terça-feira, 31 de outubro de 2023

Top Trump allies facing charges lose lawyers after failing to pay legal bills

 


Top Trump allies facing charges lose lawyers after failing to pay legal bills

 

Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell, who pushed false claims about the 2020 election, face six- and seven-figure bills

 

Peter Stone in Washington

Tue 31 Oct 2023 11.00 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/31/top-trump-allies-facing-charges-lose-lawyers-after-failing-to-pay-legal-bills

 

A trio of top Donald Trump allies who have racked up huge legal expenses to defend themselves from either criminal charges, convictions or defamation lawsuits have lost key lawyers for failing to pay six- and seven-figure bills in a sign of the huge legal problems they face.

 

The hefty legal bills of the ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon, former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and MyPillow CEO, Mike Lindell, underscore the scale of the criminal and civil charges that ensnare them.

 

Welcome to the escalating legal and financial headaches plaguing three of the former US president’s top loyalists who pushed various false claims about his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden that helped provide cover for Trump’s election falsehoods.

 

The list of legal woes is long.

 

Bannon has a court appeal slated for November over his criminal conviction last year and pending four-month jail sentence for obstructing Congress by spurning a subpoena from the House panel that was investigating the January 6 insurrection.

 

Bannon also faces a trial next May in New York related to state fraud, conspiracy and money-laundering charges that he bilked donors in a Mexican wall project, dubbed “We Build the Wall.”

 

Meanwhile, Giuliani was charged in August with 13 criminal counts in Georgia by the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, who also charged Trump and 17 others as part of a conspiracy to thwart Trump’s 2020 loss there. Pressures on Giuliani escalated in October when three other ex-Trump lawyers he worked with in varying ways agreed to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors.

 

Further, Lindell is fighting $2bn defamation lawsuits by electronic voting machine firms he has claimed helped rig the 2020 against Trump, which have cost him millions of dollars in legal fees owed to a Minneapolis law firm.

 

In October, the law firm formally asked a court to allow it to withdraw from representing Lindell in these cases, citing millions of dollars it was owed.

 

On another legal front, a top lawyer for Bannon and Giuliani has ditched them and filed big claims for monies owed. Robert Costello and his firm, which has represented both Giuliani and Bannon, have filed separate claims against the duo, respectively, for $1.4m and $480,000.

 

A court judgment has been issued against Bannon for the $480,000, which he is fighting with the help of lawyer Harlan Protass. It is unclear when and how much Giuliani may pay Costello and his firm. But a legal source familiar with Giuliani’s seven-figure debt faults Trump not Giuliani for the unpaid bill, claiming that Trump at a meeting with Costello and Giuliani earlier this year in Florida said he would “take care of” Giuliani’s legal bill.

 

On top of their past-due legal bills, Giuliani and Bannon now are also locked in other high-stakes legal battles.

 

In Georgia, Giuliani’s legal situation seems to have become more perilous: lawyers Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell who worked in varying ways with Giuliani as he pushed false claims in Georgia and elsewhere about Trump’s loss, pleaded guilty in October, and agreed to cooperate with Willis’s office

 

Giuliani has called his indictment a “travesty”, but ex-prosecutors say that he faces new pressures in the wake of other Trump lawyers’ plea deals.

 

“As expected, the dominoes have started to fall in Georgia with three plea agreements by key Trump lawyers who in different ways worked with Rudy,” Paul Pelletier, the ex-acting chief of the fraud section at the justice department, told the Guardian.

 

“Rudy too may want to plead and cooperate to reduce his exposure, but no prosecutor in their right mind would use him as a cooperating witness. There’s simply no way to undo the entrenched legacy of his outlandish behavior.”

 

Other ex-prosecutors concur that Giuliani’s credentials as a witness are tarnished.

 

“Rudy’s under huge pressure, but he’s unlikely to flip because that would be the rational thing to do,” ex-prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig told the Guardian.

 

Still some justice department veterans say Giuliani may try to cut a deal.

 

“Giuliani must be concerned that Powell and Ellis will testify against him and add to the likelihood of conviction,” said Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for eastern Michigan, told the Guardian. “It may not be in Giuliani’s DNA to admit wrongdoing, but now would be the time to pursue a deal from Fani Willis if he is willing to plead guilty.”

 

Giuliani reportedly has not been offered a plea deal so far, and Giuliani’s spokesman has nixed the idea of accepting one.

 

In another blow in Georgia, Giuliani was found liable in August for making defamatory comments about two Georgia election workers, and later ordered to pay their legal fees and turn over evidence to them.

 

Further, the voting technology firm Smartmatic in August skewered Giuliani in court filings, charging him with making up “excuse after excuse” to avoid handing over documents in its $2.7bn defamation lawsuit against him, Fox News, and others who pushed lies about the 2020 election results.

 

Despite his mounting problems, Giuliani has kept some longtime allies. John Catsimatidis, the billionaire owner of WABC radio, where Giuliani has a daily radio program, told the Guardian that Giuliani “earns good money with us. He gets paid monthly.” Catsimatidis added that: “I pray he’s found innocent.”

 

Although Bannon’s legal problems differ, they are just as intense, if not more so.

 

The combative Trump ally, known for his far-right War Room podcast, was convicted last year and sentenced to four months in jail for obstruction of Congress by flouting subpoenas to cooperate with the House January 6 panel.

 

Bannon appealed the conviction and a court hearing is slated for November.

 

Although Judge Carl Nichols, in granting Bannon an appeal of his conviction, left the door open to a possible reversal or new trial, ex-prosecutors do not think Bannon’s conviction is likely to be reversed.

 

“I think Bannon‘s conviction is on very solid ground,” McQuade told the Guardian. “He failed to even appear when subpoenaed by Congress. If he thought he had a good faith basis for a testimonial privilege, the way to assert it would have been to show up and answer all other questions, and to assert the privilege on a question-by-question basis. He failed to do even that.

 

“Moreover, because he was not an executive branch employee during the relevant time period, his claims of executive privilege are flimsy to nonexistent.”

 

Other ex-prosecutors are dubious that Bannon’s appeal will succeed.

 

“Even though Judge Nichols said Bannon’s appeal was serious, it is not. Bannon has almost no chance of overturning his conviction. He’s manifestly guilty,” Rosenzweig told the Guardian.

 

Separately, Bannon is due to stand trial next May on New York state charges that he defrauded donors to his non-profit “We Build the Wall” project, which already has led to three pleas or convictions of Bannon associates.

 

Bannon’s trial will be in the same court in Manhattan that ruled he owed Costello’s law firm $480,000. His lawyer is slated to be Protass, who is appealing the court’s fee decision against Bannon which he has called “clearly wrong”.

 

Bannon has pleaded not guilty to the charges of defrauding donors.

 

Right before Trump left office in early 2021 he pardoned Bannon, who had been indicted on similar federal fraud charges for his role in “We Build the Wall”.

 

Notwithstanding his mounting legal threats, Bannon remains an aggressive and busy Trump ally. In October, he used his War Room podcast to host some of Trump’s most far-right Maga allies like the Florida representative Matt Gaetz, who played a key role in ousting the former House speaker Kevin McCarthy.

 

Some ex-Republican congressmen view Bannon as a disruptive, pro-Trump political force. “Bannon always struck me as a leader of the nihilist wing of the GOP coalition,” ex-Republican congressman Charlie Dent told the Guardian. “His intervention with the speaker’s race was clearly a problem and advanced Trump’s interest in the House.”

 

“He’s like Trump: all grievances, all the time.”

The EU’s Migration Crisis Explained

How China is driving the shift to electric vehicles | Transforming Business

Royal apology: Should King Charles apologise for the actions of the British Empire?

Britain's King Charles arrives in Kenya with colonialism's scars in focus

Antisemitism in Europe reaching levels unseen in decades against Jews, says top Rabbi

Israel-Hamas war sparks hate crimes against Germany’s Jewish community •...

Eurozone inflation falls further than expected to 2.9% in October

Labour is 'getting rid' of Keir Starmer's critics | Jamie Driscoll

UN says Gaza residents broke into food warehouses with 'civil order' disintegrating - BBC News

How Trump’s Verbal Slips Could Weaken His Attacks on Biden’s Age

 

POLITICAL MEMO

How Trump’s Verbal Slips Could Weaken His Attacks on Biden’s Age

 

Donald Trump, 77, has relentlessly attacked President Biden, 80, as too old for office. But the former president himself has had a series of gaffes that go beyond his usual freewheeling style.

 



Michael C. Bender Michael Gold

By Michael C. Bender and Michael Gold

Oct. 30, 2023

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/30/us/politics/trump-biden-age.html

 

One of Donald J. Trump’s new comedic bits at his rallies features him impersonating the current commander in chief with an over-the-top caricature mocking President Biden’s age.

 

With droopy eyelids and mouth agape, Mr. Trump stammers and mumbles. He squints. His arms flap. He shuffles his feet and wanders laggardly across the stage. A burst of laughter and applause erupts from the crowd as he feigns confusion by turning and pointing to invisible supporters, as if he does not realize his back is to them.

 

But his recent campaign events have also featured less deliberate stumbles. Mr. Trump has had a string of unforced gaffes, garble and general disjointedness that go beyond his usual discursive nature, and that his Republican rivals are pointing to as signs of his declining performance.

 

On Sunday in Sioux City, Iowa, Mr. Trump wrongly thanked supporters of Sioux Falls, a South Dakota town about 75 miles away, correcting himself only after being pulled aside onstage and informed of the error.

 

It was strikingly similar to a fictional scene that Mr. Trump acted out earlier this month, pretending to be Mr. Biden mistaking Iowa for Idaho and needing an aide to straighten him out.

 

In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has also told supporters not to vote, and claimed to have defeated President Barack Obama in an election. He has praised the collective intellect of an Iranian-backed militant group that has long been an enemy of both Israel and the United States, and repeatedly mispronounced the name of the armed group that rules Gaza.

 

“This is a different Donald Trump than 2015 and ’16 — lost the zip on his fastball,” Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida told reporters last week while campaigning in New Hampshire.

 

“In 2016, he was freewheeling, he’s out there barnstorming the country,” Mr. DeSantis added. “Now, it’s just a different guy. And it’s sad to see.”

 

It is unclear if Mr. Trump’s recent slips are connected to his age. He has long relied on an unorthodox speaking style that has served as one of his chief political assets, establishing him, improbably, among the most effective communicators in American politics.

 

But as the 2024 race for the White House heats up, Mr. Trump’s increased verbal blunders threaten to undermine one of Republicans’ most potent avenues of attack, and the entire point of his onstage pantomime: the argument that Mr. Biden is too old to be president.

 

Mr. Biden, a grandfather of seven, is 80. Mr. Trump, who has 10 grandchildren, is 77.

 

Even though only a few years separate the two men in their golden years, voters view their vigor differently. Recent polls have found that roughly two out of three voters say Mr. Biden is too old to serve another four-year term, while only about half say the same about Mr. Trump.

 

If that gap starts to narrow, it’s Mr. Trump who has far more to lose in a general-election matchup.

 

 

According to a previously unreported finding in an August survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 43 percent of U.S. voters said both men were “too old to effectively serve another four-year term as president.” Among those voters, 61 percent said they planned to vote for Mr. Biden, compared with 13 percent who said the same about Mr. Trump.

 

Last week, similar findings emerged in a Franklin & Marshall College poll of registered voters in Pennsylvania, one of the most closely watched 2024 battlegrounds.

 

According to the poll, 43 percent of Pennsylvanians said both men were “too old to serve another term.” An analysis of that data for The New York Times showed that Mr. Biden led Mr. Trump among those voters by 66 percent to 11 percent. Among all voters in the state, the two men were in a statistical tie.

 

Berwood Yost, the director of the Franklin & Marshall poll, said that Mr. Biden’s wide lead among voters who were worried about both candidates’ ages could be explained partly by the fact that Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to identify age as a problem for their party’s leader.

 

“The age issue is one that if Trump gets tarred with the same brush as Biden, it really hurts him,” Mr. Yost said.

 

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, noted that the former president maintained a commanding lead in Republican primary polls and that in the general election, several recent polls had shown Mr. Trump with slight leads over Mr. Biden.

 

“None of these false narratives has changed the dynamics of the race at all — President Trump still dominates, because people know he’s the strongest candidate,” Mr. Cheung said. “The contrast is that Biden is falling onstage, mumbling his way through a speech, being confused on where to walk, and tripping on the steps of Air Force One. There’s no correcting that, and that will be seared into voter’s minds.”

 

Mr. Trump’s rhetorical skills have long relied on a mix of brute force and a seemingly preternatural instinct for the imprecise. That beguiling combination — honed from a lifetime of real estate negotiations, New York tabloid backbiting and prime-time reality TV stardom — often means that voters hear what they want to hear from him.

 

Trump supporters leave his speeches energized. Undecided voters who are open to his message can find what they’re looking for in his pitch. Opponents are riled, and when they furiously accuse him of something they heard but that he didn’t quite precisely say, Mr. Trump turns the criticism into a data point that he’s unfairly persecuted — and the entire cycle begins anew.

 

But Mr. Trump’s latest missteps aren’t easily classified as calculated vagueness.

 

During a Sept. 15 speech in Washington, a moment after declaring Mr. Biden “cognitively impaired, in no condition to lead,” the former president warned that America was on the verge of World War II, which ended in 1945.

 

In the same speech, he boasted about presidential polls showing him leading Mr. Obama, who is not, in fact, running for an illegal third term in office. He erroneously referred to Mr. Obama again during an anecdote about winning the 2016 presidential race.

 

“We did it with Obama,” Mr. Trump said. “We won an election that everybody said couldn’t be won, we beat …” He paused for a beat as he seemed to realize his mistake. “Hillary Clinton.”

 

At a Florida rally on Oct. 11, days after a brutal terrorist attack that killed hundreds of Israelis, Mr. Trump criticized the country for being unprepared, lashing out at its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Trump appears to have soured on Mr. Netanyahu, once a close ally, after the Israeli leader congratulated Mr. Biden for winning the 2020 election.

 

In the same speech, Mr. Trump relied on an inaccurate timeline of events in the Middle East to criticize Mr. Biden’s handling of foreign affairs and, in the process, drew headlines for praising Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group.

 

Last week, while speaking to supporters at a rally in New Hampshire, Mr. Trump praised Viktor Orban, the strongman prime minister of Hungary, but referred to him as “the leader of Turkey,” a country hundreds of miles away. He quickly corrected himself.

 

At another point in the same speech, Mr. Trump jumped into a confusing riff that ended with him telling supporters, “You don’t have to vote — don’t worry about voting,” adding, “We’ve got plenty of votes.”

 

Mr. Cheung, the Trump campaign spokesman, said the former president was “clearly talking about election integrity and making sure only legal votes are counted.”

 

In a speech on Saturday, Mr. Trump sounded as if he were talking about hummus when he mispronounced Hamas (huh-maas), the Islamist group that governs the Gaza Strip and carried out one of the largest attacks on Israel in decades on Oct. 7.

 

The former president’s pronunciation drew the attention of the Biden campaign, which posted the video clip on social media, noting that Mr. Trump sounded “confused.”

 

But even Republican rivals have sensed an opening on the age issue against Mr. Trump, who has maintained an unshakable hold on the party despite a political record that would in years past have compelled conservatives to consider another standard-bearer. Mr. Trump lost control of Congress as president; was voted out of the White House; failed to help deliver a “red wave” of victories in the midterm elections last year; and, this year, drew 91 felony charges over four criminal cases.

 

Nikki Haley, the 51-year-old former governor of South Carolina, opened her presidential bid this year by calling for candidates 75 or older to pass mental competency tests, a push she has renewed in recent weeks.

 

On Saturday, Ms. Haley attacked Mr. Trump over his comments about Mr. Netanyahu and Hezbollah, suggesting in a speech to Jewish donors in Las Vegas that the former president did not have the faculties to return to the White House.

 

“Let me remind you,” she added with a small smile. “With all due respect, I don’t get confused.”

 

Jazmine Ulloa contributed reporting.

 

Michael C. Bender is a political correspondent and the author of “Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost.” More about Michael C. Bender

 

Michael Gold is a political correspondent for The Times covering the campaigns of Donald J. Trump and other candidates in the 2024 presidential elections. More about Michael Gol

Trump attacks Bill Barr in social media post

'Death blow': George Conway on NY civil fraud trial and Trump's business image 'crashing down'

Judge Chutkan reinstates gag order in Trump’s federal election interfere...

Trump Forgets Which City He's in During Speech, Pence Suspends President...

Boris Johnson had ‘wrong skill set’ to lead during Covid, top aide tells inquiry

 


Boris Johnson had ‘wrong skill set’ to lead during Covid, top aide tells inquiry

 

Lee Cain says team were ‘exhausted’ by prime minister dallying and changing his mind

 

Pippa Crerar Political editor

@PippaCrerar

Tue 31 Oct 2023 12.11 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/31/boris-johnson-had-wrong-skill-set-to-lead-during-covid-top-aide-tells-inquiry

 

Boris Johnson had the wrong “skill set” to lead the country through the pandemic, leaving his senior aides “exhausted” by constantly changing his mind on crucial decisions, the UK Covid inquiry has heard.

 

Lee Cain, the former Downing Street director of communications, told the inquiry the severity of the crisis required firm and constant leadership, which the former prime minister was unable to provide.

 

The former senior aide described Johnson’s words at a press conference in spring 2020 as “unhelpful” when the prime minister indicated that the UK could get the Covid virus under control within 12 weeks as it “set a very unrealistic expectation of where the nation needed to be at that point”.

 

Asked by the inquiry’s lawyer whether he agreed with WhatsApp messages from Dominic Cummings, the former top No 10 aide, that suggested that Johnson might not be up to the job, Cain said: “I think that’s quite a strong thing to say.

 

“I think what will probably be clear in Covid, it was the wrong crisis for this prime minister’s skillset. Which is different, I think, from not potentially being up for the job of prime minister.”

 

He added: “He’s somebody who would often delay making decisions. He would often seek counsel from multiple sources and change his mind on issues. Sometimes in politics that can be a great strength …

 

“If you look at something like Covid, you need quick decisions and you need people to hold the course and have the strength of mind to do that over a sustained period of time and not constantly unpick things … I felt it was the wrong challenge for him mostly.”

 

Cain said that while it was “understandable” that Johnson had “oscillated” between locking down the country and other policy options, those moment of indecision seriously impacted on the pace of the government’s reaction – and that his approach was “more difficult to defend” later in the pandemic.

 

However, Cain defended the 10-day gap between agreeing that the country should lock down on 14 March 2020 and it happening, despite being challenged by the inquiry chair Baroness Hallett, who told him she found his comments “curious”.

 

“It’s longer than you would like but important to emphasise the amount of things that had to be done and the amount of people we had to take with us to deliver a nationwide lockdown. From my understanding, that’s government moving at tremendous speed,” he said.

 

In WhatsApp exchanges seen by the inquiry, sent in March 2020, Cummings complained that Johnson was in “Jaws mode”, predicting that it was “only a matter of time” before his “babbling” exposed the fact he did not know what to say to the media, while Cain had said that he was “exhausted” by the former prime minister.

 

“Anyone that’s worked with the prime minister for a period of time will become exhausted with him,” Cain told the inquiry. “Sometimes he quite challenging character to work with, just because he will oscillate, he will take a decision from the last person in the room.”

Dominic Cummings defends his use of 'useless f---pigs', 'morons' and 'c----' to describe ministers

No 10 adviser: COVID was 'the wrong crisis for this prime minister's skillset', says Lee Cain

COVID Inquiry: Dominic Cummings gives evidence to the inquiry / Cummings claims 'pretty much everyone' in No 10 agreed with him in calling Johnson 'trolley' because of his inconsistency


From 1h ago

13.13 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/oct/31/covid-inquiry-lee-cain-dominic-cummings-government-whatsapp-uk-politics-latest

Cummings claims 'pretty much everyone' in No 10 agreed with him in calling Johnson 'trolley' because of his inconsistency

Keith is now quoting from another Cummings document extremely critical of how the government machine was working.

 

Q: Was there any part of the government machine with which you did not find fault?

 

Cummings he spent some time talking to special forces, and they were exceptional.

 

Overall, there was “widespread failure”, he says. There were pockets of people doing exceptional work within an “overall dysfunctional system”.

 

Q: You complain that the PM ignored you because he was listening to “pop-ins”.

 

Cummings says that was a term used for when officials objected to a decision, and took the decision to pop in and see the PM, when Cummings was not there, to ask for a rethink. He says they would ask him to “trolley” on this.

 

Keith asks for a clarification.

 

Cummings says “trolley” was the term he used for Boris Johnson because he changed his mind so often. He claims “pretty much everyone” used the term to describe Johnson too.

 

They have now stopped for lunch.


Addled Trump Confuses Sioux City and Sioux Falls; Ivanka Ordered to Test...

Trump Wants Pence’s Endorsement | Speaker Mike Johnson Takes the Bible Literally

Trump Puts on an Insane Show in Vegas, Santos Charges are Piling Up & Pence Drops Out

Jan. 19, 2023: Entrepreneurs Flee China’s Heavy Hand: ‘You Don’t Have to Stay There’

 


THE NEW NEW WORLD

Entrepreneurs Flee China’s Heavy Hand: ‘You Don’t Have to Stay There’

 

Weary of crackdowns and lockdowns, businesspeople are moving out of China and taking their wealth with them. Many have found a new home in Singapore.

 


By Li Yuan

Jan. 19, 2023

阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/business/china-singapore-immigration-entrepreneurs.html

 

SINGAPORE — They left after the government cracked down on the private sector. They ran away from a harsh‌ “zero Covid” policy. They searched for safe havens ‌for their wealth and their families.

 

They went to Singapore, Dubai, Malta, London, Tokyo and New York — anywhere but their home country of China, where they felt that their assets, and their personal safety, were increasingly at the mercy of the authoritarian government.

 

In 2022, a year that proved extremely challenging for China, many Chinese businesspeople moved abroad, temporarily or for good. They were part of a wave of emigration that led to one of the year’s top online catchphrases, “runxue,” understood to mean running away from China.

 

A consequential, if privileged, piece of China’s economic puzzle, these people are pulling their wealth and businesses out when growth is at its lowest point in decades.

 

Many of them are still scarred by the last few years, during which China’s leadership went after the country’s biggest private enterprises, vilified its most celebrated entrepreneurs, decimated entire industries with arbitrary regulation ‌and refused to budge on Covid policies when many businesses were struggling.

 

While the government’s tone and policies have turned more business-friendly in recent weeks, the entrepreneur class, who have lost revenue, fortunes and, most of all, confidence in the leadership, will not easily be swayed.

 

Now that they have lived free of fear in other countries, they are reluctant to put themselves and their businesses under the thumb of the Chinese Communist Party again, a number of them told me during discussions in Asia, Europe and the United States. At least, not until they can be assured the state will have to follow the same laws as the citizens.

 

“When you don’t have a say in how a government makes rules, you don’t have to stay there,” said Aginny Wang, a co-founder of a crypto banking start-up, Flashwire, who moved from Beijing to Singapore in June after getting trapped in Shanghai’s Covid lockdown on a business trip. “There are many other places where you can do things.”

 

Mr. Huo, the founder of Lotusia, an advisory firm that handles business registrations and visa applications in Singapore, said his Chinese client list had quickly expanded over the past year. People in the education, games, cryptocurrency and fintech industries in China — all targets of government crackdowns over the last few years — had sought his services.

 

During the Shanghai lockdown, his phone lines “were ringing off the hook,” he said. The wealthy, he said, realized that no matter how much money they had, they still had to scramble for food and supplies under the harsh restrictions of “zero Covid.”

 

Even during the past few weeks, after the Chinese government rolled out the red carpet for the private sector and Hong Kong vowed to attract crypto talent from mainland China, Mr. Huo has been busy fielding requests.

 

“The entrepreneurs are still pessimistic,” he said. “As long as people are worried about their assets, they’ll register their companies in Singapore and put their money here.”

 

For such people, Singapore works because about three million of its citizens, or three-quarters, are ethnic Chinese, and many speak Mandarin. They also like that it is business-friendly and global-minded and, most of all, upholds the rule of law.

 

People in the West may bristle at Singapore’s limitations on individual freedom. But for most Chinese, a government that respects the rule of law and doesn’t arbitrarily change its policies is good enough.

 

“Singapore will not crack down on a company or an industry outside its legal framework,” said Chen Yong, founder of Pionex, a cryptocurrency exchange, who moved here from Beijing in 2021. “Its policies have more continuity.”

 

Mr. Chen and others I met in Singapore said they had no intention of moving to Hong Kong, despite that city’s enthusiastic attempts to woo people like them in recent months.

 

For decades, Hong Kong played the role of safe haven for mainland entrepreneurs because of its autonomy from China. That crumbled after Beijing introduced a national security law in the territory in 2020, ushering in the arrest of activists, the seizure of assets, the detention of newspaper editors, the rewriting of school curriculums and what many see as the compromising of judicial independence.

 

Mr. Chen moved to Singapore because crypto trading, his industry, is banned in China. He kept some developers in the country, but most of his operations are outside it. He said being in Singapore helped him to think more globally. And he was skeptical that Hong Kong could separate its crypto policies from Beijing’s.

 

“When entrepreneurs chose to move to Singapore, it means they have chosen to leave China,” he said. Hong Kong is not attractive to people who have made that choice, he added.

 

Singapore has become a strong rival to Hong Kong as a place for China’s superrich to park their wealth. Four of the 10 wealthiest Singaporeans on Forbes’s billionaire list are recent Chinese immigrants. So many people arrived last year that a start-up founder told me he had put on weight from all the welcome dinners.

 

The rush of elite Chinese businesspeople to Singapore has contributed to a rise in the cost of living here. Average rent for a 1,000-square-foot condo apartment was about $3,500 a month at the end of September, up more than one-fifth from the start of 2022, according to 99.co, a property portal. The cost of a license to own a vehicle rose nearly 40 percent last year.

 

Singapore is also competing with Hong Kong as a place for mainland Chinese companies to register separate entities for their international operations. Some entrepreneurs want to build up their global brands by identifying as Singaporean companies.

 

 

To the outside world, “Hong Kong is part of China while Singapore is not,” said Yu-Ning Liu, the founder of Karma Games in Beijing, which develops games played by people around the world.

 

Mr. Liu is moving his Hong Kong operations to the city-state. He said he would start using his Singapore entity to release and market games for international markets.

 

Singapore has also emerged as something of a buffer zone as geopolitical tensions between China and the United States escalate. For some, a passport from Singapore is attractive because it has good relations with both countries.

 

Governments around the world are increasingly wary of Beijing’s influence on Chinese businesses. Many want to know whether those companies are keeping their citizens’ personal data safe, and whether investments by Chinese entities have implications for national security.

 

Such scrutiny has led some Chinese entrepreneurs to seek foreign passports, or at least permanent resident status in other countries. A few told me that they feared their Chinese passports could leave them vulnerable if China should invade Taiwan, provoking the kind of sanctions imposed on Russia and its businesses since the war in Ukraine began.

 

Entrepreneurs in Singapore admit that it has its limitations. It’s small, it’s expensive and the talent pool is shallow. It’s an easy place to enjoy life but not ideal for starting, say, an ambitious tech company, many of them say. Some wealthy, relatively young Chinese who have moved here don’t have much to do but drink a lot of Moutai, the Chinese liquor.

 

Nearly all would have preferred to stay in China, if the circumstances had been different. It is a colossal market with great infrastructure, the best supply chain in the world and an abundant supply of programmers willing to work overtime.

 

Most of them still maintain some business operations there. But they’re not going to rush back, invest more and open new businesses just because the government cajoled them.

 

“The entrepreneurs don’t dare to take risks anymore,” said Mr. Huo, the business adviser. “They have to think twice before doing anything — whether they’ll put their safety into jeopardy.”

 

Li Yuan writes the New New World column, which focuses on the intersection of technology, business and politics in China and across Asia. More about Li Yuan

REMEMBERING 8 Months Ago: Chinese banker 'was looking to move wealth to Singapore before disappearance

China’s billionaires looking to move their cash, and themselves, out

 


China’s billionaires looking to move their cash, and themselves, out

 

Crackdowns on financiers, roiling political climate and slowing economy under Xi Jinping has many seeking exit plans

 

Amy Hawkins Senior China correspondent

@amyhawk_

Mon 30 Oct 2023 23.10 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/chinas-billionaires-looking-to-move-their-cash-and-themselves-out

 

Billionaires are notoriously difficult to track. It’s no surprise – the easier they and their assets are to find, the easier they are to tax. But by all accounts, the number of uber-wealthy people in China is in decline. Of the world’s estimated 2,640 billionaires, at least 562 are thought to be in China, according to Forbes, down from 607 last year.

 

With crackdowns on financiers and a roiling political climate, many of China’s rich people are looking to move their money, and themselves, out of the country.

 

China’s elites have long looked for ways to take their money overseas. Officially, individuals are only allowed to transfer $50,000 (£41,000) out of the country each year. But in practice wealthy people have a range of official and unofficial ways of shifting their funds, whether that is through money exchanges in Hong Kong, where capital controls do not apply, or funnelling cash into overseas businesses.

 

In August, police in Shanghai arrested five people who worked at an immigration consultancy, including the company’s boss, on suspicion of facilitating illegal foreign exchange transactions in excess of 100m yuan (£11m). In a state media report, the police said “illegal foreign exchange trading seriously disrupts the order of the country’s financial market”.

 

Before the pandemic, about $150bn flowed out of China each year via tourists taking their funds overseas, according to estimates from the Natixis, a bank. Although international travel has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, high US interest rates and a weak yuan are a strong incentive for cash-rich Chinese to move their money out of the country, economists say.

 

In the first half of 2023, there was a shortfall of $19.5bn in China’s balance of payments data, which economists use as an indicator of capital flight, although the true value of money unofficially leaving the economy may be higher.

 

Alicia Garcia Herrero, the chief economist for Asia Pacific at Natixis, says that “a high level of uncertainty about future economic policies and business opportunities in China” also encourages people to take their savings out of the country.

 

In 2021, Xi Jinping, China’s leader, resurrected a call for “common prosperity”, which was widely interpreted as a call for tycoons to share their wealth more widely. That year Alibaba, the tech company founded by Jack Ma, once one of China’s most high-profile entrepreneurs, donated 100bn yuan to the cause.

 

Xi is thought to be particularly mistrustful of China’s financial elites since more than $600bn fled the economy in 2015, after a surprise devaluation of the yuan. Since then Beijing has sought to tighten its grip on China’s wealth – and the people who have most of it. The Chinese Communist party (CCP) was particularly spooked when billionaires like Ma started to openly question China’s regulators (after Ma made his comments in 2020, he disappeared from public view for several years).

 

The “common prosperity” slogan has faded from view as Beijing seeks to promote China as a place that is open for business after three years of zero-Covid. But the pressure on business elites has not relented, and now that borders are open many are looking at exit plans. Last month Hui Ka Yan, the founder of the embattled property developer Evergrande and once Asia’s richest man, was arrested for unspecified crimes. Bao Fan, a renowned investment banker once seen as a kingmaker in the world of technology deals, was detained in February and has not been seen since. Other executives have been placed under exit bans.

 

The environment now is a marked shift from the 1990s and early 2000s, when China was preparing for entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 and introducing a host of market reforms that allowed China’s entrepreneurs to amass huge wealth. That was an era in which money-making could come before anything else. But under Xi, who has consolidated his personal power more than any leader since Mao, the emphasis has returned to political control, rather than economic freedom.

 

“The arbitrary punishment being meted out to the wealthy class is unlike anything we have seen since the 1990s,” says Victor Shih, a professor of China’s political economy at the University of California San Diego. “This has prompted many in that class to think about diversifying out of China.”

 

There are increasing signs of wealthy Chinese decamping to nearby hotspots. More than 10% of luxury condos sold in Singapore in the first three months of this year went to mainland Chinese buyers, up from about 5% in the first quarter of 2022, according to data from OrangeTee, a real estate company. There are now about 1,100 single-family offices – firms set up to manage the wealth of a specific family – in Singapore, up from 50 in 2018, with around half of that boom estimated to come from Chinese clients.

 

Wealthy Chinese are also looking for ways to move themselves as well as their money out of China. About 13,500 high-net-worth individuals are expected to leave China this year, up from 10,800 last year, according to Henley & Partners, an immigration consultancy.

 

“The Chinese government plays for keeps, as Jack Ma and numerous others have discovered,” says David Lesperance, an independent consultant who helps ultra-high-net worth people to relocate. “So we have to look at how to protect your wealth and your wellbeing”.

 

Lesperance says he receives an increasing number of inquiries from businesspeople who want to move their whole teams out of China, not just their families. As well as the political risks, entrepreneurs no longer feel that China is a land of opportunity, he says. In 2017, China was minting two new billionaires a week. Now, economic growth has slowed.

 

“Before they would stay because they were making a ton of money in China,” says Lesperance. “Now they’re not making as much money. So they’re like, why am I staying again? Why am I risking this?”

 

 Additional research by Chi Hui Lin34

Covid Inquiry: Martin Reynolds used ‘disappearing’ messages with Boris J...

Messages revealed by inquiry make for 'grisly reading' - former senior civil servant

Press Preview: Tuesday's papers

Jewish community 'left behind': 'my family has lived here for centuries ...

Suella Braverman visits Golders Green to reassure residents

Braverman: Pro-Palestinian protests are 'hate marches'.

Israeli delegates wear yellow stars at UN meeting on Gaza war | Al Jazee...

Israel-Hamas war: Tank fires at car in central Gaza amid Israeli ground operations

Israel-Hamas war: IDF warns of 'hostile aircraft intrusion' in southern Israel

Israeli forces 'on outskirts of Gaza City' and rescue captured soldier

Israel-Hamas war: 'This is a time for war' - No chance of ceasefire, Net...

PM Modi Backs Israel Against Hamas Attacks; 'India Stands In Solidarity....

India takes strong pro-Israel stance under Modi in a departure from the past

 


India takes strong pro-Israel stance under Modi in a departure from the past

 

While previous governments kept dealings with Israel largely quiet, the ruling BJP has different priorities

 

Hannah Ellis-Petersen

Hannah Ellis-Petersen in Delhi

Tue 31 Oct 2023 05.00 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/india-pro-israel-narendra-modi-bjp-government

 

Just a few hours after Hamas launched its assault on Israel, India’s prime minister was among the first world leaders to respond. In a strongly worded statement, Narendra Modi condemned the “terrorist attacks” and said India “stands in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour”.

 

The Indian foreign minister retweeted the comment almost instantly. Another state minister from Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) warned in a tweet that India “may face the situation that Israel is confronting today if we don’t stand up against politically motivated radicalism”.

 

Though Modi’s words chimed with the messaging of most western governments, for India they marked a departure from the past. It was not until a few days later that the foreign ministry quietly reminded the public of India’s historical commitment to the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

 

On Friday, India was among the countries that did not back a UN resolution for a “humanitarian truce” in Gaza, instead choosing to abstain.

 

For many, the immediacy of Modi’s comments and the UN resolution vote symbolises just how significantly the India-Israel relationship has shifted since he came to power in 2014, notably demonstrated by the public bonhomie between the two countries’ prime ministers.

 

Nicolas Blarel, associate professor of international relations at Leiden University and author of The Evolution of India’s Israel Policy, said: “Modi’s position has been openly supportive of Israel but this is the first time that you had an immediate pro-Israel reaction without a balancing statement that immediately follows it up.”

 

Israel appeared to take Modi’s statement as unequivocal backing. Speaking to reporters in Delhi last week, Israel’s ambassador, Naor Gilon, thanked the country for “100% support”.

 

Yet it was not a sentiment restricted only to the upper echelons of Indian government. As Azad Essa, a journalist and author of Hostile Homelands: The New Alliance Between India and Israel, said: “This messaging gave a clear signal to the whole rightwing internet cell in India.”

 

In the aftermath, the Indian internet factcheckers AltNews and Boom began to observe a flood of disinformation targeting Palestine pushed out by Indian social media accounts, which included fake stories about atrocities committed by Palestinians and Hamas that were shared sometimes millions of times, and often using the conflict to push the same Islamophobic narrative that has been used regularly to demonise India’s Muslim population since the BJP came to power.

 

BJP-associated Facebook groups also began to push the message that Hamas represented the same Muslim threat facing India in the troubled, majority-Muslim region of Kashmir and Palestinians were sweepingly branded as jihadis.

 

Messages widely forwarded on WhatsApp urged Hindus to arm themselves and boycott Muslims, reading: “In the future, India could also face conspiracies and attacks like Israel. The possibility of Hindu women facing cruelty cannot be ruled out.”

 

The same narrative also made its way on to some of India’s most inflammatory news channels, with Arnab Goswami, the rightwing firebrand presenter on India’s Republic TV, telling viewers: “The same radical jihadist Islamist terrorist thinking that Israel is a victim of, we are a victim of as well … Israel is fighting this war on behalf of all of us.”

 

Some Hindu nationalist groups appeared to heed this as a call to arms. Last week, groups gathered outside the Israeli embassy in Delhi, offering their services to fight Hamas. Among them was Vishnu Gupta, 58, the national president of Hindu Sena, who said he was among 200 men who had volunteered for the Israeli army, adding that his confidence had been boosted by Modi.

 

“We both are victims of Islamic terror, that is why we have been supporting Israel from the beginning,” said Gupta. “Just like Jerusalem was overtaken by Muslims, holy places in India were also invaded by Muslims. Like Hamas, there are militants from Kashmir supported by Pakistan who would carry terror attacks across India. The only fortunate thing about us is that we are not in the minority.”

 

Historically, India had a very different relationship with Israel. Its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the influential Indian freedom fighter Mahatma Gandhi had opposed the creation of an Israeli state, fearing it would disfranchise Palestinians, and India voted against it at the UN.

 

India was the first non-Arab country to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the legitimate representative of Palestine in the 1970s, giving the group full diplomatic status in the 1980s and inviting PLO’s long-serving leader Yasser Arafat to visit several times, and consistently maintained a pro-Palestine position at the UN. It was only after the PLO began a dialogue with Israel, and as US pressure began to build, that India finally established diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992.

 

Potential friction with India’s valuable Gulf partners

Narendra Modi’s foreign policy has also overseen a transformation in ties with Arab Gulf countries.

 

A turning point came in 1999 when India went to war with Pakistan and Israel proved willing to provide arms and ammunition. It was the beginning of a defence relationship that has grown exponentially. India buys about $2bn-worth of arms from Israel every year – its largest arms supplier after Russia – and accounts for 46% of Israel’s overall weapons exports.

 

But it was the election of Modi that marked a fundamental sea change. While previous governments had kept their dealings with Israel largely quiet, due to concerns of alienating foreign allies and its own vast Muslim population, Modi’s Hindu nationalist BJP government had very different priorities.

 

In 2017, Modi became the first Indian prime minister to visit Israel, which was reciprocated months later when Netanyahu travelled to Delhi. The images of the pair strolling barefoot with their trousers rolled up along Haifa beach in Tel Aviv, described by Indian media at the time as a “budding bromance”, were later used by both leaders in campaign material.

 

Essa said: “The narrative they were pushing was clear: that India and Israel are these ancient civilisations that had been derailed by outsiders – which means Muslims – and their leaders have come together, like long-lost brothers, to fulfil their destiny.”

 

The ideological alignment between the two leaders was certainly more apparent than in the past. The BJP’s ideological forefathers, and its rank and file today, have long regarded Israel as a model for the religious nationalist state, referred to as the Hindu Rashtra, that the Hindu rightwing in India hope to establish.

 

While Modi was also the first Indian prime minister to visit Ramallah in Palestine, much of the focus of his government has been on strengthening ties with Israel, be it through defence, culture, agriculture and even film-making. This year, Gautam Adani, the Indian billionaire businessman seen to be close to Modi, paid $1.2bn to acquire the strategic Israeli port of Haifa.

 

Nonetheless, Modi’s foreign policy has also overseen a transformation in ties with Arab Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, which has been of great financial benefit to India and laid the foundation for a groundbreaking India-Middle East economic trade corridor, running all the way to Europe, which was announced at the G20 forum for international economic cooperation this year but has yet to be built.

 

While the Gulf has also been working to normalise ties with Israel, analysts said should the Israeli-Hamas conflict continue to escalate, it was likely that India would quieten its pro-Israeli stance to prevent friction with its valuable Gulf partners.

 

Alvite Singh Ningthoujam, a fellow at Middle East Institute in Delhi, said since Modi’s initial comments, there had been a “calculated silence” from the government.

 

“While Modi is comfortable making statements that condemn cross-border terrorism, if this conflict escalates, and other countries that his government has relationships with get involved, it will be a big test for India,” he said.

 

Aakash Hassan contributed reporting from Delhi.

segunda-feira, 30 de outubro de 2023

Russia blames Ukraine for antisemitic riot at airport in Dagestan

 



Russia blames Ukraine for antisemitic riot at airport in Dagestan

Foreign ministry says Kyiv played ‘direct and key role’ after mob stormed planes in search of Israeli passengers

 

Pjotr Sauer and Andrew Roth

Mon 30 Oct 2023 17.51 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/russia-blames-ukraine-for-antisemitic-riot-at-airport-in-dagestan

 

Russia has blamed Ukraine for the antisemitic riot in the mostly Muslim region of Dagestan on Sunday in which an angry mob stormed the airport in Makhachkala in search of Jewish passengers arriving from Israel.

 

Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, said on Monday that the riot was the result of a “provocation” orchestrated from outside Russia, with Ukraine playing a “direct and key role”.

 

Earlier in the day, Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson, claimed the unrest was “the result of external intervention, including external information influence”.

 

Neither Zakharova or Peskov provided evidence to support their claims of outside interference.

 

Peskov also told reporters that Putin would hold a meeting with his top officials on Monday evening to discuss “western attempts to use events in the Middle East to split Russian society”.

 

Video posted to social media on Sunday showed hundreds of young men, some carrying Palestinian flags or placards denouncing Israel, storming on to the airport and climbing on to idling planes, attempting to break through the windows.

 

One Israeli passenger described how an angry mob interrogated him after landing at the airport.

 

“They entered our bus and asked each of us whether we were Muslim or Jewish … I answered that I was Muslim … Luckily, they believed me. If they had given me a serious interrogation, they would have realised that I was Israeli,” the passenger told the Meduza news website.

 

Russia’s interior ministry said on Monday that 60 people had been arrested after the riots.

 

Russian officials and state-affiliated media criticised Telegram channels – specifically one called Utro Dagestan, which has more than 65,000 subscribers – for their role in organising the rioters on Sunday. In doing so, many sought to argue that the riots were inspired by foreign “enemies” and were not an expression of homegrown antisemitism in Dagestan.

 

RT, a state-funded news agency that coordinates its coverage with Kremlin officials, released a report on Utro Dagestan on Monday, claiming that the channel’s anonymous administrator, who it said had been detained in Makhachkala, was linked to Ilya Ponomarev, a Kyiv-based former Russian official who opposes the Kremlin. Ponomarev said on Sunday that he had had no control over the channel for more than a year.

 

Late on Monday, Telegram said it had decided to ban Utro Dagestan for “inciting violence”.

 

Russia has blocked a number of popular social networks, including Facebook and Instagram, but has not cracked down on Telegram, which remains a popular messaging app and has channels that allow businesses, popular figures, and protest movements to broadcast messages to the public.

 

Thousands of users in southern Russia reported outages on Telegram on Sunday, in particular in regions neighbouring the North Caucasus such as Krasnodar and Rostov.

 

Oleg Matveychev, the deputy head of a parliamentary committee on information policy and IT, pushed back against reports of a broad ban on Telegram, but said it was possible that law enforcement would specifically target channels promoting the riots.

 

Several other demonstrations in support of the Palestinians and against Jewish people have also taken place in cities across the Caucasus in recent days despite strict laws that limit public protests.

 

On Monday, a group of women in the mountainous region of Karachay-Cherkessia said they were protesting because “they did not want to live alongside Jews”.

 

The anti-Jewish demonstrations come against the backdrop of Putin taking a pro-Palestinian stance in Israel’s war in Gaza, a position that aligns the Kremlin with its ally Iran in what analysts have described as a growing global divide between east and west.

 

Last week, a senior Hamas delegation travelled to Moscow to meet Russian officials in the organisation’s first high-profile international visit since it launched a raid in southern Israel on 7 October. Israel criticised the visit, saying inviting Hamas “sends a message legitimising terrorism”.

 

Hosting Hamas in Moscow but not condemning the group’s killings of civilians in Israel, Putin “might have given the green light to some elements in the Caucasus that the hunting season [against Jews] is on”, said Pinchas Goldschmidt, who served as the chief rabbi of Moscow for nearly 30 years until he left the country last year because of his opposition to the war in Ukraine.

 

“In a country where everything is tightly controlled by the government, it is inconceivable that these riots were not instigated or directed by governmental structure,” Goldschmidt said.

 

Goldschmidt, who has previously urged Jews to leave Russia while they still can, added that as Israeli-Russian ties deteriorate, “the situation for Jews will get worse in Russia”.

 

“We may see similar riots in other places in the country,” he said.

 

While the Russian empire and its Soviet successor had an extensive history of state-sponsored antisemitism, Putin has promoted himself as a friend of the Jewish people and cultivated Russian-Israeli relations.

 

However, the decline in the relationship between Moscow and Tel Aviv over the past year and a half has raised fears over a new rise in antisemitism inside Russia.

 

“For a long time, any form of antisemitism was prohibited in the political and media spheres,” said Ilya Yablokov, a lecturer at the University of Sheffield, who has written about antisemitism in Russia. “But since the war in Ukraine, we have seen some of those taboos disappear. The war in Gaza has only accelerated this trend.”

 

Yablokov pointed to a string of recent statements by senior Russian officials that were widely considered offensive to Jews. In one of them, the country’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, recycled an antisemitic conspiracy theory that claimed that Adolf Hitler “had Jewish blood.”

 

In Makhachkala on Sunday night, Yablokov said, pre-existing anti-Jewish sentiments appeared to have been stoked by growing anti-Israeli sentiments aired on state media.

 

“Previously, people thought that protesting against Israel would go against the mainstream, but now many feel the Kremlin will be more permissive,” he said.

 

Alexander Verkhovsky, director of the Sova Centre, a Moscow-based non-governmental group that monitors extremism, said Sunday’s antisemitic riot “changed our understanding of antisemitism in Russia”.

 

“Attacks against Jewish people and material objects – schools, synagogues, cemeteries – were extremely rare in Russia,” he said. “The question now is whether antisemitic protests spread beyond the Muslim-majority Caucasus.”