Fire Hydrant of Freedom

"I have to think there is more to this story."

As in "Tell this lie and you will get a lighter sentence for something else"?

fourth

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/syrias-fall-in-depth-analysis?publication_id=1351274&post_id=152594765&isFreemail=false&r=379fkp&triedRedirect=true

Fourth

https://ace.mu.nu/archives/412759.php

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-121124-zelensky-draws-line?publication_id=1351274&post_id=152854116&isFreemail=false&r=379fkp&triedRedirect=true


12/10

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/syrias-fall-in-depth-analysis?publication_id=1351274&post_id=152594765&isFreemail=false&r=379fkp&triedRedirect=true

December 12, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

Romania Takes an Election Mulligan
Foreign interference aggravated political divisions but didn’t create them.
By: Antonia Colibasanu

Romania’s 2024 presidential election was annulled earlier this month due to foreign interference. In the first round, held on Nov. 24, independent candidate Calin Georgescu led with 23 percent of the vote, followed by Elena Lasconi of the Save Romania Union with 19 percent. But certain irregularities and intelligence reports revealed hybrid mis- and disinformation attacks that favored Georgescu. By Dec. 4, President Klaus Iohannis declassified reports identifying a “foreign nation” as the culprit, later confirmed to be Russia. On Dec. 6, the Constitutional Court annulled the results under Article 50 of the Constitution, citing significant amounts of fraud, and ordered a rerun. Both Georgescu and Lasconi criticized the decision, but preparations for a new election are underway, with Iohannis remaining in office for now.

It is reasonable to believe that Russia has supported disinformation campaigns in Romania, a strategically important state on NATO’s frontline and a key U.S. partner in the Black Sea region. As a host of U.S. troops and a staunch supporter of Ukraine, Romania plays a vital role in regional stability. U.S. forces stationed in Romania operate from key locations, including the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base near the Black Sea, a critical hub for NATO operations and logistics. These deployments are, in no uncertain terms, meant to deter Russia.

Its U.S. partnership aside, Romania has indigenously fashioned itself into a security hub for Eastern Europe. Hosting one of NATO’s new multinational battlegroups, which was established in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Romania plays a vital role in bolstering the alliance's defense architecture. The country is a key location for NATO’s ballistic missile defense system and a hub for enhanced air policing missions, with allied air forces operating from Romanian bases to secure Eastern European airspace. Its contributions to NATO's integrated air and missile defense are equally critical in integrating advanced capabilities such as multirole F-16 fighter jets, Patriot missile systems, and the Control and Reporting Center in Bucharest through NATO's southern Combined Air Operations Center in Torrejon, Spain.

In recent years, Romania has significantly increased its defense expenditures, committing 2.5 percent of its gross domestic product to defense for 2025 and investing in modernization initiatives to address pressing security challenges, particularly along the Black Sea coast. As part of these efforts, Romania has upgraded its naval capabilities by acquiring two minesweepers from the United Kingdom, retrofitting four missile ships and signing a $128 million contract with Raytheon for four naval strike missile systems to enhance coastal defense. Furthermore, Romania plans to acquire 54 K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers from South Korea in a $920 million deal, marking a major upgrade in its artillery capabilities. These efforts are supported by a direct loan agreement with the United States to further modernize military infrastructure and equipment.

Romania has also taken steps to become a regional center for defense innovation. South Korea's Hanwha Aerospace plans to build an armored vehicle production facility in partnership with Romanian state-owned defense firm Romarm and aerospace research company INCAS to support systems like K9 howitzers and Redback vehicles. Germany's Rheinmetall has expanded its operations in Romania by acquiring a majority stake in Automecanica Medias SRL for local production of Lynx armored fighting vehicles.

In short, Romania is a strategic pillar along the new Western containment line – which explains why Moscow would see it as hostile to its interests and why it would be a target for disinformation campaigns. A politically destabilized Romania, where public trust in the government is low, would weaken its commitment to Western policies, ultimately undermining the U.S.-Romania partnership and thus the broader Western alliance.

Russia has an urgent need now more than ever to intensify its efforts to disaggregate its enemies to the west. With its military struggling to win the war in Ukraine, destabilizing Romania serves two purposes: It undermines Romania’s ability to support Ukraine logistically and politically, and it disrupts alternative trade routes such as the Danube and Black Sea corridors that are vital to sustaining Ukraine’s economy. Backing candidates who promote isolationist or anti-Western policies aligns with Russia’s broader objective to fracture NATO and the European Union and thus weaken regional resistance to its efforts in Ukraine.

However, Moscow’s disinformation efforts are more about emphasis than they are about wholesale lies. The Kremlin has been amplifying issues that already resonate with the public. By focusing on topics that are inherently appealing or contentious, Russia ensures its propaganda is both subtle and believable, making it far easier for the general public to accept and internalize. This approach significantly enhances the effectiveness of its campaigns, especially among groups that are eager to consume them.

One such group is the anti-establishment, extremist and sovereigntist movement. In Romania, social distress and political polarization have created a fertile environment for these kinds of movements to gain traction. (It’s a similar story throughout much of Europe.) There is widespread perception that the country's institutions are fragile and largely dysfunctional, with leadership dominated by clientelists rather than civil servants. Many believe the state is controlled by politicians who prioritize their own economic interests over public welfare, fueling further disillusionment and creating an opening for anti-establishment narratives to thrive.

The COVID-19 pandemic, meanwhile, aggravated social disparities and amplified frustrations over inequality. Political discourse increasingly emphasized the influence of the "global elite" in setting rules for everyone. This narrative, adopted and amplified by anti-establishment movements, became a cornerstone of insurgent political campaigns, resonating strongly with a disenchanted electorate. Notably, communist nostalgia remains a potent force in Romanian society, providing another layer of support for these movements. By framing their messages around themes of social injustice and inequality, these groups tap into the lingering sentiment about the communist era, a time perceived by some as marked by security and stability.

For instance, they have criticized the privatization of state-owned industries, arguing it undermines the country's self-sufficiency – a key priority during communist times. By reminding people of the common perception that communism allowed the state to provide jobs and control prices, these campaigns appeal to segments of the electorate that feel left behind in the transition to a market economy. Both Georgescu and the other main populist, anti-establishment leader, George Simion, frequently allude to Ceausescu-era rhetoric about national pride and independence, particularly in criticizing foreign influence in the Romanian government's economic and political decisions.

Georgescu's political platform thus aligns rhetorically and thematically with other anti-establishment movements across Europe. But it also stands apart in a few important ways. First, it draws heavily on the Christian nationalist rhetoric of Romania’s interwar Iron Guard, a far-right movement banned in Romania, similar to how fascist groups are outlawed in Germany. Georgescu’s rhetoric emphasizes traditional values, nationalism and a return to Romania’s cultural roots. This has appealed to a certain segment of voters.

Second, Georgescu incorporates language and ideas reminiscent of Ted Kaczynski’s critiques of industrial capitalism and modern technology. Better known as the Unabomber, Kaczynski was an American anti-technology theorist who carried out a terrorist bombing campaign between 1978 and 1995 that targeted academics, business people and airlines, killing three and injuring 23 others. In his book “The Great Renaissance”, Georgescu repeatedly cites Kaczynski’s manifesto, “Industrial Society and Its Future,” and adopts similar critiques of the "hypercomplexity" of modern society and the industrial capitalist system, which he views as incompatible with human freedom and autonomy. In his presidential campaign, Georgescu often blamed the Western elite for the people’s problems, positioning himself as a messianic figure meant to liberate the Romanian nation.

Georgescu's emergence also marks a first for European anti-establishment movements. Unlike the other populist and nationalist movements, Georgescu’s platform embodies a neo-Marxist and extreme-left platform that has gained traction in Romania over the past decade. And because his critiques are not exactly unique to Romania alone, it’s possible that other populist movements across Europe may draw inspiration from his platform, potentially fueling the rise of extremist ideologies that incorporate the fringes of both far-left and far-right perspectives.

Romanian authorities might successfully counter foreign electoral interference in this instance, but the entire episode shows two things. First, it doesn’t erase the extremist platform existing in Romania, and the way the government handles the current crisis could reveal how democracies will tackle similar circumstances in the future. Second, and perhaps more important, this incident reveals that there is fertile ground in Europe for such ideologies to take root and grow. It not only threatens to weaken the Western alliance but also poses a significant challenge to its foundational liberal values.

(5) U.S. AG VULNERABLE TO CHINA TRADE WAR: Dutch multinational bank Rabobank global sector strategist Steve Nicholson said the dynamics of a U.S.-China trade war have changed, and “this time they [China] are prepared” due to record stockpiles of agricultural products.
Citigroup Global Markets analysts said a resolution to a U.S.-China trade war could eventually emerge, but China will have a “lower appetite” for returning to previous import levels for U.S. ag products.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen urged the incoming Trump administration to maintain communication channels with China, including the Economic Working Group and Financial Working Group. Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs Jay Shambaugh said the working groups were invaluable for preventing “unnecessary misunderstandings and escalations” between the U.S. and China.
Why It Matters: While the building trade war between the U.S. and China will likely hit U.S. agriculture exports, the primary fight is still likely to be over tech development and the U.S.-China AI race. The extension of the current Farm Bill, without cuts to financing mechanisms, will allow the Trump administration to mitigate the impact of Chinese ag import cuts as Trump did in his first term. Trump’s tariff threats are likely an opening move for trade negotiations with China, and Trump inviting China’s President Xi Jinping to the 20 January inauguration is likely a signal to China that the U.S. wants to maintain open communications. – R.C.

(1) U.S. HOUSE APPROVES NEW NDAA FOR FY25: The U.S. House has approved an $895.2 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2025, representing a 1% increase in defense spending over last year’s budget.
The bill provides a 14.5% pay increase for junior enlisted troops, a 4.5% across-the-board pay raise for all service members, and an additional $954 million for housing and quality-of-life improvements for service members.
The bill prohibits the Pentagon from doing business with companies that sell computer chips and services to Huawei Technologies and requires the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to develop a plan to secure US biotechnology supply chains critical to national security.

Fewer than half House Democrats voted for the NDAA, citing the bill’s ban on transgender medical treatments for minors.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the NDAA may be taken up for a vote in the Senate as early as next week.
Why It Matters: Traditionally, the NDAA receives bipartisan support in Congress and easily passes both chambers, but this year’s bill contains a number of Republican priorities expected to divide support in the House and Senate. Senate Democrats are likely to scrutinize the bill’s ban on transgender medical treatments for minors and its lack of funding for IVF and other fertility treatments, making future changes to the bill certain. Nevertheless, the FY25 NDAA reflects a bipartisan desire to address the military’s recruitment and retention crisis as well as longstanding vulnerabilities in defense supply chains, and these provisions are likely to remain intact as the bill moves to President Biden’s desk for final signature. – M.N.

Big deal. The United States will spend more than $864 million on infrastructure development, military training and equipment in Papua New Guinea over 10 years under a bilateral defense deal, the foreign minister of the Pacific island nation revealed. Although the deal was signed in 2023, the value of the investment had not been previously disclosed.

December 10, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

After the Fall of Assad, the Middle East Braces for Unrest
Regional stability will hinge on what happens next in Syria.
By: Hilal Khashan

Jubilant crowds in some of Syria’s biggest and most politically significant cities toppled statues of former President Hafez Assad over the past week, in a scene reminiscent of the toppling of statues of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in 2003. They were celebrating the sudden and stunning ouster of Assad’s son, Bashar Assad, after 24 years in power. But the fall of Bashar Assad will not bring peace and stability to Syria in the foreseeable future. The militant group that led the rebellion, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and its controversial leader, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, will struggle to convince Syrians, let alone the outside world, that they have abandoned their jihadist past. Though most Syrians are dedicated Muslims, they have little interest in religious dogma. There is little common ground among Syria’s diverse ethnic and religious groups, which will prevent agreement on the fundamentals of a future political system and national identity. Complicating the situation further, the country’s neighbors have set their sights on Syrian territory amid the growing uncertainty there.

The Assad Dynasty

The Assads ruled Syria for decades with an iron fist. Their repression of the Syrian people peaked after November 1970, when Hafez Assad carried out a military coup in which he overthrew his partner in power, Salah Jadid. Official propaganda called Assad the eternal leader, and statues of his image were erected in every city and town throughout the country. His exercise of absolute power and coercion of the Syrian people eventually led to the degradation of Syria’s state institutions. He projected an air of invincibility and permanency. His ability to provide essential welfare services to the Syrian people enabled him to use unprecedented repressive measures against those who opposed his rule – even though per capita income dropped from $1,470 in 1980 to $990 in 1990. The decline of the country’s material resources did not reduce the application of despotic measures against those who dared to challenge his domestic and foreign policies. Corruption, traditionally a common feature of Syria’s public institutions, escalated under Hafez’s reign. He accepted it as a form of patronage. When Hafez died in 2000, Bashar succeeded him at just 34 years of age, in violation of the Syrian constitution, which stipulated that the president should be no younger than 40 years old.

But the Assad dynasty was always bound to fall. Repressive regimes – especially if they are endemically corrupt and fail to provide adequate services to their people and adapt their political systems to changing domestic and external conditions – eventually decay and collapse, often suddenly and unexpectedly. Per capita income in Syria reached $1,500 on the eve of the 2011 uprising but declined to $745 in 2021, after the civil war took a heavy toll on the economy. Bashar Assad’s regime would have collapsed in 2015 were it not for the support of Russian airpower and Iranian proxies.

Al-Golani’s Rise

The insurgency that brought down Assad this past weekend was led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which many Western governments have designated a terrorist group. The head of HTS, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, has a long history of militancy. After joining al-Qaida, he participated in the fight against U.S. forces that invaded Iraq in 2003. He moved to Lebanon in 2006, where he supervised training for fighters for Jund al-Sham, a Salafist jihadi organization. He then returned to Iraq in 2008 to fight for the Islamic State group. The U.S. Army briefly arrested him, and following his release, he moved to Syria after the 2011 uprising against Assad. He established the transnational jihadi al-Nusra Front, focusing on Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

After Assad regained control of Aleppo in late 2016, al-Golani changed the name of the group to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. He settled in the province of Idlib and established the Syrian Salvation Government, abandoning the doctrine of transnational jihad to focus on Syria instead. He declared that his goal had shifted to eliminating the Assad regime and establishing Islamic rule in Syria, saying that his membership in al-Qaida and association with the Islamic State group were a thing of the past. He consolidated his authoritarian control over Idlib and marginalized other opposition groups, both religious and secular.

Heterogeneous Society

The recent developments shouldn’t be shocking considering Syria’s tumultuous past. After gaining independence in 1943, Syria became an arena of competition as Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey and Britain wrestled for influence. Against all odds, Hafez Assad managed to make Syria a regional power, but Bashar, fearing that the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq would eventually lead to his own overthrow, aligned with Iran, which dominated Syria’s political system after the 2011 uprising.

Soon after the rebellion began last month, the Syrian regime’s demoralized forces, who had been fighting a war for more than 13 years, collapsed. The rebels decided to continue their offensive after capturing Aleppo, seizing Hama despite heavy Russian air raids, and moved south to Homs, which they took without a fight. Members of the Druze religious sect in Sweida province launched a separate campaign, which led regime officials to flee without much resistance. The rebels there carried the five-color Druze flag, rather than the flag of the Syrian uprising. In Daraa, the site of the 2011 protests that launched the civil war, other rebel factions seized the area that straddled the borders with Israel and Jordan following the army’s withdrawal.

Syria | States of the French Mandate, 1921-1922

(click to enlarge)

Rebel forces in Daraa who operate under a different command reached Damascus as al-Golani’s battalions were still clearing Homs of regime forces. As the rebels continued their offensive, they avoided venturing into the Alawite-held coast, the Kurdish-controlled autonomous region called Rojava or the Druze majority Sweida province. Despite al-Golani’s statements that he wants to unite Syria, the country’s political landscape is highly polarized, and the factions that overthrew Assad’s regime will likely soon splinter and fight among themselves.

Meanwhile, an arson attack in Damascus’ central military intelligence building, perpetrated by former regime operatives masquerading as rebels, destroyed vital documents implicating the regime in the killing of thousands of activists during the country’s 13-year civil war. Assad succeeded in suppressing the 2011 uprising by arresting more than 200,000 Syrians in the years that followed, and the fate of many of the detainees remains unknown. Over the past week, the rebels have released many inmates from the country’s prisons, but most of those let loose were ordinary criminals. Observers widely believe that Assad’s regime had already liquidated most political prisoners. Now that their relatives are aware of their fates, it’s doubtful that al-Golani can fulfill his promise that the opposition will not seek revenge.

Implications for the Region

Syria’s neighbors will most likely take advantage of the fluid political and security situation there. Just a few hours after the fall of the regime, the Israeli army captured the Syrian side of Mount Hermon. It told the inhabitants of five villages near the 1974 ceasefire line to stay home or evacuate because of possible fighting. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the region and announced that the 1974 agreement that forced Israel to withdraw troops from the region was no longer relevant. The Israeli air force raided several military sites in Greater Damascus, allegedly because they contained strategic military assets. In the north, the Turkish air force bombed Kurdish positions amid reports that fighting had flared up again.

It’s very likely that the instability, chaos and absence of order in the country will continue for a long time, threatening Syria’s neighbors, especially Jordan, which shares a 200-mile (320-kilometer) border with Syria. The Jordanian army is monitoring events closely. Jordan fears that the situation will evolve into something similar to the chaos in Libya, if not worse.

Jordan has for years complained about the Syrian regime’s involvement in the illicit smuggling into its territory of Captagon, a cheap and highly addictive amphetamine. Production plants in Syria are still in business, and the trade is likely to resume with other manufacturers. In addition, Syria’s Daraa province, which neighbors Jordan, could become a battleground between competing armed factions and the close-knit Druze in next door Sweida province, with the fighting potentially spilling over into Jordan. King Abdullah II is aware of Israel’s likely plan to annex the West Bank after U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January, which could lead many Palestinians to flee to Jordan. Given the king’s opposition to such a move, Jordan might receive the go-ahead from the Trump administration to annex a part of Syria, namely Damascus and the country’s southwest territory that borders Jordan. The Hashemites in Jordan have always wanted Damascus to become the capital of their kingdom because their ancestors established the Umayyad Dynasty (661-750) there. They view Damascus as the jewel of the Hashemite crown.

The demise of Assad’s regime might also inspire militant groups in other Arab countries. Lebanese Christians and Sunni Muslims, for example, could try to disarm Hezbollah, which has already received a stunning blow by Israel, threatening to drag Lebanon into a renewed wave of sectarian conflict. Christians who have insisted on introducing a federalist system in Lebanon will become more vociferous in their demands. In Iraq, Assad’s overthrow might renew the hopes of anti-government protesters, whose movement was crushed in 2019 by Iranian-backed militias. And in Egypt, President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, who staged a 2013 coup that ended the Muslim Brotherhood’s control of Egyptian politics, also has reason to worry. The Arab region is bracing for unrest as it witnesses the dramatic developments in Syria. The country’s turmoil often reverberates across the Middle East, so regional stability will hinge on what happens there next.

Have not read this yet

https://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=408#:~:text=According%20to%20Day%20Of%20Deceit,anchor%20it%20in%20Pearl%20Harbor.

third

(6) U.S. NAVY: RUSSIAN SHIPS FLEE SYRIA: The U.S. Navy produced satellite photos showing six Russian Navy vessels had left port in Tartus, Syria as part of a larger Russian Armed Forces exodus following Assad’s ouster.
The Navy claims Tartus and the Russian air base in Latakia were critical points for Russian operations in Africa.
Why It Matters: Tartus was one of two warm water ports available to the Russian Navy, the other being Sevastopol in the Black Sea. Now, during winter months, Western powers could potentially shut down the Black Sea, severely limiting Russian power projection operations and trade. This is a significant diplomatic weapon that could be used to end the war in Ukraine and deter Russian assistance to China in the event of a Pacific war. – J.V.

(7) Global Rollup
Israel claims to have destroyed the Syrian fleet in a large-scale military operation. “The Israel Defense Forces are working in Syria over the past few days to damage and destroy strategic capabilities that threaten the State of Israel,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said, following a 48-hour bombing campaign. Since Assad’s ouster, Israel has conducted over 350 strikes against “strategic targets” in Syria, including missile depots, air fields, and naval vessels. Katz estimates Israel has destroyed approximately 70 to 80 percent of the former Assad regime’s strategic military capabilities.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) extended liability protections for producers of COVID-19 vaccines through 2029. HHS said the liability shield extension is necessary because of the “credible risk” that COVID-19 will remain a public health risk in the future. The liability shield also protects healthcare professionals who prescribed or administered COVID-19 vaccines. (This is likely another instance of “Trump proofing” by federal agencies, intended to tie up any legal actions from the Trump administration or conservatives in the courts until Trump leaves office. – R.C.)

(2) INCOMING TRUMP AI CZAR HAS TOUGH ROAD AHEAD: Bipartisan AI policy group Americans for Responsible Innovation VP Satya Thallam said U.S. leadership on artificial intelligence (AI) is at stake and incoming Trump administration “AI and crypto czar” David Sacks has a “tough job ahead of him.”
R Street Institute senior fellow Adam Thierer said Sacks will need strong support from the White House when Sacks “starts butting heads with powerful bureaucratic agencies and special interests” who want to constrain AI and cryptocurrency development.
Why It Matters: The same agencies that have de-banked more than 30 Silicon Valley executives since the beginning of the Biden administration and, according to Marc Andreessen, told AI developers that the government will have “total control” over AI, will likely resist Trump administration efforts to deregulate AI and cryptocurrencies. Sacks will have no formal legal power as a White House advisor, and will have to rely on Congressional Republicans and Trump cabinet secretaries to spur AI development and keep the U.S. ahead of China. – R.C.

https://patriotpost.us/alexander/112745?mailing_id=8884&subscription_uuid=e046cf62-a6a8-4317-a631-0e7db6e8f626&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.8884&utm_campaign=alexander&utm_content=body

============

FO

Trump transition advisor Corey Lewandowski said the Trump team will use every resource to target Senators who oppose Trump’s cabinet nominations. According to a Trump advisor speaking anonymously, President-elect Donald Trump has a “much more professional political operation around him,” and is “a lot more willing” to use political power during his second term. [According to reports, Trump backed off on nominating former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) as Attorney General. However, after Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth’s nomination met resistance from Senate Republicans, the Trump camp began a pressure campaign against Senate Republicans who signaled they will vote against confirming Trump cabinet nominees. – R.C.]

Doesn't sound particularly credible to me.

I"m guessing there the "got aways" are not included in the numbers.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2024/12/11/guess-what-police-found-in-the-homes-of-pro-palestinian-student-leaders-n2648816?utm_source=twdailyam&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=a1714aba6c197395707aecde9ada65a65090b7be5f45291f6611e9cf3bd6bace&lctg=2677215

 

Some things to keep in mind here:

1: As we noted here at the time, the Euros fuct the Turks by not taking Syrian refugees as promised back during , , , what was it , , , the fall of the ISIS Caliphate?  Turkey has MILLIONS of Syrian refugees and understandably is highly motivated to get them back to Syria.

2: Turkey is pro-Ukraine.

3:  The apparent AQ type leader of the rebels so far is not taking revenge, instead is in meetings with various folks, including Assad officials of the sort who keep the fundementals running.

https://decrypt.co/295639/2024-story-of-the-year-crypto-money-politics

Decrypt’s 2024 Story of the Year: How Crypto Money Changed American Politics
This year, a handful of crypto executives revolutionized how corporations spend on elections. The effects of their triumph could extend well beyond crypto.
By Sander Lutz

Dec 11, 2024

14 min read




In brief
Crypto lobbying efforts led by Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz changed the political landscape in 2024.
The plan worked, but it also set a risky precedent.

The story of how it happened, and what it means for crypto and beyond, is Decrypt's 2024 Story of the Year.
It was December 2022, FTX had just collapsed into a $32 billion dollar cloud of vapor, Sam Bankman-Fried was adjusting to life in the sick bay of a Bahamian prison, and Coinbase Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad was feeling cautiously optimistic.

Shirzad was a battle-tested D.C. insider with decades of experience navigating the inner sanctums of Congress and the White House. As the steward of Coinbase’s reputation on Capitol Hill, there was certainly plenty about the implosion of fellow crypto exchange FTX to cause him concern—but at the time, Shirzad’s instincts led him to believe the scandal could be productive.

“It seemed like, for all the terrible aspects of the FTX debacle, it would have engendered something we thought was long overdue: a clear federal framework around the trading of crypto assets,” Shirzad told Decrypt.

Misconduct in other industries had been known to bring about legislative reform in Washington. Companies like Coinbase were itching for a crypto regulatory framework, and would have welcomed new laws designed to root out future FTXs and reward their compliant competitors.

We were dealing with a political problem. And to deal with that political problem, we needed a political solution.

—Faryar Shirzad, Coinbase chief policy officer
But such laws never came. Over the next six months, instead, most politicians distanced themselves from the industry, considering it politically toxic. Meanwhile, a select number of progressive lawmakers seized on FTX’s demise as proof of crypto’s inherently criminal nature.

Votes on digital assets legislation, just months ago on the precipice, were now non-starters.

It took until mid-2023 for crypto policy leaders like Shirzad to realize just how drastically the ground had shifted under their feet. Persistent efforts to sway lawmakers kept hitting walls. Crypto’s existing lobbying tactics were now impotent.

“We began to realize that for all of our efforts, it didn’t matter,” Shirzad said.

“We were dealing with a political problem,” he said. “And to deal with that political problem, we needed a political solution.”

That solution would turn out to be the implementation of a corporate political spending strategy never before seen in American history—one that would cost some $300 million; that would, within barely more than a year, reverse the crypto industry’s fortunes entirely; and that some experts believe has paved the way for already-influential corporations to wield unprecedented control over the American political process.

“Go big or go home”

By the fall of 2023, the leaders of America’s wealthiest crypto companies had decided that, despite differing political views, they had no choice but to band together and do something bold to protect their young industry from extinction. Policy experts at these companies led the charge, convincing their bosses that a crypto super PAC could be the path forward—despite the many risks posed by such a strategy.

Super PACs were still a relatively new political instrument. Birthed by a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, they allowed individuals and corporations to donate unlimited sums of money to aid political candidates—so long as that money wasn’t touched by campaigns directly.

The innovation upended American campaign finance the moment it was legalized. Political organizations like AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, seized on super PACs as a means to reshape congressional races with unparalleled sums of cash.

Ideologically driven billionaires also became particularly infatuated with super PACs. Hye Young You, a Princeton professor specializing in the history of campaign finance in the United States, told Decrypt that sponsoring general pro-Democrat or pro-Republican super PACs emerged “almost as a political hobby” among America’s wealthiest elite between 2010 and 2022.

Washington D.C. Image: Shutterstock
Crypto Money Won the Election—And It Could Just Be Getting Started
This week’s U.S. election, like any other, had its winners and losers. But you’d be hard pressed to find a bigger winner coming out of Tuesday night than Fairshake.  The crypto super PAC, funded by the likes of Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz, didn’t just win big on a handful of high-stakes, marquee fights. It ran the board, defying toss-up odds to elect almost every single Democrat and Republican it supported.  In rural counties, exurban suburbs, and densely populated cities, one thro...

During that entire period, however, super PACs were all-but avoided by corporations.

Why? PACs carried an anti-democratic stigma and were associated with partisanship—an alienating force that could turn off some portion of a corporation’s customer base. So America’s top industries largely wrote them off, You said, as more trouble than they were worth.

“It's quite remarkable how little corporations and industry sponsored particular super PACs,” she said. “Until this election.”

That such a strategy was not only untested but also risky wasn’t lost on the leaders of the three major corporations who debated supporting a crypto super PAC in the fall of 2023: America’s leading crypto exchange Coinbase, crypto payments company Ripple, and the Silicon Valley venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz.

What if the crypto industry took shots at major political players and missed? What if getting overtly political turned out to be brand suicide?

Those concerns were mitigated by the digital asset industry’s increasingly perilous position in late 2023. The SEC was coming at all manner of crypto projects with full force. Any shot at change seemed less risky than doing nothing.

“We'd invested $150 million in defending against litigation from the SEC,” Stuart Alderoty, Ripple’s chief legal officer, told Decrypt. “So we certainly knew that not getting policy right was an expensive endeavor.”

“It was go big or go home,” he said.

So the leaders of Ripple, Coinbase, and Andreessen Horowitz decided to go big. Unprecedentedly big.

It was certainly a lot of money by anyone's measure. But given the alternative, it seemed like a rational decision to make.

—Stuart Alderoty, Ripple chief legal officer
They got in touch with the operators of Fairshake, a newly created crypto super PAC that didn’t have much in the way of funding or reputation, but already existed. After vetting Fairshake’s leadership, which was relatively inexperienced compared to that of other top super PACs, it was decided that the plan could work—so long as everyone involved agreed on several fundamental questions that would prove crucial to the road ahead.

If Ripple, Coinbase, and Andreessen Horowitz gifted Fairshake a massive war chest, would they all have the stomach to go after powerful incumbent lawmakers? The answer, after some discomfort, was yes. Could they all agree on a bipartisan slate of candidates, to ensure the durability of their coalition? Yes again. What if that meant abandoning Republicans, who had been good to the industry, in the name of supporting pro-crypto Democrats?

More discomfort ensued—but ultimately, sure. Whatever it took.

Image: JRdes / Shutterstock.com
SEC Crypto Crackdown: Every Company That Is Being Investigated
Almost every week lately, it seems there’s a new announcement that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has gone after yet another crypto company for alleged securities violations. And the crackdown doesn’t appear to be cooling down anytime soon. Here’s a handy running list to keep track of all crypto-related actions that the SEC has taken of late, including confirmed Wells Notices informing companies of impending enforcement action, reported inquiries, and a recap of some of the bi...


In September 2023, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong donated $1 million to Fairshake. The next month, Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz gave $2.5 million apiece. In November, Coinbase donated $5 million. By Christmas, Andreessen and Horowitz gifted another $14 million; Coinbase, another $15.5 million. Ripple matched both firms by throwing $20 million into the pot.

“It was certainly a lot of money by anyone's measure,” Ripple’s Alderoty said. “But given the alternative, it seemed like a rational decision to make.”

By the start of 2024, Fairshake had amassed nearly $85 million, obliterating the previous record held by a corporate group for super PAC fundraising: the National Association of Realtors’ comparatively meager $18 million fundraise in 2022.

By the eve of 2024’s presidential election, Fairshake and its affiliate PACs would raise nearly $300 million. 

The “crypto voter” and the “corporate money death star”
The players involved disagree on where the story goes from here. What is known for certain is that when 2024 kicked off, the vast majority of Democratic lawmakers were generally opposed to crypto’s lobbying efforts, and while some Republicans were supportive, most were ambivalent.

By May, crypto was a firmly ascendant cause across the political spectrum.

Leaders of the crypto policy movement are emphatic that this sea change was primarily thanks to a grassroots campaign, instigated by Coinbase, to activate the so-called crypto voter and show lawmakers how many millions of Americans were willing to support—or oppose—candidates based on their crypto stances.

Fairshake’s spending history tells another story. In February, the super PAC deployed over $10 million in a successful bid to defeat Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA), a candidate for California’s open U.S. Senate seat.

They unloaded on her. That struck fear into the hearts of candidates.

—Rick Claypool, Public Citizen research director
This initial flex of Fairshake’s financial muscle was significant for several reasons. For one, it was seismic in scale: this single spend on anti-Porter ads dwarfed the candidate’s own positive ad spend by a factor of 20:1, according to Open Secrets.

Secondly, Porter wasn’t even particularly anti-crypto; she rarely if ever spoke on the subject. She was, however, something of a protégé of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a staunch crypto critic. The association with Warren, apparently, was enough to trigger the crypto industry’s nuclear spending.

“Porter was not exactly crusading against crypto, and yet they unloaded on her,” Rick Claypool, a research director at Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, told Decrypt. “That struck fear into the hearts of candidates.”

U.S. Representative Katie Porter. Photo: Shutterstock
Coinbase, Ripple-Backed Super PAC Spends Millions to Defeat Elizabeth Warren Ally
A super PAC funded by some of crypto’s most powerful companies has amassed an $85 million war chest—and now, the organization is beginning to deploy those funds against political candidates across the country.  The political action committee (PAC), Fairshake, is funded principally by crypto giants Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz, and Ripple Labs, according to a recent Federal Election Commision filing. While those companies and their leaders have pledged tens of millions of dollars each to the org...


In the spring, a handful of key crypto-related votes came before Congress: a vote in the House on FIT21, a potential crypto market regulatory framework, and a vote in both chambers on the repeal of SAB 121, an SEC rule that discouraged banks from holding crypto.

While both bills would have had a tangible impact on crypto if signed into law, their consideration in May arguably served a more important purpose: acting as a litmus test for lawmakers regarding their stances on digital assets.

Months prior, Fairshake had signaled its intention to spend heavily in the general election. Those tens of millions of dollars, crucially, had yet to be committed for or against any general election candidates when FIT21 and SAB 121 came before Congress.

During those spring votes, Fairshake’s war chest hung in the air over Capitol Hill “like a corporate money Death Star,” Public Citizen's Claypool said.

The results were dramatic: 71 House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, broke with President Joe Biden to pass FIT21. Twelve Senate Democrats, including then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, defied Biden to pass a repeal of SAB 121. (The president subsequently vetoed the resolution.)

Democrats facing battleground elections in 2024 demonstrated significant changes in tune. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), for example, was running for a hotly contested U.S. Senate seat in Michigan at the time; she held an “F” rating on Coinbase’s “Stand With Crypto” watchdog site a month prior to the FIT21 and SAB 121 votes.

She then supported both initiatives in late May. In short order, her Stand With Crypto rating was upgraded to an “A.”

In September, Fairshake opted to throw millions of dollars behind Slotkin and against her opponent, a Republican who had vocally supported crypto for years. Slotkin ultimately won Michigan’s Senate race by a margin of less than 0.34%.

Senate candidate Mike Rogers (left). Photo: Mike Rogers for Senate
Republican Senate Candidate Blasts Crypto PAC Fairshake Over Snub: ‘They Needed a Democrat’
Michigan’s Republican nominee for Senate, Mike Rogers, says he’s supported crypto for years, stretching back to the heyday of Silk Road. He’s eagerly engaged with industry watchdogs like Stand With Crypto, and even attended blockchain conferences in person.  And yet, when Fairshake, the colossal pro-crypto super PAC, weighed in on Michigan’s senate race weeks ago, it opted not to support Rogers, but rather his opponent: a Democrat, Elissa Slotkin, who as recently as April held an “F” rating on S...


Oct 2, 2024
Most crypto industry leaders involved in Fairshake’s operations see the conversion of politicians like Slotkin as proof of crypto’s salience among the American public.

“I think once that became crystallized for Democrats, it made it a much more clear choice,” Josh Vlasto, a spokesperson and strategic advisor for Fairshake, told Decrypt. “‘We can move and embrace the technology that our constituents clearly support and clearly engage with.’”

But in an election year defined by hot-button issues like inflation, immigration, reproductive rights, and Israel’s war in Gaza, it’s not clear that crypto ranked as a high priority for any meaningful group of voters. Mike Rogers, Slotkin’s Republican opponent, previously told Decrypt that despite his strong support of the industry, crypto almost never came up on the campaign trail in Michigan in 2024.

Some say crypto’s lack of grassroots strength was revealed by Fairshake itself in the super PAC’s ad buys. Fairshake and its affiliates spent over $133 million across 68 congressional races in 2024; of that record-shattering spend, almost none was used to purchase ads that mentioned crypto whatsoever.

Decrypt could not find proof of a single general election ad purchased by Fairshake that mentioned crypto or digital assets; the super PAC did not provide evidence of any such ads when asked multiple times.

Fairshake general election ads seen by Decrypt instead referenced issues including border security and crime, the cost of living, and infrastructure.

“It makes me wonder,” Public Citizen’s Rick Claypool said. “If they were so sure that all they had to do was mobilize the crypto masses, then why wasn't that the story they were telling in the actual campaigns they put in front of voters?”

Fairshake’s Josh Vlasto pushed back on that conclusion. While he conceded that the overwhelming majority of ads bought by the PAC did not discuss crypto, Vlasto asserted it is common practice for special interest groups to run ads unrelated to their stated mission.

“It's proof of effectiveness,” he said. “If you're going to invest significant resources and support candidates that you believe in, do it in a way that helps them win the race.”

Crypto’s dream scenario
In the build-up to November, things were looking good for Fairshake—or as good as they reasonably could be in an election that was poised to come down to the thinnest of margins up and down the ballot.

For one, virtually all battleground congressional candidates appeared on board with the industry’s agenda. For another, Fairshake had endorsed a firmly bipartisan slate of Democratic and Republican candidates in the general election, and while that move certainly ruffled feathers and prompted defections, it did not cause any major rifts among the super PAC’s inner circle of megadonors.

And despite the fact that Fairshake had (likely wisely) opted to stay out of the extremely polarized presidential race, both Donald Trump, and, to a lesser extent, Kamala Harris, voiced support for crypto-related initiatives prior to Election Day.

And yet, nothing could have prepared anyone—including Fairshake’s own operators—for the super PAC’s astounding conquest on November 5.

Not only did Fairshake get its most prized “scalp” by defeating the crypto-skeptical chair of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), with a pulverizing $40 million ad blitz—the PAC also saw almost every single one of its general election candidates win across the board.


Crypto Lobby Secures Major Victory as Sherrod Brown Loses Senate Seat in Ohio
U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, a longtime crypto skeptic and chair of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, has lost his re-election bid in Ohio to Republican Bernie Moreno, handing a significant win to the crypto lobby after a record-breaking investment campaign.  Brown’s loss comes after Fairshake, a pro-crypto super PAC, poured an astonishing $40 million into unseating the influential Democratic incumbent, marking the largest share of its national budget. The former Democratic incumbent has sec...


Whether Democrat or Republican, rural representative or big-city senator, the clearest data-driven throughline to election night was that if you were backed by Fairshake, you probably got elected.

Add to that remarkable outcome the fact that Donald Trump won re-election after going all in on crypto—and the pledges made by incoming Republican majorities in the House and Senate to immediately pass digital assets legislation—and you get a dream scenario for the industry that would have sounded delusional even a year ago.

Gone in an instant were any theoretical regrets among Fairshake’s megadonors about political blowback or spending too lavishly on elections.

Viewed as investments, the hefty spends of Fairshake’s key donors have already reaped incredible rewards. Ripple, for example, spent $63 million on the 2024 election, according to Open Secrets. The company’s escrowed stash of XRP, a cryptocurrency its founders helped develop, has increased in value by more than $100 billion since election day.

By all accounts, the prospects for crypto’s regulatory fate in the United States appear rosier than ever. A broader view of the potential impact of Fairshake’s tactics beyond crypto, however, looks more grim.

Public Citizen’s Rick Claypool says he expects to see other corporate sectors attempt to replicate Fairshake’s strategy after the super PAC demonstrated such a substantial return on investment for donors. Those moves, he said, could easily dwarf crypto’s in size and impact—and pose a major problem for democracy.

“All things considered, crypto is not huge,” he said. “If you have other sectors or multiple sectors playing the same types of election games, pooling money to win a favorable Congress, it makes it that much harder for issues that people care about, but don’t align with a particular industry's profit motive, to get through.”

Fairshake’s Josh Vlasto took issue with the notion that money was purely to thank for the super PAC’s successes. He maintained that his team’s thoughtful and focused strategy was just as crucial to their victories.

“It's not just money,” Vlasto said. “It's not.”

Princeton’s Hye Young You, meanwhile, felt conflicted about the potential implications of crypto’s historic triumph in 2024.

“On one hand, the sheer amount of money and the way it might bias policy outcomes is worrisome,” she said.

On the other hand, You monitors a lot of PACs in her job, and couldn’t help but feel particularly invested in Fairshake. After all, she owns some Bitcoin

This source is unknown to me:

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/08/04/breaking-history-part-1/

North Dakota federal Judge Daniel M. Traynor ruled the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) exceeded its authority when it issued a rule extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage to illegal immigrants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, in a lawsuit brought by 19 states including North Dakota. According to Traynor, HHS attempted to redefine “lawfully present” to extend the ACA, which would “create a powerful incentive” for illegal immigrants to remain in states that filed the lawsuit.

https://revolver.news/2024/12/dei-fbi-agent-convicted-of-robbing-people-blind-during-j6-home-raid/

https://modernity.news/2024/12/04/podcaster-in-uk-faces-prison-for-saying-young-white-girls-are-being-raped-by-these-grooming-gangs/

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/12/06/in-germany-a-man-who-was-stabbed-by-a-jihadi-has-been-fined-for-criticizing-islam-n4934902

second

(2) TRUMP NOMINATES HARMEET DHILLON FOR CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION: President-elect Donald Trump nominated former chair of the California Republican Party Harmeet Dhillon as assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Department of Justice (DOJ), signaling his intent to use the Civil Rights Division to challenge diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
Harmeet Dhillon founded Dhillon Law Group and the 501c(3) nonprofit Center For American Liberty, which are behind a number of high-profile lawsuits against DEI policies in business and academia, and Dhillon has repeatedly called for an end to DEI policies in press releases and on social media.
President-elect Trump has pledged to direct the Department of Justice to pursue civil rights investigations into universities, citing earlier efforts to sue Yale University for discriminating against Asian and white applicants and a 2020 executive order banning federal contractors from DEI training.
Why It Matters: While the Department of Justice does not have direct enforcement authority, the Civil Rights Division still plays a significant role in shaping how civil rights laws are interpreted. Historically, the Civil Rights Division has generally avoided weighing in on cases that allege discrimination against Asian and white applicants and employees, but Dhillon is likely to depart from her predecessors and make DEI the focal point of her tenure. Additionally, while certain DEI policies may withstand legal challenges, it is likely that universities and businesses will still scale these programs back, regardless, to avoid DOJ scrutiny. – M.N.

============

https://ace.mu.nu/archives/412735.php