>>2766234

Iran parliament censures Rouhani in sign pragmatists losing sway

LONDON (Reuters) - Iran’s parliament voted on Tuesday to reject President Hassan Rouhani’s explanations for economic hardship after a dramatic grilling on live TV, a sign his pragmatic faction is losing sway to hardline rivals as new U.S. sanctions begin to bite.

The vote in parliament came two days after lawmakers sacked the minister of economy and finance and weeks after they sacked the labour minister, blaming them for the collapse of the rial currency and surging inflation.

Rouhani won two landslide elections on a platform of economic reform and opening Iran up to the outside world, and his pragmatic supporters have a majority in the parliament. But his reputation and political influence have taken a sharp hit as his promised economic gains have failed to materialise.

His highest profile achievement was to negotiate the lifting of financial sanctions on Iran in a 2015 deal with world powers over its nuclear programme, but U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out in May and Washington has re-imposed sanctions.

Rouhani spoke out in parliament in defence of his economic record, blaming the country’s woes on the U.S. sanctions rather than his team’s management. But a majority of lawmakers voted to reject his explanation in four out of five areas.

There were conflicting reports about what would follow from the vote: several Iranian news agencies said Rouhani’s case would now be referred to the judiciary, although the spokesman for the parliamentary leadership, Behrouz Nemati, said lawmakers must hold further discussion before that would take place.

The action in parliament is a further sign of how the Trump administration’s decision to re-impose sanctions could affect Iran’s leadership and its relationship with the outside world, potentially for decades to come.

Iran’s rulers have been divided between a pragmatic faction that aims for better international relations, and hardliners who are wary of reforms. Trump’s decision to abandon the nuclear deal was opposed by U.S. allies in Europe, who argued that he undermined Rouhani and strengthened the hands of the hardliners.

While Rouhani and his cabinet run Iran’s day-to-day affairs, ultimate authority lies with the Supreme Leader, 79-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in power since 1989. Weakening the pragmatists now could affect the choice of Khamenei’s successor.

For now, Rouhani’s own position appears safe. The judiciary could determine that he broke the law and parliament has the power to impeach him, but experts on Iranian politics say power struggles are more likely to play out indirectly.

“The parliament’s move is politically motivated and indicates that tensions would increase in the Islamic Republic in coming months,” Saeed Laylaz, an Iranian economist, told Reuters by telephone from Tehran.

more:

https://in.reuters.com/article/iran-economy-rouhani-sanctions/iran-parliament-censures-rouhani-in-sign-pragmatists-losing-sway-idINKCN1LD0DL?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FINtopNews+%28News+%2F+IN+%2F+Top+News%29

>>2766234

IRAN'S ROUHANI SAYS MANY PEOPLE HAVE LOST TRUST IN FUTURE OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC FOLLOWING THE U.S. SANCTIONS

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/28/reuters-america-irans-rouhani-says-many-people-have-lost-trust-in-future-of-the-islamic-republic-following-the-u-s-sanctions.html

U.S. judge gives partial win to prosecution ahead of Manafort's second trial

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A judge overseeing the upcoming second trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on Tuesday approved the prosecution’s request to allow evidence about a Justice Department inspection of Manafort’s lobbying activities in the 1980s but limited the scope of what it can show.

The ruling by Judge Amy Berman Jackson represents a partial win for Special Counsel Robert Mueller ahead of Manafort’s second trial, which is set to begin next month in Jackson’s federal courtroom in Washington.

Jackson said she wanted to limit the scope of what the government introduces in order to avoid a “trial within a trial” that would involve reviewing reams of evidence.

The prosecution said it would like to introduce evidence to rebut the defense argument that Manafort did not know rules on foreign lobbying. Jackson ordered both sides to agree to a stipulation showing Manafort was notified of lobbying disclosure rules in the 1980s, which would be in place of the government submitting all of its proposed evidence to the jury.

Mueller already scored a victory last week when a jury in Alexandria, Virginia, convicted Manafort on eight counts of bank and tax fraud and failing to declare his foreign bank accounts, a verdict punishable by up to 80 years in prison.

The cases against Manafort resulted from Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Manafort worked for Republican Donald Trump’s successful campaign for several months, including serving as chairman.

Manafort now faces a seven-count indictment in the Washington trial. The charges include allegations of money laundering, obstruction of justice and failing to register as a foreign agent for his lobbying on behalf of pro-Russian politicians from Ukraine.

Mueller’s prosecutors had argued to include evidence at trial that Manafort had been subject in the 1980s to Justice Department inspections related to his lobbying for foreign governments to show that he was aware of the disclosure requirements under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The government says the 1980s inspections uncovered 18 instances of lobbying and public relations activities that should have been disclosed, a revelation that prompted Manafort to resign as director of a federal agency in 1986.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/u-s-judge-gives-partial-win-to-prosecution-ahead-of-manaforts-second-trial-idUSKCN1LD1UW

I'm going bombshell!

Bombshell or nothingburger? DC in a frenzy over Bruce Ohr’s Steele dossier testimony

As Congress prepares to grill a DOJ official on the Steele dossier amid reports that the FBI leaked information to the press to justify warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, media outlets are scrambling to frame the narrative.

Is Bruce Ohr a victim of political persecution or the key to debunking Russiagate? Depends on what camp you’re in.

Ohr is set to testify Tuesday during a closed session of the House Oversight Committee, where he is expected to undergo a thorough interrogation about his relationship and dealings with ex-British spy Christopher Steele – the author of the infamous and unsubstantiated ‘dossier’ detailing President Donald Trump’s ties to Moscow.

The Justice Department official’s wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS, the research and intelligence group that was paid by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee to create the steamy but unverified Trump dossier. Ohr himself is believed to have met with Steele numerous times, beginning in late 2016 through May 2017. He has been accused of acting as a middle man between Steele and the FBI – even after the Bureau dropped Steele as a source in November 2016 over his unauthorized contacts with the media.

Congressional testimony from now-fired FBI agent Peter Strzok confirmed that the FBI had received“documents and material” from the DOJ official – despite the fact that Ohr had no formal role in the Russia investigation.

Republican lawmakers have taken a keen interest in Ohr, whose testimony could shed light on alleged DOJ and FBI leaks to the press about the dossier. A 2016 article published by Yahoo! News about the unverified allegations levelled against Trump was later cited by the FBI to justify the surveillance of a top Trump aide, Carter Page.

Ohr’s interview with Congress comes on the heels of a Daily Caller report claiming that FBI Special Agent Jonathan Moffa told congressional investigators on Friday that the FBI and Justice Department have leaked stories to the press and then used them to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC), a member of the House Oversight Committee, appears to have corroborated the Daily Caller’s exclusive, tweeting on Monday night that: “We’ve learned NEW information suggesting our suspicions are true: FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press, and then used those same press stories as a separate source to justify FISA’s.” Meadows added that the new information makes Ohr’s testimony “even more critical,” posing the question: “Did he ever do this?”

We've learned NEW information suggesting our suspicions are true: FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press, and then used those same press stories as a separate source to justify FISA's

More here:

https://www.rt.com/usa/437066-bruce-ohr-steele-trump-russia/