Connect with us

Politics

Ex-TV producer accused of violating U.S. sanctions against Russia

Published

on

Ex-TV producer accused of violating U.S. sanctions against Russia

A former U.S. TV producer has been charged with violating U.S. sanctions in opposition to Russia, imposed in 2014 on account of its annexation of Crimea.

The Division of Justice stated Friday that it had charged John Hanick, a.okay.a. Jack Hanick, 71, for the violations and for making false statements to the FBI in connection along with his work with Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev.

Malofeyev had been tied to financing the promotion of Russia-aligned separatist teams working in Ukraine, in keeping with U.S. Legal professional Damien Williams for the Southern District of New York.

Hanick is accused of working instantly for the oligarch on a number of TV initiatives over a number of years.

Advertisement

The cost is the primary felony indictment alleging a violation of Crimea-related U.S. sanctions. The Division of Justice stated it confirmed the federal government’s dedication to imposing legal guidelines meant to cease wealthy people utilizing their wealth to undermine democracy.

“The Justice Division will do the whole lot it could to stamp out Russian aggression and interference,” stated Asst. Atty. Gen. Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Division’s Nationwide Safety Division in a press release.

This week President Biden introduced a brand new spherical of sanctions in opposition to greater than a dozen Russian oligarchs and their households after Russia provoked worldwide outrage by invading Ukraine.

A lot of main U.S. media and tech corporations, together with Apple, Spotify, Netflix, Disney and Warner Bros., have introduced plans to drag initiatives or limit entry to Russian state programming in response to the invasion.

Malofeyev had been sanctioned for threatening Ukraine and offering monetary assist to the Donetsk separatist area, the Justice Division stated.

Advertisement

Hanick helped Malofeyev create TV networks in Russia, Bulgaria and Greece, which was a violation of these sanctions. Hanick labored for the oligarch from 2013 to 2017, the DOJ stated.

Hanick was arrested in London, U.Okay. earlier this month and charged with violating the Worldwide Emergency Financial Powers Act, which carries a most penalty of 20 years in jail and faces presumably one other most 5 years for making false statements.

The criticism states that Hanick was a producer for a cable community primarily based in New York Metropolis from 1996 to 2011.

Hanick was a director at Fox Information Channel throughout that interval, in keeping with his LinkedIn profile.

He had beforehand labored at CNBC with Roger Ailes and had come over to Fox Information with Ailes at its inception in 1996. He was a weekend daytime director for the community.

Advertisement

A Fox Information spokesperson declined to remark.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

U.S. Steel and Nippon Sue Biden Over Decision to Block Deal

Published

on

U.S. Steel and Nippon Sue Biden Over Decision to Block Deal

U.S. Steel and Japan’s Nippon Steel sued the United States government on Monday in a last-ditch attempt to revive their attempted merger after President Biden blocked it last week on the basis that the transaction posed a threat to national security.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Washington, accused Mr. Biden and other senior administration officials of corrupting the review process for political gain and of harming steel workers and the American steel industry by blocking the deal under false national security pretenses.

Mr. Biden moved to block the merger after a government panel charged with reviewing foreign investments failed to reach a decision about whether the deal should proceed. In a statement on Friday, Mr. Biden said that he was acting to ensure that the U.S. maintains a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry. The president had previously vowed to ensure that U.S. Steel remained American-owned.

The companies are asking for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to conduct a new review of the deal.

The companies also filed a separate lawsuit against Cleveland-Cliffs, an American steel company that previously tried to buy U.S. Steel but was rebuffed, along with Lourenco Goncalves, chief executive of Cleveland-Cliffs, and David McCall, international president of the powerful union United Steelworkers. The lawsuit alleged that Cleveland-Cliffs and the head of the union illegally colluded to undermine the proposed deal between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel.

Advertisement

The legal actions represented a long-shot maneuver by the companies to preserve a deal that was ensnared in election year politics. Presidents have broad authority to determine what constitutes a national security threat, and no transaction blocked under those powers has ever been overturned by the courts.

However, Mr. Biden’s move to terminate Nippon’s $14 billion bid for U.S. Steel raised questions about whether those powers were being abused, given that Japan is a close ally of the United States. In the rare cases where deals have been blocked, they usually involved companies with ties to U.S. adversaries such as China.

“Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel are disappointed to see such a clear and improper exploitation of the country’s national security apparatus in an effort to help win an election and repay political favors,” the companies said in a statement on Monday. “Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel are entitled to a fair process and have been left with no choice but to challenge the decision and the process leading to it in court.”

David Burritt, the chief executive of U.S. Steel, assailed Mr. Biden on Monday, suggesting that the president blocked the deal because he “owed the union boss a favor in exchange for an endorsement.”

“The government failed us,” Mr. Burritt said in an interview on the Fox Business Network on Monday. “They failed because they didn’t follow the process, and we are going to right that wrong.”

Advertisement

The White House defended Mr. Biden’s decision on Monday, pointing to the threats to the U.S. steel industry that the committee highlighted.

“A committee of national security and trade experts determined this acquisition would create risk for American national security,” said Robyn Patterson, a White House spokeswoman. “President Biden will never hesitate to protect the security of this nation, its infrastructure, and the resilience of its supply chains.”

The lawsuit against the Biden administration was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The suit also names Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, who chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and Merrick Garland, the attorney general.

The companies argue that because Mr. Biden publicly said last March that he did not want the deal to happen, the national security review conducted by the panel, known as CFIUS, was tainted by politics and “designed to reach a predetermined result.” They also claimed that the panel had failed to engage with the companies when they proposed measures to mitigate any national security concerns.

After a yearlong review process, the interagency committee — ultimately divided on the risks posed by the transaction — left the decision to Mr. Biden, who had said that U.S. Steel should remain American-owned and -operated.

Advertisement

“It is my solemn responsibility as president to ensure that, now and long into the future, America has a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry that can continue to power our national sources of strength at home and abroad,” Mr. Biden said in a statement last Friday morning. “And it is a fulfillment of that responsibility to block foreign ownership of this vital American company.”

The committee was created in the 1970s to screen international mergers and acquisitions for national security concerns. Over the years the definition of national security has broadened, and in many cases the work of the panel has been consumed by political considerations, often with a focus on keeping Chinese investments out of America.

Since 1990, eight other foreign transactions have been blocked by presidents, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The companies are hopeful that a 2012 case involving a Chinese-owned company that tried to buy American wind-farm projects could provide an opening for more scrutiny of how CFIUS handled the steel deal. The Obama administration blocked that deal, but after the company filed a lawsuit an appeals court agreed that the company, Ralls Corporation, had a right to see and rebut certain evidence that was used to block the transaction.

The Obama administration and the company ultimately settled the lawsuit.

Advertisement

The legal challenge by U.S. Steel and Nippon is on different grounds than that case. If successful, this suit would herald sweeping changes to the authority of the U.S. government to vet foreign transactions.

While the Biden administration’s move won praise from the steelworkers union, it drew scorn from many economists and legal experts who warned that the president’s decision would deter foreign investment.

“What’s infuriating is that Biden claimed to stand for the rule of law and for our international alliances,” said John Kabealo, a Washington-based lawyer who specializes in cross-border transactions. “He told voters ad nauseam that Trump was xenophobic and self-dealing, and now he slaps one of our most important allies in the face on the thinnest of pretenses.”

Although President-elect Donald J. Trump has previously said that he would block the Nippon bid, the companies have remained hopeful that he might reconsider that position if given the opportunity to help broker a satisfactory deal.

But on Monday, Mr. Trump made clear that he still does not want U.S. Steel to be sold.

Advertisement

“Why would they want to sell U.S. Steel now when Tariffs will make it a much more profitable and valuable company? Mr. Trump wrote on social media. “Wouldn’t it be nice to have U.S. Steel, once the greatest company in the World, lead the charge toward greatness again?”

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump presses GOP to swiftly send 'one powerful Bill' for his signature ASAP

Published

on

Trump presses GOP to swiftly send 'one powerful Bill' for his signature ASAP

President-elect Donald Trump is urging congressional Republicans to send him “one powerful Bill” as swiftly as possible once he takes office later this month.

Republicans hold the majority in both chambers of Congress and later this month will regain the White House when Trump is sworn in on Jan. 20.

“Members of Congress are getting to work on one powerful Bill that will bring our Country back, and make it greater than ever before. We must Secure our Border, Unleash American Energy, and Renew the Trump Tax Cuts, which were the largest in History, but we will make it even better – NO TAX ON TIPS,” Trump declared in a post on Truth Social.

SPEAKER JOHNSON REVEALS HOW TRUMP WANTS CONGRESS TO HANDLE BUSINESS DURING THE FIRST HUNDRED DAYS

President-elect Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. (Left: Eva Marie Uzcategui/Getty Images; Right: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Advertisement

“IT WILL ALL BE MADE UP WITH TARIFFS, AND MUCH MORE, FROM COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE U.S. FOR YEARS. Republicans must unite, and quickly deliver these Historic Victories for the American People. Get smart, tough, and send the Bill to my desk to sign as soon as possible,” Trump urged.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had noted during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he thinks Trump will “prefer, as he likes to say, one big, beautiful bill.”

Johnson, who described it as “One big up or down vote which can save the country,” noted that he thinks the measure, which will tackle various issues, will also address the debt ceiling.

MIKE JOHNSON RE-ELECTED HOUSE SPEAKER AS GOP MUTINY THREAT DISSOLVES

House Speaker Mike Johnson holds up gavel

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds up the gavel after being re-elected Speaker on the first day of the 119th Congress in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 3, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

He indicated that lawmakers are aiming to hold the House vote during the first week of April — the lawmaker said it could potentially clear the chamber as soon as April 3, then head to the Senate, and eventually arrive on Trump’s desk by the end of April, or by Memorial Day in a “worst case scenario.” 

Advertisement

Johnson retained the speaker’s gavel last week after Trump backed him. House Republicans, with the exception of Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., voted for Johnson to remain in the role he has occupied since late October 2023. Two Republicans who initially did not vote for Johnson, ultimately switched their votes to Johnson, handing him the win.

GOP REBELS SWITCH VOTE TO JOHNSON AFTER TRUMP’S 11TH HOUR CALLS, PUSHING HIM OVER THE FINISH LINE

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, has warned that the U.S. “Senate will be one of the biggest barriers to cutting spending and shrinking government,” and “will need public pressure.” 

He added the hashtag “#DOGE,” referring to the Department of Government Efficiency, an outside of government effort to advocate for decreased government spending, which is being spearheaded by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Biden's legacy, like Jimmy Carter's, is complex — and it's in Donald Trump's hands now

Published

on

Column: Biden's legacy, like Jimmy Carter's, is complex — and it's in Donald Trump's hands now

By the standard President Biden set himself, the core purpose he proclaimed when he ran in 2020, it is impossible to assess his one-term presidency as anything but a failure.

“We are in a battle for the soul of this nation,” Biden said as he began his campaign in 2019. “If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation. And I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”

Now Trump has a chance to do precisely what Biden wanted to prevent — to complete eight years in the White House and put his stamp on American politics for decades to come. And there will be little Biden can do beyond stand by and watch.

Biden’s insistence on running for a second term at the age of 81 despite voters’ doubts that he was up to the job, and his disastrous debate performance in June, threw his party into a three-week-long crisis. By the time he dropped out of the race in July, it was too late to stage an orderly competition among potential successors; his vice president, Kamala Harris, had only 103 days to campaign.

But there was far more to Biden’s four years in office than his physical decline and his monumental blunder in trying to run.

Advertisement

The death of former President Carter serves as a reminder that presidents who look like failures on the way out the door are often reassessed more generously a decade or four down the road.

Carter left office in 1981 after a single term as the popular archetype of presidential failure thanks to a stagnant economy, foreign policy crises and a landslide defeat to Ronald Reagan.

Over time, though, historians began to focus on the underappreciated accomplishments of Carter’s tenure: new standards for ethics in government, a focus on human rights in foreign policy, and the first steps toward reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

So it may also be with the president who leaves office this month.

During his first two years in office, bolstered by Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Biden achieved an impressive record of economic legislation: a $1.9-trillion stimulus bill to help the economy recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, a $1.2-trillion infrastructure bill, the $280-billion CHIPS act to promote high-technology manufacturing, and the $2.2-trillion Inflation Reduction Act to promote clean energy.

Advertisement

After a spike of post-pandemic inflation that left grocery and gasoline prices stubbornly high, Biden’s virtuoso acts of congressional deal-making didn’t help his standing with voters as much as he hoped.

But as he noted ruefully in a valedictory speech last month, Americans may recognize the full benefits of those laws only once he’s out of office.

“I know it’s been hard for many Americans to see, and I understand it,” the president said. “They’re just trying to figure out how to put three squares on the table. But I believe it was the right thing to do … [to] set America on a stronger course for the future.”

“In the space of one term, he did a lot,” said historian Julian E. Zelizer of Princeton University, who has already begun work on a book about the Biden presidency. “Those are bills that will reap dividends for years to come.

“At the same time, politics matters,” Zelizer added. “One-term presidents who don’t succeed politically often give way to a successor who moves the country in a very different direction — and that’s part of their legacy, too. … Both things — the successes and failures — can be true at the same time.”

Advertisement

The tragedy of Biden’s presidency is that he once suggested an alternative path — that he might decide to serve only one term as a transitional president.

“I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” Biden said during his 2020 campaign. “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.”

But once he was in office, aides said, he never seriously considered passing up a second term.

He saw himself as the only candidate who had proved that he could defeat Trump. And when Democrats did relatively well in the 2022 congressional election, he viewed the result as confirmation that his approach was working.

His 80th birthday came 12 days later — and his age, despite his denials, was beginning to show. By the middle of 2023, 77% of voters said they thought Biden was too old to serve another term, including a stunning 69% of Democrats.

Advertisement

“His decision to run was an act with massive consequences,” Zelizer said. “A younger candidate might have been able to change the course of the election.”

The irony now is that Biden’s legacy now rests in Trump’s hands.

If Trump manages to dismantle most or all of the programs Biden put in place and remakes the political landscape as Reagan did in the 1980s, Biden’s achievements will prove to have been short-lived.

But if Trump fails — if his administration proves chaotic, if Democrats take control of Congress in 2026, and if a next-generation Democrat retakes the White House in 2028 — the Biden legacy may get a second life.

Neither of those scenarios, of course, is one Biden ever sought. But now he is left, as he once feared, to merely stand and watch what happens.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending