present.  Moqtada's latest announcement is only yet again fueling the rumors on social media.  Yasmine Mosimann  (RUDAW) reports:

Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is the latest global religious leader to ignore scientific consensus and accuse the LGBT+ community of causing the coronavirus pandemic.

“One of most significant things to cause the spread of this epidemic is the legalization of same-sex marriage,” said the top cleric in a tweet on Saturday, adding “hence, I call on governments to repeal this law immedietely, without delay.”

Sadr’s comments come at a time when coronavirus has rapidly swept across the world, devastating countries with and without same-sex marriage alike.

Stephen Hickey, British ambassador to Iraq, responded to Sadr’s comment in a tweet saying the United Kingdom “will not change its law on equal marriage, which they are proud of.”

“Instead, let's work together on a better foundation of medical and scientific advice to win the battle against coronavirus,” added the ambassador.

Amir Ashour, founder and executive director at IraQueer, says tweets like Sadr’s are dangerous for Iraq’s LGBT+ community: “We believe such tweets are not only misleading the public scientifically, but are also an attempt to weaponize the current situation and capitalize on the fear of people from the unknown to increase attacks against LGBT+ people.”

“Muqtada al-Sadr is leading a militia which has a documented history of torturing and killing LGBT+ people in organized campaigns using horrific means,” added Ashour in an email statement to Rudaw English.





IRAQUEER, an LGBTQ organization in Iraq, released the following statement:

We condemn Muqtada Al Sadr's statement which claims that same sex marriage is the cause of the coronavirus.  Such statements do not only lack scientific grounds, but are also weaponizing Iraqi people's fears during stressful times to target LGBT+ people. Making such ignorant statements will not only endanger LGBT+ people's lives, but will also put the lives of all Iraqis at risk.  The coronavirus is a pandemic that must be dealt with seriously and medically, and Muqtada Al Sadr's tweet will only distract us from what is really important, which is to save Iraqi lives.