NEW: We compiled a new database of donations from post-Soviet oligarchs tied to election interference operations.
Our findings: They donated between $372 million to $435 million to more than 200 of the most prestigious U.S. non-profit institutions. foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/30/ame…
These findings came with the work of the great @dszakonyi and @acdatacollectiv (both of which I’d recommend following).
The donations from these post-Soviet oligarchs run the gamut, from American think tanks to American universities to American museums to American concert halls, and plenty more: foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/30/ame…
The question is: Why are these post-Soviet oligarchs funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to willing American non-profit institutes?
The first answer: influencing policy, especially when it comes to American think tanks accepting donations from these kleptocrats.
The second answer: reputation laundering, both for these oligarchs and the governments to which they're close.
These donations present (another) massive hole in the U.S.'s anti-kleptocracy regime.
Just like realtors, shell company operators, and hedge fund managers, these non-profits have no legal requirements to turn away oligarchs or their suspect/dirty money.
But there are some solutions:
—Transparency, via a public database of donations
—New public ethical guidelines on donation acceptance policies
—Formal donation review committees
—Enhanced due diligence procedures, similar to American banks
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some of the civilian carnage Napoleon and his troops wrought in northern Italy: “Napoleon stormed the city, and every armed man was immediately killed... He turned the city over for a 24-hour spree of rape, looting and murder.”
Some of the civilian carnage Napoleon and his troops wrought in the Middle East: “Jaffa was sacked, in midst of a pitiless massacre that Napoleon never explained with anything other than weasel words about his inability to cope with a mass surrender.”
It's been a long, strange four years. It's also been one of an (unfortunately) historic nature, which is easy to overlook amidst the daily news cycles. Here are ten historic firsts the U.S. has seen under Trump—none of the which we'd seen in the 240 years prior:
1. Trump is the first American president to be impeached on national security grounds.
2. Trump is the first American president to threaten not to recognize the election results, and to refuse to pledge to a peaceful transition of power.
3. Trump is the first American president to try to postpone the election.
4. Trump is the first American president to try to jail his predecessor.
There is a fascinating story of the successful public pressure campaign over the last two weeks to get American lobbying/PR firms to drop Turkey and Azerbaijan as clients. Just remarkable.
What a deeply, deeply stupid piece. Doesn't even bother to mention Aliyev once. Honestly surprised anyone would write "America must have Azerbaijan's back" in public in 2020.
The thing that highlights Greenwald's ignorance here is that the U.S. has *consistently* led the global efforts at cracking down on domestic/trans-national corruption. (A legacy Trump has obviously helped kneecap.)
Criminalizing bribery of foreign officials. Requiring transparency in foreign lobbying. Leveling massive fines against foreign money laundering banks. Piloting tax-transparency agreements. Asset seizures. Targeted sanctions programs.
Time and again, the U.S. has led on this.
Has the U.S. fallen short in other areas of trans-national corruption? Of course. (See: anonymous shell company formation, AML exemptions for real estate, etc.—which is why I'm writing this book.)
But claiming the U.S. "doesn't care" about domestic corruption is sheer idiocy.
Honestly amazed that the garbage story from the NY Post, and its amplification in MAGA world, just recycles the same exact lies and spin we've seen for over a year now.
Was wondering when this was going to become relevant. (Not that any of these emails should automatically be treated as authentic, anyway.) nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/…