CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
I realize he can’t declare war but he doesn’t have to declare war to launch an attack.
This isn't over.
- Thread starter Unclebaldrick
- Start date
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Like a lot of stuff dealing with the POTUS, it really seems fuzzy based on that quick read to me.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/this-isnt-over.1037839/post-16040709
printer
Well-Known Member
Iran nuclear sites may be beyond reach of "bunker busters"
Boeing’s 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), an ultra-large bunker buster for use on underground targets, with Iran routinely mentioned as its most likely intended destination, is a key element in the implicit U.S. threat to use force as a last report against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Would that weapon, delivered in a gouging combination with other precision-guided munitions, pulverize enough rock to reach down and destroy the uranium enrichment chamber sunk deep in a mountain at Fordow, Iran’s best sheltered nuclear site?
While the chances of such a strike succeeding are slim, they are not so slim as to enable Tehran to rule out the possibility of one being attempted, according to defense experts contacted by Reuters. A “second best” result might be merely to block the plant’s surface entrances, securing its temporary closure, some said.
One U.S. official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, described an attack on the underground site, about 160 km (100 miles) south of Tehran near the Iranian holy city of Qom, as “hard but not impossible.” The vulnerability of the chamber at Fordow, believed buried up to 80 meters (260 feet) deep on a former missile base controlled by the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps, came into sharper focus on Monday when the United Nations nuclear watchdog confirmed that Iran had started enriching uranium at the site.
Critics of Iran’s nuclear program tend to agree that military action against Iran’s nuclear work would be their last and worst option. Not only would this risk civilian casualties, but Iran would seek to retaliate against Western targets in the region, raising the risk of a regional war and risking global economic turmoil.
Experts differ on the extent of the challenge at Fordow, but all agree it presents greater complexity than Iran’s other underground site at Natanz, 230 km (140 miles) south of Tehran where enrichment happens in a chamber estimated to be 20 meters underground, or less than a third of Fordow’s presumed depth.
Mark Fitzpatrick, an Iran expert at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that Natanz was buried under several layers of dirt and concrete but it was “nevertheless possible to damage it with precision bombing with one sortie to create a crater and second sortie to burst through the bottom of the crater to the facility below.” But the chamber at Fordow might be “impenetrable”, he said, due to its presumed depth.
His doubts were echoed by Robert Henson, Editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, to Reuters, who said it was likely that Fordow had been built to survive a sustained assault. “We know for a fact - or as near a fact as possible - that you will not be able to stop this program with air strikes. There continues to be a whole lot of hysterical posturing about this. In the meantime, it keeps backing the Iranians into a corner,” he said.
“Given that it (Fordow) is a relatively recent development, it has probably been designed with a lot of attention to protecting it against conventional strikes. You don’t necessarily have to obliterate it, mind. You could block the exits, block access to power, isolate it from life outside, and then you have effectively switched it off.
“But for sure it will have been designed with all of that in mind, and the Iranians will have done the best job they can to make it survivable.”
“With the Natanz facility, as it was being constructed, satellites gave us the information on where and how deep enrichment was to take place. Fordow on the other hand is an unknown. Where is the enrichment chamber? How deep? Which direction does the tunnel go?”
John Cochrane, a defense specialist at the London-based Exclusive Analyst risk consultancy, said he believed the bunker-busting MOP might make a difference. But he suggested Fordow was at the very limit of the bomb’s capacities, which he said could reach down to a maximum of 60 meters.
“Repeated strikes by Tomahawk cruise missiles and MOP might be effective in penetrating the site, if it is not as deep as 80m but, even then, we question whether an attack would have the same level of assurance in terms of damage as strikes on other ‘softer’ sites,” he told Reuters.
“We question from what little we have seen of open source imagery whether it is as deep as 80 meters. If it is, we don’t know for a fact but we think that is probably too deep for any form of air-delivered munitions, including MOP Cyber attack or physical assault by Special Forces may be the only attack options.”
www.reuters.com
Boeing’s 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), an ultra-large bunker buster for use on underground targets, with Iran routinely mentioned as its most likely intended destination, is a key element in the implicit U.S. threat to use force as a last report against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Would that weapon, delivered in a gouging combination with other precision-guided munitions, pulverize enough rock to reach down and destroy the uranium enrichment chamber sunk deep in a mountain at Fordow, Iran’s best sheltered nuclear site?
While the chances of such a strike succeeding are slim, they are not so slim as to enable Tehran to rule out the possibility of one being attempted, according to defense experts contacted by Reuters. A “second best” result might be merely to block the plant’s surface entrances, securing its temporary closure, some said.
One U.S. official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, described an attack on the underground site, about 160 km (100 miles) south of Tehran near the Iranian holy city of Qom, as “hard but not impossible.” The vulnerability of the chamber at Fordow, believed buried up to 80 meters (260 feet) deep on a former missile base controlled by the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps, came into sharper focus on Monday when the United Nations nuclear watchdog confirmed that Iran had started enriching uranium at the site.
Critics of Iran’s nuclear program tend to agree that military action against Iran’s nuclear work would be their last and worst option. Not only would this risk civilian casualties, but Iran would seek to retaliate against Western targets in the region, raising the risk of a regional war and risking global economic turmoil.
Experts differ on the extent of the challenge at Fordow, but all agree it presents greater complexity than Iran’s other underground site at Natanz, 230 km (140 miles) south of Tehran where enrichment happens in a chamber estimated to be 20 meters underground, or less than a third of Fordow’s presumed depth.
Mark Fitzpatrick, an Iran expert at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that Natanz was buried under several layers of dirt and concrete but it was “nevertheless possible to damage it with precision bombing with one sortie to create a crater and second sortie to burst through the bottom of the crater to the facility below.” But the chamber at Fordow might be “impenetrable”, he said, due to its presumed depth.
His doubts were echoed by Robert Henson, Editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, to Reuters, who said it was likely that Fordow had been built to survive a sustained assault. “We know for a fact - or as near a fact as possible - that you will not be able to stop this program with air strikes. There continues to be a whole lot of hysterical posturing about this. In the meantime, it keeps backing the Iranians into a corner,” he said.
“Given that it (Fordow) is a relatively recent development, it has probably been designed with a lot of attention to protecting it against conventional strikes. You don’t necessarily have to obliterate it, mind. You could block the exits, block access to power, isolate it from life outside, and then you have effectively switched it off.
“But for sure it will have been designed with all of that in mind, and the Iranians will have done the best job they can to make it survivable.”
“With the Natanz facility, as it was being constructed, satellites gave us the information on where and how deep enrichment was to take place. Fordow on the other hand is an unknown. Where is the enrichment chamber? How deep? Which direction does the tunnel go?”
John Cochrane, a defense specialist at the London-based Exclusive Analyst risk consultancy, said he believed the bunker-busting MOP might make a difference. But he suggested Fordow was at the very limit of the bomb’s capacities, which he said could reach down to a maximum of 60 meters.
“Repeated strikes by Tomahawk cruise missiles and MOP might be effective in penetrating the site, if it is not as deep as 80m but, even then, we question whether an attack would have the same level of assurance in terms of damage as strikes on other ‘softer’ sites,” he told Reuters.
“We question from what little we have seen of open source imagery whether it is as deep as 80 meters. If it is, we don’t know for a fact but we think that is probably too deep for any form of air-delivered munitions, including MOP Cyber attack or physical assault by Special Forces may be the only attack options.”
Iran nuclear sites may be beyond reach of "bunker busters"
With its nuclear program beset as never before by sanctions, sabotage and assassination, Iran must now make a new addition to its list of concerns: One of the biggest conventional bombs ever built.
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
Jordan Klepper is really good. He had a show on the comedy network that was pretty good too but it didn’t last long, unfortunately.
Maybe I was the only one that liked it.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Stinky just had a monkey wrench thrown into his money laundering business, the senate just overrode the veto of the defense bill.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
your comment got me searching. His objections to the defense bill puzzled me. This makes sense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/11/anonymous-shell-company-us-ban/
A groundbreaking measure to ban anonymous shell companies in the United States cleared Congress on Friday as the Senate joined the House in passing a defense-spending bill with a veto-proof margin.
The Corporate Transparency Act, which was tacked onto the defense bill, would require corporations and limited liability companies established in the United States to disclose their real owners to the Treasury Department, making it harder for criminals to anonymously launder money or evade taxes. The rule applies to future and existing entities alike.
The measure passed the Senate with an 84-to-13 vote as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which cleared the House earlier this week. Trump pledged to veto the defense bill — one of few laws that passes every year — because it doesn’t include his demand to repeal liability protections for social media companies. Trump also opposes a clause that orders military bases named for Confederate leaders to be renamed.
The anonymous-shell-company ban was years in the making, as supporters slowly built a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, law-enforcement officials and even business groups that originally opposed the idea, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“We are on the verge of celebrating the most significant anti-money-laundering victory in a generation due in large part to the widespread and growing support for reform,” said Clark Gascoigne, senior policy adviser at the FACT Coalition, an alliance of anti-corruption groups that helped push for the legislation.
....
Tolerance of anonymous shell companies has long helped drug- and human- traffickers, organized crime groups and foreign kleptocrats launder their ill-gotten gains through the U.S. financial system, supporters of the legislation say. It took Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer, only a few days to set up and use an anonymous Delaware LLC to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels, in violation of campaign finance laws.
I've suspected Trump's main objective all along has been to gain wealth and influence with international crime bosses such as Russian oligarchs through money laundering for them. There was some shenanigans with Turkey and Iranian oil money laundering that popped up a couple of years ago. Trump used his position as President to meddle in this banal and strange case. Giuliani's name keeps showing up in money laundering cases too. Personally, I think Trump was blindsided by his loss in November and he hasn't had time to cover his tracks. Which explains why Trump is going crazy over trying to overturn it.
Jan 21: Let the investigations begin
printer
Well-Known Member
You mean trump's tax bill will be bigger yet?
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
tRUmp has been a money launderer for organized crime his whole life, his dad was before him.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
There is a nasty case working its way through the SDNY court involving the Turkish state-run bank, Halkbank, a gold securites broker who has turned to testify about that bank's role in money laundering Iranian oil money. Trump personally tried to intervene.
Turkey’s State-Run Halkbank Must Face Sanctions Case
Turkey’s state-run Halkbank cannot dismiss an indictment accusing the bank of helping funnel more than $20 billion for Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.
www.courthousenews.com
Turkey’s state-run Halkbank cannot dismiss an indictment accusing the bank of helping funnel more than $20 billion for Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.
“The court concludes that Halkbank is not immune from prosecution,” U.S. District Judge Richard Berman wrote in a 16-page opinion.
The case against Halkbank stems from the prosecution of an Iranian-Turkish gold trader Reza Zarrab, who turned state’s witness after pleading guilty to what prosecutors describe as a record-breaking money laundering scheme.
In testimony that rattled U.S.-Turkish relations, Zarrab said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ordered the illicit trade. Zarrab also accused former senior Turkish officials, including former Economy Minister Zafer Çağlayan, of accepting enormous bribes to look the other way.
The case also has embarrassed President Donald Trump, who reportedly tried to scuttle the case against Halkbank as a favor for Erdoğan.
A very good write-up can be found here:
Oligarchs, lobbyists and a Giuliani pal: How Turkey courted Trump
Turkey’s effort to influence the Trump White House began at the Watergate, in a meeting brokered by a figure from the Ukraine impeachment saga, Lev Parnas.
One small but pithy paragraph stands out to me:
The Halkbank case, which involved laundering billions of dollars out of Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions, is based in part on testimony from a Turkish-Iranian gold trader, who alleged that Erdoğan ordered illicit trade with Iran when he was prime minister. Erdoğan has rejected the allegations and insisted Turkey did not violate the U.S. embargo.
It's an eye-wateringly complicated case and I don't claim to have a good handle on exactly what's going on. All sorts of names and actions that kept showing up elsewhere are mentioned in this article : troop withdrawals in Syria, bromance between Trump and Erdogan, Putin, Russian oligarchs, a Russian shipping magnate, Iranian oil money, money laundering, gold securities, Lev Parnas, Giuliani, Ukraine.
The scale of this is way beyond anything I can comprehend. Imagine how much money could be had from laundering Iranian oil money? Recall that Trump has put the screws to Iran through sanctions. Trump has this multinational organization that has already been accused of money laundering for oligarchs. That looks like small potatoes compared to this. It also looks like something that is in Trump's wheelhouse. I don't think billions in ill gotten gains were reported.
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Trump left Mar logo early and was clearly distracted and anxious, he will become more nervous as inauguration day approaches and the future he discounts comes at him like a fright train. I think they are gonna take him down fast and hard, individual #1 to take him down and tie him up. If he issues a self pardon the judge might set it aside and let him take it up on appeal, or Joe could revoke it as a test case for the SCOTUS. It would be wise if the SCOTUS allowed presidents to revoke the pardons of past presidents, if they don't, there could be bigly issues with the constitution, if Trump pardoned every federal prisoner. Since Trump something like that becomes a possibility and the pardon power was meant to correct injustices, not to perpetuate them or hide criminal activity by the POTUS. The pardon power is one of the presidency, not of an individual, it is in effect an executive order.
None of these issues have been addressed or settled by the SCOTUS yet, but Donald will test and settle every aspect of the pardon power. The SCOTUS intrepid the constitution, but are also responsible to make it work as a practical instrument and not to make the framers look like fucking idiots. The pardon powers are vague and nothing is settled including revocation of corruptly granted pardons, Donald is a perfect case for testing the limits of pardons. By revoking Trump's corrupt pardons starting with Trump's own and then those involved in criminal conspiracies with him, Joe can start with the low hanging fruit. Joe has nothing to lose revoking Trump's pardon and then those who were corruptly given to his coconspirators. If it is established in law that Joe can revoke pardons, they can then revoke those of the Black Water mass murders too.
Before the SCOTUS settles the matter of pardons, the FBI, grand juries and congress can take the pardons at face value and get whatever information they can. They can jail the fucks for not answering questions or indict them for perjury if they lie, there is an out with state level crimes for some of them to retain their 5th amendment rights. For people like Rudy and Kushner who were doing international crimes with no state charges possible, there would be no way out. I think Kushner will be living in Israel fighting extradition, until Bebe Netanyahu is in prison himself for corruption (he is on his way to prison).
None of these issues have been addressed or settled by the SCOTUS yet, but Donald will test and settle every aspect of the pardon power. The SCOTUS intrepid the constitution, but are also responsible to make it work as a practical instrument and not to make the framers look like fucking idiots. The pardon powers are vague and nothing is settled including revocation of corruptly granted pardons, Donald is a perfect case for testing the limits of pardons. By revoking Trump's corrupt pardons starting with Trump's own and then those involved in criminal conspiracies with him, Joe can start with the low hanging fruit. Joe has nothing to lose revoking Trump's pardon and then those who were corruptly given to his coconspirators. If it is established in law that Joe can revoke pardons, they can then revoke those of the Black Water mass murders too.
Before the SCOTUS settles the matter of pardons, the FBI, grand juries and congress can take the pardons at face value and get whatever information they can. They can jail the fucks for not answering questions or indict them for perjury if they lie, there is an out with state level crimes for some of them to retain their 5th amendment rights. For people like Rudy and Kushner who were doing international crimes with no state charges possible, there would be no way out. I think Kushner will be living in Israel fighting extradition, until Bebe Netanyahu is in prison himself for corruption (he is on his way to prison).
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The constitution is clear that presidents may pardon people other than himself and that's all there is to it. There is no provision for a subsequent president revoking a pardon.
A president pardoning himself is something that hasn't been done before. All we have are legal opinions, which have the same value as an opinion poll. The only legal opinions that will matter are ones written by a judge after a trial or hearing.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I says nothing about a president revoking his own pardons or those of his predecessors, it is completely unsettled and vague. It's one of those things that ya never know until you try. I've posted expert legal opinion that says it's possible on the Trump pardons thread. Almost nothing has been decided by the SCOTUS in this area, there is a legal opinion by the DOJ dating from Nixon that a POTUS cannot pardon himself, but that is it. There are other legal arguments that can be made as well, but revoking the pardon might be appealing for the reasons outlined above. Most pardons have been to correct injustices and the ones who were not, were not revoked by the next POTUS. All the SCOTUS can do is say no, even for Trump's pardon, but rule against his particular pardon on other grounds, either way the matter will be settled.
They can also rule a pardon of a coconspirator was corrupt, given for something of value, in this case silence, or some other service and of course cash. This is another matter about pardons yet to be settled, but you cannot sell a pardon, that much is settled.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Jimmy Carter pardoned 200,000 Vietnam Draft evaders. Do you think that Trump could revoke that? I don't.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
The court could invoke the statue of limitations on revoking pardons or commutations, say a 5 year limit. Obama and other presidents had an elaborate process for granting pardons and there is a pardons section in the DOJ for the process of vetting pardons. Trump bypassed these established procedures and they might rule that anybody who didn't go through such a well established process could be subject to revocation. The Clinton pardon of Mark Rich is the only corrupt pardon that appears to rise to this level, but Bush II did not revoke it, congress held hearings on it, but pardons are a power of the second branch, the presidency. Trump would be a perfect example to test the limits of pardons, I contend it is a power of the office, not of the individual. The only reason it was not used to revoke pardons was that it was not politically expedient to do so, even for Bush II, because he might have needed to use it.
Trump could use the same pardon power to free and wipe out the criminal records of all 152,184 federal inmates. Does anybody doubt he is capable of it? Carter took the hit for the home team with the Vietnam draft dodgers pardon and he solved a problem for Nixon. 30,000 of those people came to Canada and many are still here, I knew a few of them and a few Canadians who went to Nam.
"Canada harboured roughly 30,000 American draft dodgers. But at the same time, about 30,000 Canadians volunteered to fight in Southeast Asia".
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Proclamation 4483 - Wikipedia
Proclamation 4483
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Proclamation 4483, also known as the Granting Pardon for Violations of the Selective Service Act, was a presidential proclamation issued by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It granted pardons to those who violated the Military Selective Service Act during the Vietnam War era, from August 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973.[1] It was implemented through Executive Order 11967.[2]
Context[edit]
During the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of American men evaded the draft by fleeing the country or failing to register with their local draft board.[3] President Gerald Ford signed a proclamation in 1974 that granted conditional amnesty to draft evaders, provided they work in a public service job for up to two years. Draft evaders who had done so by leaving the country were not eligible for a conditional pardon. Up to 90% of evaders had fled to Canada, with up to 50,000 settling there permanently.[4]
Jimmy Carter promised during his presidential campaign that he would pardon draft evaders of the Vietnam War,[3] calling it the "single hardest decision" of his campaign.[5] He signed the proclamation on January 21, 1977, his first full day in office.[3] The proclamation did not offer amnesty to deserters, however.[4]
Reception[edit]
Barry Goldwater, a supporter of the Vietnam War, referred to the proclamation as "the most disgraceful thing that a president has ever done". Carter was accused of showing favoritism towards middle-class evaders who were able to successfully stay out of the war.[2] Some veterans of the war were opposed to amnesty for evaders, while anti-war activists said it fell short by not pardoning deserters.[6]
Proclamation 4483
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Proclamation 4483, also known as the Granting Pardon for Violations of the Selective Service Act, was a presidential proclamation issued by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It granted pardons to those who violated the Military Selective Service Act during the Vietnam War era, from August 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973.[1] It was implemented through Executive Order 11967.[2]
Context[edit]
During the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of American men evaded the draft by fleeing the country or failing to register with their local draft board.[3] President Gerald Ford signed a proclamation in 1974 that granted conditional amnesty to draft evaders, provided they work in a public service job for up to two years. Draft evaders who had done so by leaving the country were not eligible for a conditional pardon. Up to 90% of evaders had fled to Canada, with up to 50,000 settling there permanently.[4]
Jimmy Carter promised during his presidential campaign that he would pardon draft evaders of the Vietnam War,[3] calling it the "single hardest decision" of his campaign.[5] He signed the proclamation on January 21, 1977, his first full day in office.[3] The proclamation did not offer amnesty to deserters, however.[4]
Reception[edit]
Barry Goldwater, a supporter of the Vietnam War, referred to the proclamation as "the most disgraceful thing that a president has ever done". Carter was accused of showing favoritism towards middle-class evaders who were able to successfully stay out of the war.[2] Some veterans of the war were opposed to amnesty for evaders, while anti-war activists said it fell short by not pardoning deserters.[6]
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So, let's see,
Its a good bet that a lot of those resisters were and are still are, Democrats and voted for Biden.
Trump will revoke Carter's pardon, declares their votes invalid and proclaims the 2020 election will be re-run under his jurisdiction because the vote is tainted.
Is this where you are going?
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
It’s peculiar to me that a country formed by a rebellion against a despotic sovereign would allow those same powers in it’s chief government executive.
Pardons should be eliminated
Pardons should be eliminated
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
This article goes into some detail on pardons.
Can Trump pardon himself? Can pardons be reversed? The power explained (usatoday.com)
An excerpt:
"Can a pardon be reversed?
Generally, pardons are irreversible. Congress and courts can't reverse them, but a president can – to some extent.
In 2008, President George W. Bush took the unusual step of revoking a pardon he gave to Isaac Robert Toussie, a real estate developer convicted of mail fraud after learning that Toussie's father was a major Republican donor. Bush was able to revoke the pardon, which he granted just the day before, because the pardon attorney had not signed the grant of clemency.
Still, the Supreme Court has not tackled the question of when a pardon is no longer revocable.
"Some people would argue that as soon as the president signs a warrant that the pardon is effective. Others could just as plausibly argue that there also has to be some form of communication or delivery to the person who's pardoned. And that the president, until that occurs, could change his mind, so I think the operative question here is going to be what constitutes delivery and we don't have a Supreme Court opinion on exactly what that would be," Dan Kobil, a law professor at Capital University in Ohio, told NPR in 2008, shortly after Bush reversed the pardon".