

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Dan Beeton, 202-239-1460
A new research paper finds that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been pushing for reduced spending, shrinking government, and cutting social protections for broad sectors of the population in Europe Union member countries, often regardless of a country's specific economic circumstances. The paper, "Macroeconomic Policy Advice and the Article IV Consultations: An EU Case Study," from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), also finds that the IMF has repeatedly emphasized cutting spending, including on public pensions and health care, and raising the retirement age -- despite the pro-cyclical nature of some of these policies and despite the already severe impact of the economic recession confronting Europe.
"From these documents, the IMF appears to be pursuing a political and ideological agenda in Europe, with a very strong prejudice toward spending cuts and smaller government," CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot said. "These are policies that have helped cause the eurozone's second recession in three years, and record levels of unemployment."
The paper examines recent IMF policy recommendations in 27 European countries to see whether these recommendations may have contributed to the ongoing crisis in Europe, and also how they might affect other European Union goals such as those of Europe 2020, which seeks to reduce social exclusion, promote public investment in research and development, and promote employment and education.
The paper focuses on Article IV consultations, which provide recommendations on a broad range of issues including fiscal, monetary, and financial policy; health care and pensions; labor market policy (including wages, unemployment compensation, and employment protections); and numerous other policy issues. Fiscal adjustments, employment generation and social protection are particular areas of scrutiny.
The paper notes that "it is not clear how all of these policy issues fit under the mandate of the member country's 'compliance with its [international] policy obligations,'" nor "how these consultations and recommendations have helped to 'promote stability' in Europe, especially in light of the macroeconomic outcomes of the past three years."
Last week the IMF released updated economic growth projections for the world, noting that "that the euro area continues to pose a large downside risk to the global outlook." The IMF downgraded its 2013 forecast for the euro area, now expecting it "to contract slightly." But instead of recognizing the danger of austerity and pro-cyclical policies in Europe, the IMF recommends staying the course, saying that "the risk of prolonged stagnation in the euro area would rise if the momentum for reform is not maintained."
The paper notes that the IMF has repeatedly been overly optimistic in its economic growth projections for crisis-hit EU countries such as Greece and Spain, whose downturns have been worsened as spending cuts and other austerity measures have been implemented.
"The IMF is of course the junior partner in the troika, with the European Commission and European Central Bank calling the shots," CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot noted. "But they are still an important influence, and these consultations show that their influence, together with their partners, has been unnecessarily harmful for the people of Europe, who are struggling with unemployment and recession."
"As weak as the U.S. economy is, we are very fortunate that our government has not implemented the kinds of policies that we have seen in Europe since 2008."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380"I have never seen a more scathing opinion, with this many errors, in any criminal case I have ever covered," said one legal reporter.
The attorney handpicked to prosecute President Donald Trump's enemies may have "tainted the grand jury proceedings" against former FBI Director James Comey by making multiple false statements, said a federal judge Monday.
In a 24-page ruling, Federal Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick said that the Department of Justice (DOJ) engaged in a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” when moving to secure the indictment of the former FBI director in September, following a direct order from Trump to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
As a result, Fitzpatrick granted what he called an "extraordinary remedy," requiring all grand jury materials in the case, including audio recordings of the grand jury proceedings, to be made available to the defense. Typically, information from a grand jury indictment is kept secret until it is revealed at trial. But Fitzpatrick said the "unique circumstances" made it necessary to release it "to fully protect the rights of the accused."
The most glaring of these missteps were made by Lindsey Halligan, the interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Despite being a former insurance lawyer who'd never prosecuted a criminal case, she singlehandedly brought the indictment before the grand jury, which accused Comey of lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020 about whether he authorized someone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding the bureau's investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Despite her lack of experience, Halligan—a former contestant in one of Trump's beauty pageants—was plucked from obscurity to serve as the interim US attorney for Comey's home district after Trump pushed out her predecessor, who refused to bring charges against Comey due to lack of evidence.
Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, another of Trump's enemies who Halligan has brought charges against, last week successfully got a different judge to hear their argument that Halligan was unlawfully appointed to her position.
Fitzpatrick said his decision to open up grand jury materials in the Comey case came in part because of two "fundamental misstatements of the law" made by Halligan, that he said "could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process" and potentially rise to the level of "misconduct."
Halligan asserted that Comey did not have the Fifth Amendment right not to testify, which Fitzpatrick wrote “ignores the foundational rule of law that if Mr. Comey exercised his right not to testify, the jury could draw no negative inference from that decision."
He also said that a separate statement made by Halligan, which remains redacted, "may have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jurors that rather than the government bear the burden to prove Mr. Comey's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the burden shifts to Mr. Comey to explain away the government's evidence."
Fitzpatrick said the prosecutor also made the highly unusual argument that the grand jury did not have to rely solely on evidence presented in the government's indictment—which was a measly page-and-a-half long—to determine probable cause. Instead, Fitzpatrick said, Halligan suggested the jury "could be assured the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial."
That interpretation aligns with the criticism Fitzpatrick voiced at a hearing earlier this month, calling out the Trump DOJ's “indict first, investigate later” approach to these political prosecutions.
Fitzpatrick further suggested that Halligan and the DOJ violated the Fourth Amendment by relying on evidence sourced from FBI search warrants executed in 2019 and 2020 during a separate case against one of Comey's former attorneys, Daniel Richman, whom the indictment alleged was the source Comey authorized to speak to the media.
"Under long-standing Fourth Amendment precedent," Fitzpatrick wrote, "the government may search for and seize only those materials expressly authorized by the terms of a search warrant issued in connection with specific predicate offenses."
Fitzpatrick also wrote that an FBI agent called to testify before the grand jury may have exposed information subject to attorney-client privilege between Comey and Richman, which he called a "highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice."
"I have never seen a more scathing opinion, with this many errors, in any criminal case I have ever covered," said Sarah Lynch, who covers the DOJ for Reuters.
The order may result in the case being thrown out of court entirely before even getting to trial, and the DOJ would be unable to bring it again, with or without prejudice, as the statute of limitations has expired.
If it is found that Halligan was improperly appointed to her position, the case would also fall apart since she was the only attorney who signed the indictment, though Bondi has retroactively claimed she reviewed the document even though she never signed it. It would also potentially derail the case against James.
MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said that "given today’s ruling... it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see how the indictment does not get dismissed."
"If they are scared of people who understand their business regulating their business, they are telling on themselves," New York State Assemblymember Alex Bores said.
A super political action committee aimed at taking down elected officials who want to regulate artificial intelligence has chosen its first target for destruction.
CNBC reports that the Leading the Future PAC is going after New York state Assemblymember Alex Bores, a Democrat who is currently running to represent New York's 12th Congressional District.
The PAC, which is backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale, and other AI heavyweights, has singled out Bores' cosponsorship of the AI-regulating RAISE Act as justification to end his political ambitions.
According to CNBC, the bill cosponsored by Bores would force large AI firms "to publish safety protocols for serious misuse... of their tech, such as creating biological weapons or carrying out other criminal activity," and also "to disclose serious incidents, or else face civil penalties from the state attorney general."
Leading the Future accused Bores of pushing though "ideological and politically motivated legislation" that would purportedly "handcuff" America's AI industry.
In promoting the legislation, which passed through both chambers of the New York state Legislature months ago but has not yet been signed by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, Bores touted it as a "light-touch" regulation that would "require basic guardrails for AI safety.
Bores responded to news that he was being targeted by the pro-AI PAC with defiance, and he said it showed why his push to regulate the big AI firms was so important.
"The 'exact profile' they want to go after is someone with a Masters in Computer Science, two patents, and nearly a decade working in tech," he wrote in a post on X. "If they are scared of people who understand their business regulating their business, they are telling on themselves."
He then posted a link to his campaign's ActBlue page and noted the PAC's ties to supporters of President Donald Trump, writing, "If you don't want Trump megadonors writing all tech policy, contribute to help us push back."
Bores is part of a crowded field to succeed Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who announced his retirement in September.
Human rights defenders voiced concerns over the fairness of the in-absentia trial and death sentences for Sheikh Hasina and her former home minister.
Human rights groups and capital punishment abolitionists expressed alarm Monday after exiled former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her home minister were sentenced to death by a special tribunal for crimes against humanity for ordering last year's crackdown on student protests that left thousands of people dead and wounded.
Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard asserted in a statement that "this trial and sentence is neither fair nor just."
"Victims need justice and accountability, yet the death penalty simply compounds human rights violations," she said. "It’s the ultimate cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment and has no place in any justice process."
According to Callamard:
Justice for survivors and victims demands that fiercely independent and impartial proceedings, which meet international human rights standards are conducted. Instead, this trial has been conducted before a court that Amnesty International has long criticized for its lack of independence and history of unfair proceedings. Further, the unprecedented speed of this trial in absentia and verdict raises significant fair trial concerns for a case of this scale and complexity. Although Sheikh Hasina was represented by a court-appointed lawyer, the time to prepare a defense was manifestly inadequate. Such unfair trial indicators are compounded by reports that defense cross examination of evidence deemed to be contradictory was not allowed.
The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) sentenced Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal to death by hanging over their command responsibility for the killings, torture, and the use of lethal force against participants in what became known as the July Uprising.
Former Inspector General of Police Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun was sentenced to five years in prison after he confessed his guilt and turned government witness against Hasina and Khan, both of whom fled to India in August 2024.
Ironically, the ICT was established by Hasina's Awami League government to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the 1971 US-backed genocide committed by Pakistani forces in their unsuccessful bid to prevent what was then East Pakistan from becoming the independent nation of Bangladesh.
Last year's protests began as opposition to job quota reforms but escalated into a nationwide uprising against government corruption and human rights violations. The demonstrations forced Hasina—who had led Bangladesh for 15 years—to resign and flee the country on August 5, 2024.
According to the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR), members of Hasina's government and ruling Awami League "systematically engaged in a range of serious human rights violations" during the uprising.
"As many as 1,400 people may have been killed between July 15 and August 5, and thousands were injured, the vast majority of whom were shot by Bangladesh’s security forces," OHCHR found. "Of these, the report indicates that as many as 12-13% of those killed were children. Bangladesh Police reported that 44 of its officers were killed."
According to the ICT's 453-page judgment, Hasina told Sheikh Fazle Noor Taposh, then mayor of Dhaka South, that “police have been ordered to shoot protestors anywhere they can."
The ICT also found that Hasina incited violence with statements including asking if “Razakars’ grandchildren [will] get jobs rather than the grandchildren of the freedom fighters?”
Razakars were paramilitary fighters—mostly pro-Pakistan Bengalis and Biharis—armed and trained by Pakistan who committed some of the worst atrocities of the 1971 genocide. The "freedom fighters" to whom Hasina referred included members of the Awami League, which led the fight for Bangladeshi independence from Pakistan.
Hasina is the daughter of Awami League co-founder Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who is considered the "Father of the Nation" for leading the struggle culminating in the 1971 genocide, Indian invasion, and, ultimately, independence for Bangladesh. He was assassinated along with numerous relatives and staff in 1975.
Hasina condemned the verdict and sentence as "biased and politically motivated."
"We lost control of the situation, but to characterize what happened as a premeditated assault on citizens is simply to misread the facts," she said in a statement, adding that "I am not afraid to face my accusers in a proper tribunal where evidence can be weighed and tested fairly."
Both Hasina and ousted and imprisoned former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan have accused the United States of conducting covert operations to topple their respective governments. Former Bangladeshi ministers allege that the US Agency for International Development and the Central Intelligence Agency—both of which have long histories of subversion, torture, and regime change operations—had hands in the July Uprising. The Biden administration denied any involvement in ousting Hasina.
The condemned defendants may now appeal to the Supreme Court.
Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace laureate who leads Bangladesh's interim government ahead of parliamentary elections expected to be held next February, called the verdicts and death sentences "important, though limited, justice."
"Today, the courts of Bangladesh have spoken with a clarity that resonates across the nation and beyond," he said. "The conviction and sentencing affirm a fundamental principle: no one, regardless of power, is above the law."
UN Human Rights Spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani called the verdicts "an important moment for victims of the grave violations committed during the suppression of protests last year."
However, Shamdasani added that "we also regret the imposition of the death penalty, which we oppose in all circumstances."
Human Rights Watch deputy Asia director Meenakshi Ganguly wrote on X that "Bangladesh should ensure a credible justice system" and "abolish capital punishment."
India's Ministry of External Affairs declined to say whether it would honor Bangladesh's request to extradite Hasina and Khan.
"As a close neighbor, India remains committed to the best interests of people of Bangladesh, including in peace, democracy, inclusion, and stability in that country," the ministry ambiguously stated. "We will always engage constructively with all stakeholders to that end."
Experts say extradition is highly unlikely.
The days leading up to the verdicts saw widespread protests and unrest, including dozens of arson and crude bomb attacks resulting in the deaths of two people.