donderdag 31 augustus 2017

Felix Sater: the enigmatic businessman at the heart of the Trump-Russia inquiry


Afbeeldingsresultaat voor the guardian uk

Felix Sater: the enigmatic businessman at the heart of the Trump-Russia inquiry


The Moscow-born former Trump associate’s name emerged in leaked emails – and he tells the Guardian to expect ‘many more stories’ about him to come


Donald Trump, Tevfik Arif and Felix Sater attend the Trump SoHo launch party in 2007. Sater has quickly emerged as a key figure in the Trump-Russia investigation.Donald Trump, Tevfik Arif and Felix Sater attend the Trump SoHo launch party in 2007. Sater has quickly emerged as a key figure in the Trump-Russia investigation. Photograph: Mark Von Holden/WireImage

Felix Sater, a Moscow-born businessman now at the centre of the Trump-Russia affair, says he lives by a simple code: “Screw me once, shame on you; screw me twice, shame on me for letting it happen.”
As the Trump presidency finds itself increasingly hemmed in by an investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, and as key protagonists hire their own lawyers and reportedly make their own arrangements with prosecutors, they are words likely to become ever more relevant to those caught in the whirlpool.
Sater – a former Trump associate who the president has in recent years had trouble recalling – repeated the motto more than once in exchanges with the Guardian, while asking for fair coverage of his past. He insists it has sustained him through a convoluted and colourful life that led him from Moscow to Wall Street to prison to the freewheeling world of international real estate deals, secret arrangements with US law enforcement and intelligence agencies – and ultimately, to Trump Tower.
Whatever the truth of Donald Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin, Sater is likely to end up being part of the story. He surfaced this week in leaked emails that he sent in 2015 to Trump’s lawyer, claiming he could engineer Putin’s support for a Trump Tower in Moscow and thus, somehow, a victory in the US presidential election.
“Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Sater said, according to one of the emails, leaked to the New York Times. “I will get all of Putin’s team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”
The real estate deal never happened, but Sater’s predictions of a world-changing political triumph proved to be prescient. Quite what that triumph had to do with Putin is now under scrutiny by a special counsel in Washington and a handful of congressional committees.
Sater’s links to Trump’s circle can be traced back to not long after he came to the US as a child. His father, Mikhail Sheferovsky (who changed the family name after arriving in New York) became a local crime boss in Brighton Beach and Sater grew up on that side of Brooklyn, where he got to know another teenager in the neighbourhood, Michael Cohen, a Long Island boy who would go on to become Trump’s personal lawyer and vice-president of the Trump Organization.
Three decades later, it was Cohen whom Sater contacted when he thought he could win Putin’s backing for a Moscow real estate deal and Trump’s presidential run.
Sater first came directly into Trump’s orbit when he teamed up with one of his neighbours, another Soviet-born striver, Tevfik Arif, a Kazakh developer who set up the Bayrock real estate firm in 2001 with offices in Trump Tower. Sater rose to become managing director, and Bayrock went into partnership with Trump to build the Trump SoHo hotel.
Trump, Arif and Sater were masters of ceremonies at the official opening in Manhattan in September 2007, and pictures of the event show them basking together in the glow of the publicity.
Sater was forced out of the limelight not long after, when details of his criminal record appeared. His first career as a stockbroker had come to a sudden end when he was jailed for slashing a man with the stem of a shattered margarita glass.When he emerged from a year of prison (“the worst time in my life”, he told Talking Points Memo), he got involved in a mob-run stock exchange scam, persuading gullible customers to buy worthless shares.
He was caught again but this time he did not go to jail. Instead, he and two other defendants struck a deal with the US government, offering his services in return for leniency. The extent of what he did for government agencies is not exactly clear.
According to a book co-authored by another defendant in the case, Salvatore Lauria, Sater used his contacts in the Russian underworld to help the CIA buy back Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghan jihadists, although the buy-back scheme failed. Sater has claimed that his secret work in Russia for the CIA started before the stock fraud was exposed.
However, according to an unsealed transcript of a New York hearing in 2011 in which the justice department sought to keep Sater’s deal secret, Sater’s cooperation went much further than counter-terrorism.
The government’s lawyer Todd Kaminsky told a court that Sater, referred to throughout the proceedings as John Doe, had provided cooperation that “was of an extraordinary depth and breadth, almost unseen, at least in this United States attorney’s office”.
Kaminsky added that “unlike some cooperators who cooperate within one type of organized crime family or over one type of crime, Mr Doe’s cooperation runs a gamut that is seldom seen”.
“It involves violent organizations such as al-Qaida, it involves foreign governments, it involves Russian organized crime. And, most particularly, it involves various families of la Cosa Nostra. By that, specifically, I mean an individual on the ruling board of the Genovese crime family, a captain in the Bonanno crime family, a soldier in the Gambino crime family, the list goes on and on.”
Kaminsky continued: “Now, at the time of the sealing in 1998 and through the beginning of 2008, Mr Doe worked in a proactive capacity actively aiding grand jury investigations that involved surreptitious recordings of individuals as well as other undercover actions.”
Sater disputed this version of events, however, insisting all of his work for the government was abroad.
“I have never been a mafia informant ever in my life,” he told the Guardian in an email. “I was a cooperating witness on my 1998 Wall street case as where 15 other defendants [sic], that case basically ended in 2000. My work with various US government agencies both before the 1998 case as well as for over [two] decades after was in the area of National Security and did not include any mafia members of any kind.”
Sater added: “That work went into high gear after Sept 11, when America was attacked.”
His government service ended in 2009, when he was finally sentenced for the securities fraud charges more than a decade earlier, paying a $25,000 fine and spending no time in jail. By now, however, his criminal past had been exposed. But there was still one Manhattan high-roller willing to make use of Sater’s particular skills.
Sater told New York Magazine: “I stopped up to say hello to Donald, and he says, ‘You gotta come here.’”
The Trump Organization has insisted that Sater was never an employee but he worked out of Trump Tower and carried a now infamous business card identifying him as “senior advisor” to Trump.
“Donald wanted me to bring deals to him. Because he saw how many I put on the table at Bayrock,” Sater said.
“I know you’re gonna be able to spin it as ‘He doesn’t care and will do business even with gangsters,’” Sater told New York Magazine. “Wouldn’t it also show extreme flexibility, the ability not to hold a grudge, the ability to think outside the box, and it’s okay to be enemies one day and friends the next?”
What Sater did for Trump from that time on is part of the puzzle that entwines Trump with Moscow. What is known is that he was involved in the abortive attempt to secure Trump a slice of the Moscow real estate market and that he took part in an effort, also involving Michael Cohen, to promote a Moscow-backed peace plan in Ukraine that would have left Crimea in Russian hands on a long-term lease, and potentially to the removal of the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko. The plan was delivered to the White House before being leaked and ditched amid international outrage.
Among the many unknowns is the question of whether he returned to his collaboration with the FBI. The Financial Times has reported he is cooperating with an international investigation into Kazakh money-laundering, but he has not said whether he is talking to Robert Mueller, the special counsel looking into possible Trump-Kremlin collusion.
As Sater predicted in an email to the Guardian: “[T]here are many additional stories that will be coming out about me in the future, much more timely and important than 20 year old stock cases.”

maandag 28 augustus 2017

White House 'pressuring' intelligence officials to find Iran in violation of nuclear deal




White House 'pressuring' intelligence officials to find Iran in violation of nuclear deal

Intelligence analysts, chastened by the experience of the 2003 Iraq war, are said to be resisting the pressure to come up with evidence of Iranian violations

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, in March 2017. The US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, and the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, in March. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA

US intelligence officials are under pressure from the White House to produce a justification to declare Iran in violation of a 2015 nuclear agreement, in an echo of the politicisation of intelligence that led up to the Iraq invasion, according to former officials and analysts.
The collapse of the 2015 deal between Tehran, the US and five other countries – by which Iran has significantly curbed its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief – would trigger a new crisis over nuclear proliferation at a time when the US is in a tense standoff with North Korea.
Intelligence analysts, chastened by the experience of the 2003 Iraq war, launched by the Bush administration on the basis of phoney evidence of weapons of mass destruction, are said to be resisting the pressure to come up with evidence of Iranian violations.
“Anecdotally, I have heard this from members of the intelligence community – that they feel like they have come under pressure,” said Ned Price, a former CIA analyst who also served as a national security council spokesman and special assistant to Barack Obama. “They told me there was a sense of revulsion. There was a sense of déjà vu. There was a sense of ‘we’ve seen this movie before’.”
However, Donald Trump has said he expects to declare Iran non-compliant by mid-October, the next time he is required by Congress to sign a three-monthly certification of the nuclear deal (known as the Joint Comprehensive Programme of Action, or JCPOA). And the administration is pursuing another avenue that could trigger the collapse of the deal.
David Cohen, a former deputy director of the CIA, said it was “disconcerting” that Trump appeared to have come to a conclusion about Iran before finding the intelligence to back it up.
“It stands the intelligence process on its head,” Cohen told CNN. “If our intelligence is degraded because it is politicised in the way that it looks like the president wants to do here, that undermines the utility of that intelligence all across the board.”
In another move reminiscent of the Iraq debacle, the US administration is putting pressure on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be more aggressive in its demands to investigate military sites in Iran, just as George W Bush’s team pushed for ever more intrusive inspections of Saddam Hussein’s military bases and palaces.
The US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, visited IAEA headquarters in Vienna to press the agency to demand visits to Iran’s military sites. Haley described IAEA inspectors as “professionals and true experts in their field”.
“Having said that, as good as the IAEA is, it can only be as good as what they are permitted to see,” Haley told reporters on her return to New York. “Iran has publicly declared that it will not allow access to military sites but the JCPOA makes no distinction between military and non-military sites. There are also numerous undeclared sites that have not been inspected yet. That’s a problem.”
Unlike the case of Iraq and the Bush administration, where there were deep divisions in the US intelligence community over the evidence for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, there is now a general consensus among US intelligence and foreign intelligence agencies, the state department, the IAEA and the other five countries that signed the JCPOA, as well as the European Union, that there is no significant evidence that Iran has violated its obligations under the deal. Tehran scaled down its nuclear infrastructure and its nuclear fuel stockpiles soon after the deal was signed in Vienna.
However, Trump, who denigrated the agreement throughout his election campaign, has appeared determined to torpedo it.
On 17 July, the latest deadline for presidential certification of the JCPOA deal required by Congress, the announcement was postponed for several hours, while Trump’s senior national security officials dissuaded the president from a last-minute threat not to sign.
“If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on 25 July. He hinted it was his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who had persuaded him to certify the agreement.
“Look, I have a lot of respect for Rex and his people, good relationship. It’s easier to say they comply. It’s a lot easier. But it’s the wrong thing. They don’t comply,” the president said. “And so we’ll see what happens ... But, yeah, I would be surprised if they were in compliance.”
Iran nuclear talks in 2015 at the Beau Rivage Palace Hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland.Iran nuclear talks in 2015 at the Beau Rivage Palace Hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AP

Trump said his administration was doing “major” and “detailed” studies on the issues.
Richard Nephew, who was principal duty coordinator for sanctions policy in the Obama administration state department and a member of the team that negotiated the JCPOA said government agencies were producing such studies all the time. He said the difference under the Trump administration was that they were being told the conclusions should be.
“Behind the scenes, there is a huge machine that is pumping up reports and updates and status checks for the administration and Congress,” Nephew, now at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, said. “You have intelligence officers and analysts in a bunch of agencies who spend literally every day scrubbing every single report they have got of what is going on inside Iran trying to find instances of non-compliance.
“What I suspect is happening now is that those intel officers have been asked to go to the cutting room floor, [and are being asked:] ‘What have you forgotten? What have you discounted? What have you said doesn’t really fit and not really relevant?’
“I actually think that’s healthy if it’s an honest question,” Nephew said, but he added: “It seems there is a faction within the administration that is trying to lay the basis for getting out [of the agreement] on the basis of cooked books.”
He predicted that intelligence analysts would resign if they were pushed too hard.
“The intelligence community learned the lessons of Iraq hard,” Nephew said. “And the analysts I know who are attached to this effort I am quite convinced would resign and resign loudly before they would allow ... their words to be twisted and turned the way it happened with Iraq.”
Robert Malley, who was a senior US negotiator at the nuclear talks with Iran, said that the Trump administration was discounting the information it was getting from its agencies because it viewed them as the “deep state” or “Obama holdovers”. But Malley predicted it would be harder for Trump to ignore the reservations of US intelligence and US allies and drive towards confrontation with Iran than it was for George Bush to go to war in Iraq.
“The main difference is that Iraq has already happened, which means that both the American public and the international community have seen a similar movie before, and therefore might well react differently than the way they reacted the last time around,” he said.
The other principal avenue of attack on the JCPOA being pursued by the Trump administration has focused on the question of inspections of Iranian military sites. Under the agreement, the IAEA can present evidence of suspect activity at any site to Iran and ask for an explanation. If the explanation is not accepted by the IAEA, Tehran would have two weeks to negotiate terms of access for the agency inspectors. If the Iranian government refuses, a joint commission of JCPOA signatories could vote to force access, and Iran would have three days to comply.
“There is a mechanism, a very detailed one and one of the issues we spent the most time on in negotiation,” Malley said. But he added: “There are people on the outskirts of the administration, and who are pushing hard on the Iran file, saying they should be allowed to ask for inspection at any sensitive site for no reason whatsoever, in order to test the boundaries of the agreement.”
During her visit to Vienna, Haley suggested that Iran’s past practice of using military sites for covert nuclear development work was grounds for suspicion. But Laura Rockwood, a former legal counsel in the IAEA’s safeguards department (which carries out inspections), said the US or any other member state would have to provide solid and contemporaneous evidence to trigger an inspection.
“If the US has actionable intelligence that is useful for the IAEA to take into account, and I mean actual and honest intelligence, not fake intel that they tried to use in 2003, then I think the agency will respond to it,” Rockwood, who is now executive director of the Vienna Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, said. “But if they try to create evidence or if they try to pressure the agency into simply requesting access because they can, I think it will backfire.”
Some analysts, however, believe that the Obama administration was too willing to let Iranian infractions slide and that a more sceptical view of the agreement and implementation is overdue.
“Asking the system for knowledge of violations is different than asking anyone to falsify them,” said David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security. “This is a highly technical subject and the Obama administration downplayed and even hid violations and problems. So, there is a need to establish the true situation and ensure decision makers understand these issues. Spinning this as equivalent to Iraqi WMD claims is not only unfair but highly inaccurate. Certainly, the pro-JCPOA advocates would love to do that.”
Any Iranian objections to new inspections could be cited by Trump if he carries out his threat to withhold certification of the JCPOA in October. It would then be up to the US Congress whether to respond with new sanctions, and then Trump would have to sign them into law, in potential violation of the agreement. The Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, said this week that elements of the programme that had been stopped under the agreement could be resumed “within hours” if the US walked out.
Ultimately, Tehran and the other five national signatories to the agreement would have to decide whether to try to keep the deal alive without US participation. The head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation, Ali Akbar Salehi, suggested over the weekend that if the other signatories remained committed, Iran would continue to observe the deal. It is an issue that would split Europe from the US, likely leaving the UK perched uneasily in the middle.
“As a practical matter, you’re not going to have the rest of the international community, you’re not going to have our allies in Europe, you’re certainly not going to have the Russians and the Chinese coming along with us to reimpose real pressure on the Iranians,” Cohen said. “So you’ll have this fissure between the United States and essentially the rest of the world in trying to reinstate pressure on Iran.”