The president of America can bypass the law which forbids tax aid to nations engaging in illegal nuclear weapons programs if he just ignores it, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has said in its response to an emergency motion seeking to halt aid to Israel.
The astonishing claim is contained in the DOJ’s response to the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) lawsuit to block the transfer of $3.7 billion in illegal US aid to Israel, which is currently before a three-panel federal appeals court.
This DOJ’s motion comes down to the suggestion that although the law states clearly that aid cannot be granted to nations engaging in illegal nuclear activity, as long as the president has not made a determination on the topic, such aid does not fall under the auspices of that law.
The document, filed on May 15, 2017, and signed by Sharon Swingle, and Joseph F. Busa, Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division for the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., also claims that Grant Smith, the IRmep director who brought the suit, does not have any standing to file the claim, nor has he suffered losses as a result of the aid being supplied to Israel.
The DOJ says that Smith “lacks Article III standing” to bring the suit—a reference to the constitutional requisites under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which holds that a party seeking to sue must personally have suffered some actual or threatened injury that can fairly be traced to the challenged action of defendant and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
Smith has earlier argued that the fact that his tax money is used to fund Israel in contravention of the law, and the fact that America suffers “blowback” terrorist attacks because of its military support for Israel, gives him Article III standing.
However, the DOJ has argued that the “plaintiff does not derive standing from the fact that he may pay federal taxes used to fund foreign aid to Israel.”
“And plaintiff’s allegation that U.S. aid to Israel perpetuates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and thereby generates ‘blowback’ against the United States, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, is too generalized and speculative to establish injury-in-fact.”
The DOJ goes on to claim that the aid to Israel—which it freely admits is more than 20 percent of Israel’s total military budget—is not illegal because the president has not made any public determination of whether or not the Jewish ethnostate is contravening the law.
“The statute permits but does not require that the President make the determination that plaintiff seeks,” the DOJ response says.
“Nor does the statute create a justiciable, private right of action to compel the President to make such a determination.”
The DOJ admits that the “Arms Export Control Act prohibits the United States from providing foreign aid, including foreign military financing, upon the President’s determination that the recipient country has engaged in certain conduct involving nuclear technologies.”
However, it continues, the “statute does not cabin the President’s discretion regarding whether, when, or how to make any determination.”
“Nor does the statute establish any timeline for making such a determination, or specify the types of evidence and other factors to be considered, or the quantum of proof that must be satisfied.
“If the President does determine that a recipient country has engaged in the conduct enumerated in the statute, several waiver provisions may nonetheless permit the government to distribute foreign aid to that country.
“For determinations involving certain conduct, the President may notify congressional committees and officials that cutting off aid would ‘jeopardize the common defense and security.’
“The statute provides that, after notification, the President may continue to provide aid unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.”
Furthermore, the DOJ says, the “President may exercise waiver authority entirely on his own.”
“Nothing in the statute contemplates judicial review of any portion of the procedures . . . nor authorizes a private right of action to compel the President to make a particular discretionary determination regarding a particular country.”
In other words, the DOJ is arguing that even though the law exists, if the president wants to give billions in aid to a country in contravention of the law, he can, and no one can stop him.
Finally, the DOJ says that “the balance of the equities and the public interest tip decisively against an injunction.”
“Interrupting the flow of foreign aid to Israel would threaten to impair our national security and foreign relations with a key ally.”
The case must be finalized before the end of May 2017, because the $3.7 billion set aside for Israel as a cash lump payment (drawn out of the borrowed emergency “government funding bill” passed by Congress at the beginning of May) will be paid over to the Jewish ethnostate at the beginning of June.
Trump’s Corrupt Jewish Family-In-Law Called Out By U.S. Senator
An attempt by U.S. President Donald Trump’s Jewish family-in-law—the Kushners—to cash in on their family’s close involvement with the presidency through the issuing of “investment visas” to Chinese people, has been exposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley in a formal complaint to Homeland Security Secretary General John Kelly.
According to a statement released on Senator Grassley’s official Senate web page, he called on the Homeland Security Secretary “to expedite proposed regulations targeting abuse and national security concerns in the EB-5 investor visa program, and to clarify that the department is processing EB-5 applications in a fair and transparent manner.”
His request followed the recent extension of the EB-5 program without any reforms “and a reported pitch by Kushner Companies implying that potential investors should invest soon to avoid changes in program rules.”
Senator Grassley said the EB-5 visa program—which gives out green cards to anybody who can invest at least $500,000 to finance a business in the United States—has been “riddled with well-documented fraud and national security vulnerabilities.”
The program was extended by the Trump Administration earlier this month without any reforms, despite efforts by Grassley and others “to restore integrity in the program,” his statement continued.
In his letter to General Kelly, Grassley pointed out that, given the backlog of applicants, new investors would be subject to the program’s rules at the time their visas become available, despite the comments made by representatives of Kushner Companies.
Grassley was referring to statements made by Nicole Kushner Meyer—the sister of White House adviser, and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner—who spoke at the beginning of May at an event in Beijing, China.
As reported by CNN, Nicole Kushner Meyer was marketing a Kushner-owned property in New Jersey, and told the Chinese attendees that they could invest in the development and thereby get into the United States on an EB-5 visa.
An ad for the event, held at a Ritz-Carlton hotel, said, “Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States.”
The event was meant to draw investors for 1 Journal Square, a $976.4 million residential and commercial project underway in New Jersey. The company says about 15 percent of it will be funded through the EB-5 program.
The Chinese were told that they “should act quickly because possible policy changes to the EB-5 program might raise the required minimum investment.”
Nicole Kushner Meyer specifically mentioned her brother’s new position in the White House, and although she did refer to Trump by name, his photo appeared on a slide that listed the “key decision makers” on the EB-5 program.
Although the program is set up to effectively sell U.S. citizenship to the wealthy—a scandal all by itself—it is clear from the remarks that the Kushners are cashing in on their position, using insider information on possible changes to the law.
Senator Grassley said in his letter to General Kelly that he was “sure you’re aware that Ms. Meyer recently made a pitch to potential real estate investors in Beijing at an event hosted by a Chinese company working with the Kushner Company to raise funds for a luxury apartment complex in New Jersey.
“In her speech, Ms. Meyer touted the EB-5 ‘golden visa,’ which permits investors of $500,000 or more to obtain a U.S. green card, and alluded to her brother Jared Kushner’s White House position in a manner that some say was improperly suggestive,” Senator Grassley continued.
“One of Ms. Meyer’s colleagues urged attendees to ‘invest early, and you will invest under the old rules,’” he said.
“As you know, EB-5 applicants ordinarily wait at least two years for a petition to be processed and for visas to become available. Ms. Meyer’s statements, however, could seem to imply that foreign nationals who invest with the Kushner Company will receive special treatment and expedited approval.
“It is appropriate for the Department to clarify and affirm that no foreign investors will receive preferential treatment, that applications will be processed in the order in which they are received—subject to any existing backlog—and that future applications will be subject to the proposed regulations, when approved,” the Senator added.
He went on to point out that he had noted on “many occasions” that “the EB-5 program desperately needs to be reformed. Numerous sources have documented rampant corruption, fraud, and national security risks.
“For example, the FBI recently raided a California regional center that defrauded investors out of millions of dollars while facilitating dozens of fraudulently obtained green cards, including several procured for investors who are on a Chinese government list of most-wanted fugitives.”
Others had “invested” money loaned to them for a fee by the regional center to gain the visa, even though it was later shown that no construction took place at any of the proposed project locations.
“About 30 of the investors received some or all their money back—amounting to about $10 million—but concealed the refunds from U.S. officials and have continued to pursue legal permanent residence,” Senator Grassley continued.
“Among many other examples, over the past five years the Securities and Exchange Commission has pursued cases involving hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent investment schemes, and in 2013 ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit warned of serious national security and technology proliferation concerns.
“These abuses are amplified because investment levels—which have remained static since 1990—and egregious gerrymandering of Targeted Investment Areas, rob the U.S. economy of billions of dollars each year.
“The American people are relying on you to prevent fraud, promote security, and protect the homeland. DHS’s efforts in implementing new regulations to that effect are integral to strengthening program integrity and benefitting the U.S. economy.”