On a hot Friday evening in France last month, Jean-Luc Brunel was revelling in his natural habitat: a lavish party packed with the rich and beautiful.
Dressed all in white, the 72-year-old model scout mingled beside the pool at the Paris Country Club’s $1,300-a-table Soirée Blanche, as a rock-and-roll band played, pink champagne flowed and a chef grilled rib-eye steaks over a flame.
Then came the hangover. The following day, FBI agents swooped on Brunel’s old friend Jeffrey Epstein at an airport in New Jersey, arresting the disgraced money manager on new federal charges of child sex trafficking.
It was an alarming development for Epstein associates, such as Brunel, who are accused of aiding his abuse – and a flicker of hope for women who have been waiting years for the Frenchman to be held accountable.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a longtime Epstein accuser, alleged in court filingsthat teenage girls brought to the US by Brunel on model visas were “farmed out” by him to Epstein and others for sex. She also alleged she was made to have sex with Brunel several times in Epstein’s homes. Brunel denies both allegations.
For more than 10 years, Epstein’s enablers were presumed to be shielded from legal peril by his notorious 2007 plea deal’s promise that he and “any potential co-conspirators” would avoid further charges after Epstein admitted that he solicited prostitution from a minor.
Several associates have, however, come under renewed scrutiny from US investigators, according to sources familiar with the inquiry, even as the renewed effort to bring Epstein to justice was derailed last week when the 66-year-old died of apparent suicide in a New York jail cell.
Allegations of misconduct against Brunel date back decades, yet he has faced no action. Three former models told the Guardian they were sexually assaulted by Brunel in the 1980s and 1990s in and around Paris, where he established himself as one of the global fashion industry’s power players.
Allegations go back decades? And nothing?
Well that's why we're outraged by Epstein.
And Brunel is part of Australia's Next Top Model.
Maybe it's time to look at other Next Top Models? Maybe the US version? Maybe these shows have been used as nothing but recruitment to procure women for sexual slavery?
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, August 19, 2019. What might stop the US deportations to Iraq,
the corruption in Iraq is so bad that even the NDI is seeing objections
to it in their polling, and much more.
An e-mail notes last night's entry and that US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard's plans are met with skepticism here. Yes, they are. She talked about taking on War Hawks and ending forever wars in interview after interview and then, the last week of July, she's on a debate stage with War Hawk Joe Biden and she refuses to call him out and then, in the days after, makes excuses for him. She is a fake ass and we don't pretend otherwise.
If you do, that's on you. But as for her campaign's nonsense that we called out last night:
That's sheer stupidity.
Who has been telling the veterans "we have no money for their healthcare"? Who?
That's the stupidest remark I've seen from her campaign so far and that's really saying something.
If anyone has said that in our government, as a member of the House, she should have immediately called for hearings.
And we all get that, right?
That she's a sitting member of Congress. And that she can call hearings. And that if she ever wanted to, she could work with Democrats in Congress on veterans issues. If she wanted to.
But her campaign's Tweeting that veterans are being told that "we have no money for their healthcare." That's nonsense. It's a lie and it's garbage and I really think that she's a stupid idiot for being in the reserves and making some of the statements she's made. They go against what you're allowed to say while you are serving.
And certainly, her campaign Tweeting that nonsense, that's conduct unbecoming because no one has said 'we don't have money to pay for veterans health care.' That's conduct unbecoming because (a) it's a lie and (b) it's incendiary and could create a panic.
We went easy on her here previously. We take you at your word until you demonstrate that you're full of s**t which she did.
So she gets no pass anymore.
If she's concerned about veterans issues, why the hell hasn't she led on that in the House?
And don't whine that she's not on the House Veterans Affairs Committee. She can lead from outside the Committee, she can introduce legislation, as a non-Committee member she can offer testimony, there is so much that she could do.
But maybe the better question is: Why isn't Tulsi on the House Veterans Affairs Committee?
And don't whine about Nancy Pelosi here. This is her soft spot and Nancy knows it. She was an idiot to turn the Democratic side of the Committee over to now convicted-felon Corinne Brown. Veterans were appalled by that decision -- rightly so. And Corinne's arrest and conviction since that decision was made leaves Nancy vulnerable with regards to that Committee. If Tulsi wanted to be on it, she'd be on it. If Nancy tried to stop her, all Tulsi would have to do is go public and VSOs would object to Nancy decision.
She's done nothing in the House to help veterans with their healthcare but her team wants to pretend that a President Tulsi will be different. Manana. That's becoming her campaign slogan. I didn't do anything today but tomorrow -- pinkie swear! -- I will.
And some people may believe her. But a lot of us who hoped she meant what she was saying have already seen that wasn't the case.
What if she froze in the debate? Some of her supporters have argued that. Well if she froze in the debate then she really isn't up to running for the presidency. But if she froze, she had a ton of interviews immediately following the debates and could have used those interviews to get her points across. Instead, she used them to offer excuses for Joe Biden's support for and selling of the Iraq War.
For months, she made herself a distraction by pretending to be a tough talker who would end wars but she couldn't even hold Joe Biden accountable on stage. She's wasted everyone's time and should stop conning people and just drop out of the race. She's not getting the nomination. Her support in polls remains pathetic. I'm not surprised. I've noted here in multiple snapshots that she has no real support on campus. I've noted that Beto O'Rourke has more support on campus than Tulsi does. That should be her core support -- college students. But they're for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. They're not for Tulsi.
Having exposed herself in the July debate, she really should do the other candidates a favor and drop out so that she's not distracting from real potentials.
I would have loved to have seen a strong run by her but that's not what she's offered. That's her fault, not anyone else's.
An e-mail notes last night's entry and that US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard's plans are met with skepticism here. Yes, they are. She talked about taking on War Hawks and ending forever wars in interview after interview and then, the last week of July, she's on a debate stage with War Hawk Joe Biden and she refuses to call him out and then, in the days after, makes excuses for him. She is a fake ass and we don't pretend otherwise.
If you do, that's on you. But as for her campaign's nonsense that we called out last night:
"We spend $4 billion every month on a war in Afghanistan. How can we look our veterans in the eye & tell them we have no money for their healthcare? As president, I’ll work to end these wars, bring our troops home, & treat our veterans with the respect they deserve." —TeamTulsi
That's sheer stupidity.
Who has been telling the veterans "we have no money for their healthcare"? Who?
That's the stupidest remark I've seen from her campaign so far and that's really saying something.
If anyone has said that in our government, as a member of the House, she should have immediately called for hearings.
And we all get that, right?
That she's a sitting member of Congress. And that she can call hearings. And that if she ever wanted to, she could work with Democrats in Congress on veterans issues. If she wanted to.
But her campaign's Tweeting that veterans are being told that "we have no money for their healthcare." That's nonsense. It's a lie and it's garbage and I really think that she's a stupid idiot for being in the reserves and making some of the statements she's made. They go against what you're allowed to say while you are serving.
And certainly, her campaign Tweeting that nonsense, that's conduct unbecoming because no one has said 'we don't have money to pay for veterans health care.' That's conduct unbecoming because (a) it's a lie and (b) it's incendiary and could create a panic.
We went easy on her here previously. We take you at your word until you demonstrate that you're full of s**t which she did.
So she gets no pass anymore.
If she's concerned about veterans issues, why the hell hasn't she led on that in the House?
And don't whine that she's not on the House Veterans Affairs Committee. She can lead from outside the Committee, she can introduce legislation, as a non-Committee member she can offer testimony, there is so much that she could do.
But maybe the better question is: Why isn't Tulsi on the House Veterans Affairs Committee?
And don't whine about Nancy Pelosi here. This is her soft spot and Nancy knows it. She was an idiot to turn the Democratic side of the Committee over to now convicted-felon Corinne Brown. Veterans were appalled by that decision -- rightly so. And Corinne's arrest and conviction since that decision was made leaves Nancy vulnerable with regards to that Committee. If Tulsi wanted to be on it, she'd be on it. If Nancy tried to stop her, all Tulsi would have to do is go public and VSOs would object to Nancy decision.
She's done nothing in the House to help veterans with their healthcare but her team wants to pretend that a President Tulsi will be different. Manana. That's becoming her campaign slogan. I didn't do anything today but tomorrow -- pinkie swear! -- I will.
And some people may believe her. But a lot of us who hoped she meant what she was saying have already seen that wasn't the case.
What if she froze in the debate? Some of her supporters have argued that. Well if she froze in the debate then she really isn't up to running for the presidency. But if she froze, she had a ton of interviews immediately following the debates and could have used those interviews to get her points across. Instead, she used them to offer excuses for Joe Biden's support for and selling of the Iraq War.
For months, she made herself a distraction by pretending to be a tough talker who would end wars but she couldn't even hold Joe Biden accountable on stage. She's wasted everyone's time and should stop conning people and just drop out of the race. She's not getting the nomination. Her support in polls remains pathetic. I'm not surprised. I've noted here in multiple snapshots that she has no real support on campus. I've noted that Beto O'Rourke has more support on campus than Tulsi does. That should be her core support -- college students. But they're for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. They're not for Tulsi.
Having exposed herself in the July debate, she really should do the other candidates a favor and drop out so that she's not distracting from real potentials.
I would have loved to have seen a strong run by her but that's not what she's offered. That's her fault, not anyone else's.
Happy #WHD2019! The U.S. is proud to be the largest donor of humanitarian assistance in Iraq - $730 million this year!
We are proud supporters of #WomenHumanitarians today and every day.
#USIraqPartnership #WorldHumanitarianDay
Yes, the US pays money to the puppet government. Where does the money go? It doesn't go to better the Iraqi people's lives. $750 million is a lot of money for a country that has less than 40 million people. The World Bank estimate is Iraq has 38.27 million people. That's before you factor in that it's an oil rich country.. The US is handing over $750 million? That's roughly 19.2 million for each Iraqi citizen. Where's the money really going because, year after year, it hasn't gone to the Iraqi people.
There's something very sick about handing money over to a government that you know is corrupt but pretending otherwise and patting yourselves on the back while you pretend the money goes to the Iraqi people.
The National Democratic Institute is not about democracy, to be clear. If you're late to the story, see Naomi Klein's work for THE GUARDIAN on the NDI and the NED -- don't go to THE NATION, they carried Naomi's columns but weren't interested in taking on Mad Maddie Albright -- though happy to reprint Naomi on James Baker and the Republicans.
The NDI is not anyone I endorse or pretend does great work.
But they have some polling out that we will note.
Popular pessimism in #Iraq is driven by perceptions of endemic corruption + low levels of trust in government’s ability to address major concerns such as jobs and unemployment. Large majorities (83%) say both corruption and unemployment are getting worse. ndi.org/publications/n…
Corruption is a major driver of pessimism for people in #Iraq, especially widespread perceptions of corruption among senior government officials. More than 3 in 10 Iraqis report being forced to pay a bribe in at least half of interactions with authorities. ndi.org/publications/n…
Corruption in Iraq. It's never been addressed. Thug Nouri al-Maliki, fearing an Arab Spring in Iraq during his second term, promised to address it and then didn't. Hayder al-Abadi was going to address it but never did. Now we have Adil who is going to address it, right?
NRT reports:
The
Council of Representatives wants to invite Prime Minister Adil Abdul
Mahdi and five ministers to answer questions about corruption, but
senior aides to the prime minister have objected, according to an
opposition politician.
The deputy head of the Wisdom
Movement (al-Hikma) Asaad al-Morshidy said on Sunday (August 18) that
“the Council of Representatives is attempting to invite Abdul Mahdi and
five ministers…but several finance aides close to the government are
hindering the process and pressuring Abdul Mahdi not to pursue
corruption cases against some people.”
“Adil Abdul Mahid always talks
about the necessity of ending corruption, but he has not taken any
serious steps to eliminate corruption. He has surrendered to private
forces and collusion more than former prime ministers.”
Recently [t]he Sairoon Alliance
described Abdul Mahdi as a failed prime minister and warned that it
would take a harder line in the future.
Mahdi has done nothing.
For the first time in nearly a decade of NDI polling, half of Iraqis said they either weren’t sure they'd vote in the upcoming provincial elections, or wouldn’t vote at all. But there’s still time to enact needed electoral reform + earn voters' confidence: ndi.org/publications/n…
Why should they vote when nothing changes? More to the point, why should they vote after 2010? They voted Nouri al-Maliki out as prime minister but the US government overturned their vote with The Erbil Agreement because keeping Nouri as prime minister was more important to the Barack Obama administration than was the will of the Iraqi people.
Changes in the voting procedures are taking place -- not good ones, but Omar Sattar (AL-MONITOR) reports:
Recent amendments made to the
provincial and district council elections law have sparked a wave of
criticism in Iraq as the national parliament adopted a change in the
Sainte-Lague voting system formula that was rejected by small blocs and
parties, as well as by elites, human rights organizations and civil
society organizations.
Parliament voted July 22 to
amend the provincial elections law and adopt a first electoral divisor
of 1.9 under the Sainte-Lague proportional representation
seat-allocation system, compared with 1.7 in the 2018 elections for the
national parliament. The higher divisor will give large electoral blocs a
greater advantage over smaller blocs in terms of winning seats in local
parliaments.
The provincial elections are scheduled for April 2020.
The Sainte-Lague system is
a mathematical method of allocating parliamentary seats. Votes received
by each bloc are divided by a denominator that starts with 1 or above
but lower than 2. When votes are divided by a smaller initial number,
small lists have better chances of winning seats. The higher the
electoral denominator, the fewer the chances for smaller lists and the
greater the opportunities for big lists. Under the Sainte-Lague system,
vote totals are also divided by succeeding odd numbers — 3, 5, 7 and
upward — as necessary to determine seat allocations. For example, if a
bloc's vote total divided by 7 was greater than another bloc's vote
total divided by 1.9, the first bloc would receive four seats before the
other bloc could even receive one seat.
Meanwhile, the US continues to deport people to Iraq.
A return to Iraq would be a death sentence.’ — This man has lived in the U.S since he was 3 years old, but the Trump admin could put his life at risk by deporting him to Iraq
Would they deport the man if he declared he was gay? I don't think the man is gay. But my point is Congress continues to be upset about the treatment of LGBTQ members in Iraq and deporting someone who was a member of that group -- or trying to -- might be the only thing that would get Congress to act at this point.
No comments:
Post a Comment