For several years since the global push to develop mass-scale Electric Vehicles, the element Lithium has come intofocus as a strategic metal. Demand is enormous in China, in the EU and in the USA at present, and securing control over…
The New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ (MFAT) tweet on 12 November condemning rocket fire from Gaza while failing to condemn the Israeli extrajudicial assassinations and civilian killings that generated Islamic Jihad’s rocket-fire in defensive response, reveals the hypocrisy at…
The Day of Reckoning is coming, and it won’t be pretty for the overall markets. While the Fed liquidity has pushed the major U.S. indexes to new highs, the underlying fundamentals in the economy continue to deteriorate.
China’s banks come in various flavors. There are a handful of giants, and a few more medium-size banks that can also operate nationally. Below that lies a bigger cohort of city commercial banks…
Biographer for the Royal Family, Lady Colin Campbell, recently appeared on ITV’s Good Morning Britain where she defended Prince Andrew against claims of pedophilia.
In her defense of the disgraced prince, Campbell pointed to the “prostitution” charge that Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of in 2008, and attempted to downplay the fact that the girls were underage by suggesting that he was simply hiring sex workers.
“You all seem to have forgotten that Jeffrey Epstein, the offense for which he was charged and for which he was imprisoned, was for soliciting prostitution from minors. That is not the same thing as pedophilia,” Campbell told a shocked panel Monday morning.
Host Piers Morgan immediately challenged her claims, saying:
“If you solicited a 14-year-old for prostitution, you’re a pedophile.
You’re procuring an underage girl for sex. That’s what he was convicted of. I’m sorry, I’m sorry, with respect, that is nonsense.”
Campbell then immediately attempted to backpedal, claiming that a distinction must be made between a minor and a child.
“Was he? 14? Well, I’m not justifying Jeffrey Epstein. Pedophilia, I suspect there’s a difference between a minor and a child,” she said.
“A 14-year-old is a child. Legally, she’s a child,”Morgan replied.
Campbell then admitted that the prince may have “made many mistakes,” but insisted that his only mistake was being too clueless to realize that one of his closest friends was a predator.
“You can’t criticize someone because they aren’t as bright as you would like them to be,”she said.
The controversy surrounding Prince Andrew has grown since his Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis.In the interview, the prince gave a variety of bizarre excuses and defenses for the accusations against him, including a claim that he could not sweat due to a rare physical condition.
He also denied knowing about the trafficking victim, Virginia Giuffre — formerly known as Virginia Roberts — despite appearing in photos with her when she was under the age of 18. However, he has previously suggested that these photos are “doctored.” Photographic evidence has been uncovered showing that the prince does, in fact, sweat. He also claimed that even though he did not remember meeting the victim on the night that she said, he does vividly remember his alibi, saying he went to a Pizza Express in Woking before returning home that night.
“Going to Pizza Express in Woking is an unusual thing for me to do, a very unusual thing for me to do. I’ve never been… I’ve only been to Woking a couple of times and I remember it weirdly distinctly,” he said.
The interview was so disastrous for the Royal Family that one of Prince Andrew’s PR advisors quit in response to the broadcast. And to make matters even worse, a video clip from 1984 recently resurfaced showing Johnny Carson, then-host of The Tonight Show, making a joke about Prince Andrew being a pedophile.
Pope Suddenly Replaces Top Vatican Financial Regulator In Developing ‘Mystery’ Scandal
Now over six years since Pope Benedict took the nearly unprecedented step of abdicating the throne in 2013, with rumors at the time swirling that it was due to irregularities and scandal at the Vatican Bank— though it was health reasons officially cited (a papal resignation hadn’t happened in the prior 600 years) — the Vatican Bank is once again at the center of scandal.
The Vatican’s top financial regulator, René Brülhart, has unexpectedly resigned (or was apparently sacked) related to a new scandal first revealed last month centered on the Holy See’s investment initiatives in London real estate, specifically involving attempts to secure an €100 million ($110 million) loan to acquire luxury property in London’s Chelsea neighborhood, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Brülhart served as president of the Vatican’s Financial Information Authority, or AIF, and has been replaced effective Monday.
The office had been established under Benedict in 2010in order to root out financial corruption and widespread reports of money-laundering, and to bring the Vatican Bank into international norms and greater transparency after a series of major scandals rocked the sovereign Vatican City State in the heart of Rome, and brought embarrassment to the papacy.
The high level regulator’s replacement is the culmination of events which began in October when police raided the offices of AIF and the Secretariat of State, the latter which functions as a Vatican executive branch (though the Pope ultimately exercises supreme decision-making power), after the attempt to secure the €100 million loan stirred suspicions.
Thus far the exact nature of possible criminal activity in the London real estate deal has yet to be revealed by Vatican officials, the precise details of wrongdoing remaining a mysteryand carefully confined within the usually opaque ancient city-state’s circle of top churchmen.
But there has been a great deal of ‘house cleaning’ since, with the AIF chief being the highest official to fall, along with nearly half a dozen lower level employees.
Among the things the AIF regulator has been busy with is closing thousands of suspicious accounts with the Vatican bank due to their having nothing to do with “works of religion”.
And previously, the longtime chief of the Vatican police and lead bodyguard for Pope Francis, Domenico Giani (above), resigned in mid-Octoberover leaks related to the surprise Oct. 1 raid on the offices of the Vatican’s Secretariat of State and the city-state’s financial watchdog authority.
Since then, the Vatican has suspended five employees — including AIF’s No. 2 official, Tommaso Di Ruzza — and its security chief has resigned in connection with the investigation. It isn’t clear what, if anything, the suspended employees were suspected of doing. Last month, AIF’s board, led by Mr. Brülhart, released a statement expressing “full faith and trust in the professional competence and honorability” of Mr. Di Ruzza.
But again though Vatican officials have yet to comment on specifics, it certainly appears the now dismissed officials were caught overseeing likely major criminal activity.
Or at the very least they may have been in involved in making reckless and high-risk investments, given a theme of Pope Francis this year has been to halt “poorly managed spending and investments,” according to the WSJ report.
As ever, the Guardian wins the prize for the most tendentious reporting of Roger Stone’s conviction.This is not quite on the scale of its massive front page lie that Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. But it is a lie with precisely the same intent, to deceive the public into believing there were links between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign. There were no such links.
The headline “Roger Stone: Trump Adviser Found Guilty On All Charges in Trump Hacking Case” is deliberately designed to make you believe a court has found Stone was involved in “Wikileaks hacking”. In fact this is the precise opposite of the truth. Stone was found guilty of lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee by claiming to have links to Wikileaks when in fact he had none. And of threatening Randy Credico to make Credico say there were such links, when there were not.
It is also worth noting the trial was nothing to do with “hacking” and no hacking was alleged or proven. Wikileaks does not do hacking, it does “leaks”. The clue is in the name. The DNC emails were not hacked. The Guardian is fitting this utterly extraneous element into its headline to continue the ludicrous myth that the Clinton campaign was “Hacked” by “the Russians”.
It is worth noting that not one of those convicted of charges arising from or in connection with the Mueller investigation – Manafort, Papadopolous, Stone – has been convicted of anything to do with Wikileaks, with anything to do with Russia or with the original thesis of the enquiry.
Astonishingly, in the case of Stone, he has been convicted of saying that the Mueller nonsense is true, and he was a Trump/Wikileaks go-between, when he was not. Yet despite the disastrous collapse of the Mueller Report, and despite the absolutely devastating judicial ruling that there was no evidence worthy even of consideration in court that Russiagate had ever happened, the Guardian and the neo-con media in the USA (inc. CNN, Washington Post, New York Times) continue to serve up an endless diet of lies to the public.
Randy Credico was the chief witness for the prosecution against Roger Stone. That’s for the prosecution, not the defence. This is the state’s key evidence against Stone. And Credico is absolutely plain that Stone had no link to Wikileaks. The transcript of my exclusive interview with Randy has now been prepared (thanks to Sam and Jon) and follows here.
I spoke to Randy yesterday to clarify one point.
The first conversation Randy ever had with Julian Assange was on 25 August 2016 and it was on-air on Randy’s radio show. There was no private talk off-air around the show. That was Randy’s only contact of any kind with Julian Assange before the 2016 election. His next contact with him, also an on-air interview, was not until Spring 2017, well after the election.
He could not have been in any sense a channel to Wikileaks.
* * *
Unlike the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, Craig’s blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate. Subscriptions to keep Craig’s blog going are gratefully received.