Connect with us

Finance

Epstein waged a years-long quest to meet Putin and talk finance

Published

on

Epstein waged a years-long quest to meet Putin and talk finance

Jeffrey Epstein was on a mission to meet with Vladimir Putin when an intriguing proposal dropped into his email.

The Russian president was ready to receive Epstein, according to an October 2014 message from a correspondent on a database of more than 3.5 million files belonging to the late convicted sex offender that have roiled global politics and business.

“I spoke t= Putin,” wrote the interlocutor, whose identity has been redacted by the US Department of Justice. “He would be very glad if you were to visit and explain=financial markets in the 21 st century. Digital currency. derivative= structured finance. I would set up the meeting when you are next in=Europe. I am sure you two will like each other.”

Hours later, Epstein forwarded the message with a request for advice to Kathy Ruemmler, who’s stepping down as Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s general counsel after details of her association with the disgraced financier emerged in the files released by the Justice Department.

In his response, Epstein anticipated that her advice would be not to go “for the moment” and that was in fact the case. Ruemmler’s reply was brief: “Yes my answer is still the same,” she wrote. “Your fun i= denied.”

Advertisement

The caution at that point was understandable. Months earlier, Putin had sent Russian troops to annex Crimea from Ukraine, prompting wide-ranging US and European Union sanctions and sparking the geopolitical crisis that has since spiraled into the largest conflict in Europe since World War II.

Epstein’s fascination with Putin and Russia was undimmed, though, even as the documents paint a picture of a man who appeared largely clueless about who had genuine power and influence with the Kremlin leader. The files show a years-long effort to secure a one-on-one meeting with Putin, whose name appears about 1,000 times in the database.

The emails are quoted here as they appear in the DOJ release, including spelling and grammatical errors.

Ultimately, it seems, his quest was unsuccessful. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Putin never met Epstein as far as he’s aware, and no evidence has emerged so far to show that they did.

Earlier that year, in January, Epstein pitched former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjorn Jagland as the politician apparently prepared to meet with Putin in Sochi. The Russian Black Sea resort was shortly to host the 2014 Winter Olympics, the most expensive in history as Putin lavished $50 billion to present the games as a showcase of his country’s post-Soviet restoration.

Advertisement

Sport wasn’t on Epstein’s mind. “you can explain to putin , that there should be a sopshiticated russian version of bitcoin,” he wrote. “it would be the most advanced financial instrument availbale on a global basis.”

Jagland was among the most prominent European politicians at the time as secretary general of the Council of Europe for a decade between October 2009 and September 2019. Jagland met Putin on May 20, 2013, according to the Kremlin’s website, and returned to Sochi in 2014 for the opening of the Olympics.

On May 8, 2013, Epstein asked Jagland to secure him an audience with the Russian leader. “I know you are going to meet putin on the 20th, He is desperate to engage western investment in his country,” the financier wrote. “I have his solution. He needs to securitize russian investment, that means the govt takes the first loss.”

Epstein went on: “I recoginize that there are human rights issues that are at the forefront of your trip howver, if it is helpful to you, I would be happy to meet with him sometime in June and explain the solution to his top prioirty, I think this would be good for your goals. exchange somehting he really wants. for someting you want.”

In a further exchange a few days later, Jagland told Epstein “all this is not easy for me to explain to Putin. You have to do it. My job is to get a meeting with him.”

Advertisement

Epstein replied that Putin “is in a unique position to do something grand, like sputnik did for the space race.” He added: “I would be happy to meet with him , but for a minimum of two to three hours, not shorter.”

Apparently, a counter-offer came from Moscow that failed to enthuse Epstein. On May 21, he claimed in a message to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak that Putin had proposed a meeting during the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum the following month.

“I told him no,” Epstein wrote to Barak. “If he wants to meet he will need to set aside real time and privacy, lets see what happens.”

Days earlier, on May 9, referring to Putin, Epstein admitted to the Israeli politician that “I never met him.”

Two years later, in 2015, Barak wrote to thank Epstein for arranging his own participation at the St. Petersburg forum, where he said he held meetings with Bank of Russia Governor Elvira Nabiullina and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as well as the heads of the country’s two largest banks, Herman Gref of Sberbank and VTB Bank’s Andrey Kostin.

Advertisement

A spokesperson for Barak didn’t immediately offer comment.

As early as November 2010, Epstein was boasting to an unidentified correspondent that he had “a friend of Putin,s” who could help him secure a Russian visa, in response to an apparent party invitation.

Epstein noted on an application form for a year-long Russian visa in 2011 that he’d been issued with visas every year but one between 2002 and 2007, and had traveled to the country. It’s unclear from the files how many times he made use of the visas to visit Russia, though they indicate he made repeated plans to go there.

In April 2018, he received an email advising that his Russian visa was expiring and he’d need an official invitation letter to “renew for a 3 year business visa.” The visa was subsequently issued in June.

Epstein sent more emails to Jagland asking about meetings with Putin until June 2018. That last message, about a month before Putin held his first summit with US President Donald Trump in Helsinki, was the most concise.

Advertisement

“Would love to meet with Putin,” Epstein wrote.

Norwegian authorities started a corruption probe into Jagland this month over his links to Epstein.

Jagland is “fully cooperating with the police and has provided a detailed account of all relevant matters,” his lawyer, Anders Brosveet, said in a statement, declining to comment further. “He denies all charges against him.”

Trump’s election in 2016 gave Epstein more opportunity to cultivate Russian contacts, presenting himself as someone who could explain the political newcomer. This is what Epstein did during Trump’s first term, telling foreign officials how best to deal with the new president, according to one person who knew him at that time, asking not to be identified because the matter is sensitive.

One, apparently, was Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations in New York until his death in February 2017. Epstein claimed to Jagland that he’d coached the late Churkin on how to talk to Trump, and suggested he tell Putin that Lavrov could also “get insight on talking to me.”

Advertisement

Writing in June 2018, Epstein said: “churkin was great . he understood trump after =ur conversations. it is not complex. he must=be seen to get something its that simple.”

According to the DOJ files, Epstein also had regular contact with Sergei Belyakov, a former deputy economy minister and a graduate of Russia’s FSB security service who was involved in organizing the St. Petersburg economic forum. In one 2015 email, Epstein described him as a “very good guy.”

Belyakov didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Epstein bragged about his own FSB connections in another 2015 message to an unknown contact that he’d accused of attempting to blackmail him.

“I felt it necessary to contact some friends in FSB, and I though did not give them your name,” Epstein wrote. “So i expect never ever to hear a threat from you again.”

Advertisement

–With assistance from Ott Ummelas and Dan Williams.

Finance

Arsenal Braced for Shock Sale to Combat Looming Financial Issues—Report

Published

on

Arsenal Braced for Shock Sale to Combat Looming Financial Issues—Report

Arsenal will be forced into selling at least one first-team player at the end of the season as last summer’s $359 million spend catches up with them, a report has revealed.

Advertisement

Arsenal parted ways with vast sums for an array of transfer targets before the campaign commenced, with Eberechi Eze ($90.2 million) and Viktor Gyökeres ($85.1 million) among the expensive additions.

An enormous outlay has facilitated an incredible campaign to date for Mikel Arteta’s side, who are currently perched first in the Premier League and can still secure an unprecedented quadruple of trophies.

Advertisement

However, according to The Telegraph, Arsenal will need to raise funds through player sales this summer to ensure they comply with the Premier League and UEFA’s financial regulations.

Advertisement

Internal discussions are already taking place over which first-teamer(s) could yield the greatest transfer fee and profit to help Arsenal balance the books. A host of names are potentially on the chopping block.


Few Safe From Arsenal Departure

Advertisement

Even the sale of Arsenal’s captain has not been ruled out. | Getty Images/Glyn Kirk/AFP

Certain individuals will undoubtedly be off limits when sales are sanctioned at the end of the season—Bukayo Saka, Declan Rice and William Saliba to name a few—but Arsenal might have to be ruthless with their outgoings.

Advertisement

According to the report, even skipper Martin Ødegaard is not immune to being pushed out the exit door, the Norwegian’s low value on Arsenal’s balance sheet paving the way for a mammoth profit if he’s sold. However, he’s still considered a hugely important figure at the club.

Advertisement

Gabriel Martinelli is another who is under consideration given his colossal transfer value, while Gabriel Jesus, Leandro Trossard, Kai Havertz and Ben White are other potential candidates for the boot as their contracts tick down.

Arsenal’s current preference is likely to be offloading one of their two precocious academy graduates: Ethan Nwaneri and Myles Lewis-Skelly. Neither are eager to leave the Emirates Stadium but their sales would count as pure profit given they have come through the club’s youth setup. Past sales of Emile Smith Rowe and Eddie Nketiah show Arsenal are not averse to selling homegrown talents.

The Gunners are expected to be protagonists in the transfer market again this summer as Arteta looks to build a dynasty, while the arrival of Piero Hincapié on a permanent deal worth $60 million adds to their desire to cash in on some of their stars.


Who Should Arsenal Offload This Summer?

Advertisement

Leandro Trossard could be looking for a new club this summer. | Alex Pantling/Getty Images

Advertisement

Contracts will come under the microscope when Arsenal consider sales. There are currently four players whose deals expire in the summer of 2027—Martinelli, Trossard, Jesus and Christian Nørgaard.

Martinelli and Nørgaard both have clauses allowing Arsenal to trigger a one-year extension and while the latter holds little transfer value, Martinelli would certainly command a hefty fee if he were to depart. The Brazilian has struggled to take the step to superstar status but is still just 24 years old.

Arsenal could therefore turn to Trossard or Jesus. The former will be 32 years old and the latter 30 by the time their deals run out, meaning extensions are unlikely. Cashing in this summer might be the wise move, although neither are likely to be a truly blockbuster sale.

Havertz’s injury issues and the fact his deal expires in 2028 make him a possibility, while White is certainly a luxury option in a well-stocked Arsenal backline.

Advertisement

Fortunately following years of cultivation, Arsenal will be able to cover for sales this summer given their immense squad depth.


Advertisement

READ THE LATEST ARSENAL NEWS, ANALYSIS AND INSIGHT FROM SI FC

Continue Reading

Finance

Oregon Legislature passes controversial campaign finance changes

Published

on

Oregon Legislature passes controversial campaign finance changes
play

Legislators passed a bill March 5 to modify forthcoming changes to Oregon’s campaign finance system despite outcry from good government groups who say the bill creates new loopholes.

Those groups were key in creating House Bill 4024, which was created and passed in 2024 in place of warring ballot measures seeking to overhaul the system.

That legislation included new limits on contributions, including capping individual spending on statewide candidates each cycle at $3,300, and other changes. Parts of the bill were set to go into effect in 2027 and 2028.

Advertisement

Under the new proposal, House Bill 4018, the limits would still begin in 2027, but disclosure requirements and penalties would be pushed to 2031. It also gives the Secretary of State money to update the campaign finance system, but far less than the office previously thought it might need.

Representatives voted 39-19 to pass the bill. A few hours later, the Senate passed it 20-9.

Fourteen of the “no” votes in the House were Democrats, including Reps. Tom Andersen, D-Salem, and Lesly Muñoz, D-Woodburn.

Muñoz told the Statesman Journal she voted against the bill after hearing from people upset with the bill’s process.

Advertisement

Six Democratic senators cast a “no” vote on HB 4018.

Oregon campaign finance reform advocates say they were left out of negotiations

After working together in 2024, advocates said Speaker of the House Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, “ghosted” them.

Good government groups said the bill does far more than address necessary technical fixes to HB 4024.

HB 4018 is “a complete betrayal of the deal that was made two years ago,” Norman Turrill of Oregon’s League of Women Voters said.

Advertisement

Should the bill be signed by Gov. Tina Kotek, the groups said they will push their own changes through a 2028 ballot initiative.

Those advocates have outlined at least 11 different changes they believe the bill creates. The bill’s contents were first shared through a Feb. 9 amendment that was posted after 5 p.m., hours before it received a public hearing in an 8 a.m. work session on Feb. 10 and later, Feb. 12.

Secretary of State Tobias Read told legislators in January his office was requesting $25 million as a placeholder to fund a new campaign finance system for the state. Read was not secretary of state when House Bill 2024 was passed and his office is now working to implement the bill’s changes on a fast approaching deadline.

An additional amendment to the bill instead gives the Secretary of State’s Office $1.5 million for staff, some of whom would be tasked with updating the state’s current system.

House members agreed March 4 to send the bill back to committee, presumably to be amended. A 5 p.m. committee meeting was canceled about an hour after initially being announced.

Advertisement

A work session on HB 4018 was moved to the next morning. After an hour of delay, legislators convened and finished the meeting, moving the bill back to the floor without any changes, in less than three minutes.

A new campaign finance bill, Senate Bill 1502, was introduced and scheduled for a public hearing and work session March 4.

The bill is “very simple,” Senate Minority Leader Bruce Starr, R-Dundee, said. It tells the Secretary of State’s Office to draft a bill for the 2027 session with necessary campaign finance improvements from HB 4024 and HB 4018.

Three senators voted against the bill March 5. It now moves to the House. Legislators have a March 8 deadline to end the session.

“SB 1502 would not correct the severe damage to campaign finance reform that will occur, if HB 4018 B is enacted in this session,” Dan Meek of Honest Elections Oregon wrote in submitted testimony.

Advertisement

Lawmakers appear unsatisfied, but supportive, toward Oregon campaign finance bill

House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, D-Tigard, said HB 4018 made positive changes but acknowledged it was “a challenging vote for many of us.”

“We are implementing this whole new system that is new for all of us, and there are a lot of opinions and there are a lot of details to figure out,” House Minority Leader Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, said. Elmer and Bowman carried the bill in the House. “With that being said, we’re moving forward in good faith, knowing that we’ll also be coming back next year to make sure that those details and all those kinks are worked out.”

Rep. Mark Gamba, D-Milwaukie, said he was concerned about the bill and the “non-inclusive process” that led to it.

Gamba pointed to a letter from the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center that states in part that the bill “would substantially revise critical campaign finance reforms enacted two years ago in Oregon” and weaken the state’s campaign finance law.

The current bill is not the only possibility for moving forward, Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, told lawmakers. Proposed amendments that would have extended implementation timelines without the additional changes were ignored, he said.

Advertisement

“House Bill 4024 and this bill, 4018, have two things in common. One, they were thrown together in a few days behind closed doors, mostly by organizations who dominate campaign funding in the current system,” Golden said. “And two, very few legislators understand what is actually in these bills.”

He urged lawmakers to abandon the system created in House Bill 4024 as an “uncomfortably expensive learning experience” and develop a new plan based on successful programs in other states.

Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin, D-Corvallis, also spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

“The concern that I had and that my constituents had was technical changes are one thing, but it should not be increasing the amount of money that candidates can take in or hold or carry over,” Gelser Blouin said. “Unfortunately, as it’s drafted, this bill does all of those things.”

HB 4024 is too complicated and “unimplementable” without the fixes in HB 4018, Starr said.

Advertisement

Sen. Lew Frederick, D-Portland, agreed, saying HB 4018 and SB 1502 give reassurance about a system he has concerns about.

“If there were no cameras and the lights were off, I think most people would agree this is not the bill we want,” Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, said.

Some lawmakers expressed similar feelings of discontentment with the bill in Ways and Means and one of its subcommittees on March 3, but said they felt it was important to make some progress on the issue. Discussions could happen again in 2027, they said.

Rep. Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene, who ultimately voted in favor of the bill, said March 3 supporting it “is a very painful choice to make.”

Statesman Journal reporter Dianne Lugo contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Anastasia Mason covers state government for the Statesman Journal. Reach her at acmason@statesmanjournal.com or 971-208-5615.

Continue Reading

Finance

Paramount ally RedBird says using Middle East money to help buy Warner Bros. could be a good idea

Published

on

Paramount ally RedBird says using Middle East money to help buy Warner Bros. could be a good idea

  • Last year, Paramount said it would use $24 billion in funding from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar to help buy WBD.
  • Now that Paramount has won that deal, it won’t say whether that’s still the plan.
  • A key Paramount backer suggests that Gulf money would be a good thing for this deal.

We still don’t know if Paramount intends to use billions of dollars from Gulf states like Saudi Arabia to help it buy Warner Bros. Discovery.

But if Paramount does end up doing that, it wouldn’t be a bad thing, says a key Paramount backer.

That update comes via Gerry Cardinale, who heads up RedBird Capital Partners, the private equity company that helped finance Larry and David Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount last year and is doing the same with their WBD deal now.

In a podcast with Puck’s Matt Belloni published Wednesday night, Cardinale wouldn’t comment directly on Paramount’s previously disclosed plans to use $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds controlled by Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar to help buy WBD.

Instead, he reiterated Paramount’s current messaging on the deal’s financing: The $47 billion in equity Paramount will use to buy WBD will be “backstopped” by the Ellison family and RedBird — meaning they are ultimately on the hook to pay up. The rest of the $81 billion deal will be financed with debt.

Advertisement

Cardinale also acknowledged what Paramount has disclosed in its current disclosure documents: It intends to sell portions of that $47 billion commitment to other investors: “We haven’t syndicated anything at this time,” he said. “We do expect to syndicate with strategic, domestic, and foreign investors. But at the end of the day, that alchemy shouldn’t matter because it’ll be done in the right way.”

And when asked about concerns about Middle Eastern countries owning part of a media conglomerate that includes assets like CNN, Cardinale suggested that could be a plus.

“I think we want to be a global company,” he said. “You look at what’s going on right now geopolitically. What’s going on right now geopolitically out of the Middle East wouldn’t be, the positives of that would not be happening without some of those sovereigns that you’re referring to.”

He continued:

“The world is changing. We can stick our head in the sand and pretend it’s not, or we can embrace globalization and the derivative benefits both geopolitically and otherwise that come from that. Content generation coming out of Hollywood is one of America’s greatest exports.
I firmly embrace the global nature and orientation that we bring to this from a capital standpoint, from a footprint standpoint, etc. At the end of the day, I do understand some of the concerns that you’ve raised, but that will work itself out between signing and closing because at the end of the day, worst-case scenario, Ellison and RedBird are 100% of this thing.”

All of which suggests to me that Paramount still intends to use money from Gulf-based sovereign wealth funds to buy WBD.

What I don’t understand is why the company won’t say that out loud. Does that mean it’s still negotiating with potential investors? Or that it’s reticent to disclose outside investors, for whatever reason, until it has to? A Paramount rep declined to comment.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending