#mario: has a crisis of loyalty

[duckapus]

Worst part is when he hears Barry's motivations Mario Gets It. Because even though he does have friends and actually had a decent pair of SMGs(even if it took a while for SMG3 to get there) nearly all of them are from After. The only people he's still on good terms with from Before are Luigi and Bowser and maybe E. Gadd, and a lot of that's because of everyone getting Memed, especially the ones who've grown to outright hate him like Peach, Toad and Yoshi.

Plus even with his current friends he probably sometimes worried that they'll run out of patience and realize he's not worth putting up with, worries that are quite frankly justified because they already leave him out of stuff and go way overboard when retaliating against whatever problem he's caused and say right in front of his face that he's just a lazy moron that causes problems and will never change, despite the fact that he has grown and changed over the years, and a lot of the time he does the things he does because he legitimately can't help it.

[hethrewmyheartinthecut]

Peaky Match #156: Tatiana Petrovna, Michael Gray, Grace Burgess

This is a result from the Who’s Your Peaky Match? quiz. The content is under a read more to prevent spoilers for those who haven’t taken the quiz yet.

Ride Or Die

You are there one hundred percent there for your partner, no matter who or what gets in your way. Outsiders should never mistake your loyalty for blindness -- you DO speak your mind when you have disagreements -- but you’ll never allow public disagreements to put a dent in your reputation. You accept that your partner may have flaws, regrets, mistakes, and heartache, and you’re there for them when they need you, and they are very lucky to have you. Whether it’s crime, politics, or family business, you’re in all the way. Things may get a little wild, but you love it!

Fuck Em All

Honestly, you’re out here fighting for yourself. You see so many people claiming to care about each other for religious, political, moral, ethnic, or other reasons, but ultimately, when a crisis occurs and true priorities are exposed, most people don’t really give a damn. At least you’re honest. You’re in it for yourself, maybe a few of your very closest friends, and your partner. You embrace your own ambitions and never let anything stop you from reaching your goals. You are someone that is absolutely to be feared, and everyone knows it! Wherever you go, the No Bullshit Zone follows.

Examples: Tatiana Petrovna, Alfie Solomons

Streets & Fists

Your greatest strengths are your bravery, your instincts, and your tactical mind. In school, you were probably voted Most Likely To Survive A Zombie Apocalypse. You conduct a lot of business out in the city or in the countryside. You enjoy roaming around and getting a feel for the lay of the land. You’re also definitely good for a fight, whether that’s a full-on, bullets-blazing firefight, or a huge gathering of workers to strike. When a crisis hits, it’s your quick thinking that can get you out of pretty much any mess. People know better than to fuck with you.

Tatiana Petrovna

(before s3)

The year is 1917, and you’re a Russian train station security guard bored out of your mind. You strike up a fascinating conversation with the only woman waiting for the train, but it’s cut short when a couple men run in, searching. Trying to hide, she kisses you; failing that, she shoots them and then continues the conversation as if nothing had happened. When the gunshots draw a third, you shoot that one yourself, annoyed at the interruption. She offers to take you with her on the train. You’re young, you’re dumb, and you’ve got nothing to lose. You accept.

Unexpected Bonus: “Prank” isn’t the right word for it. Tatiana is a mistress of her art, and regardless of subject, location, or consequences, she’ll visit holy hell on her target in a way that makes you equal parts awed and terrified. When, in the 60s, author Mario Puzo will begin doing research for his gangster epic The Godfather, he’ll be quite taken by a New York rumor that a gangster king once had a horse head planted in a man’s bed to threaten him, and Mario will put that in his book. Thing is, it wasn’t a gangster, it was Tatiana. It wasn’t a threat, it was a prank. And it wasn’t a horse’s head.

Michael Gray

(s3 AU; Michael left in s2 when Polly offered him the money)

When your best friend Michael hears from his mum that Father Hughes has gotten mixed up in Shelby business, he goes back to the city of his birth to right old wrongs, and you follow. The family doesn’t trust you or Michael, and he doesn’t tell them why he’s come back, but that doesn’t matter. You’re going to get that fucking revenge with or without their help. Amidst all the blood and deception, a close shave teaches Michael how much you mean to him, and you’re left to grapple with the possibility that maybe there’s more between you than friendship.

Unexpected Bonus: When it’s all over, Michael returns to the home of his adopted family. Unable to face his mother after just having killed a man, he waits until they’ve gone off to church for Sunday morning, then does a few chores around the farm. You’re not much help, but you can at least split wood and watch him move about the yard. You can imagine what he looked like when he was younger, and maybe a little happier. He leaves the money in the mailbox and both of you slip away before his family returns, retreating to a hidden stream a few miles south, taking off your shoes to dip your feet in the clear water. You can feel something in him unwinding. You can hold his hand. You’re his family now.

Grace Burgess

(after s2 AU)

You’re delighted to find a fellow-countrywoman in the frothy and seemingly soulless mess that is New York’s elite social scene. It’s inconvenient that she’s an ex-cop, seeing as you’re a con artist of the highest order (your crest, family title—it’s all fake), but she’s frankly so bored that you suspect she lets you keep up the game just to see what happens. You’re supposed to have disappeared a week ago with all of Mrs. Doherty’s money, but you can’t face starting over again in another city with another set of vapid strangers. So continues the game of cat and mouse.

Unexpected Bonus: You don’t trust her any further than you can throw her, and vice versa; there’s something almost comforting about that, finding a kindred spirit. You delight in trying to push her buttons, in failing to see past her façade, with a craftsman’s appreciation of it all. It’s by pure chance that you find the one chink in her armor, a second-rate speakeasy dangerously close to the Italian border of Bowery. When you see her there, at first you can’t believe your luck: with her blonde hair tucked under a hat and her usual glamorous dress replaced by gray trousers, striped suspenders, and white shirt, she looks striking in entirely a new way. But then she begins to sing, and there’s more than talent there. She sings like she knows sorrow. That’s outside the bounds of the game, and as her eyes meet yours through the crowd, you know that this is all going to end, one way or another.

To read more imagines like this, feel free to peruse the masterlist.

If you enjoyed this quiz/these imagines, I’d love it if you could send an ask, leave a comment, or reblog. I’m curious to see if you thought your matches suited you!

I’m also especially curious about what you did and didn’t like about this quiz. I’m very open to feedback. I plan on writing another quiz once season 5 is done which will match you with a season 5 character, so I’m looking to improve here.

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/world/venezuela-crisis-colombia-border-points-closed-amid-aid-stand-off/

Venezuela crisis: Colombia border points closed amid aid stand-off

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionBattle of the concerts

Venezuela has said that its border with Colombia has been partially closed, shortly after opposition leader Juan Guaidó defied a travel ban to cross it.

Vice President Delcy Rodriguez tweeted to say the “total, temporary closure” was due to serious threats against the country’s sovereignty and security.

Tensions have been rising over a row about the delivery of humanitarian aid.

Two people were killed by Venezuelan security forces on Saturday near the border with Brazil.

The violence has been condemned by the White House, which reiterated in a statement that “the world is watching”.

Should Branson ‘back off’ from Venezuela?

Foreign aid: Genuine help or Trojan horse?

Mr Guaidó, the leader of the country’s opposition-dominated National Assembly, declared himself the country’s interim leader last month.

He has since won the backing of dozens of nations, including the United States.

He argues Mr Nicolas Maduro’s rule is constitutionally illegitimate because his re-election in 2018 was flawed, and has vowed to oversee fresh elections.

What happened on Friday?

Hundreds of tonnes of humanitarian aid have become a flashpoint between Mr Guaidó and President Maduro.

President Maduro has so far refused to allow the stockpiles, including food and medicine, to cross over into Venezuela.

Mr Guaidó, who asked for its collection, has vowed that hundreds of thousands of volunteers will help bring it in on Saturday.

Image copyright Reuters

Image caption Mr Guaidó (centre) alongside Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera (left) and Paraguay’s President Mario Abdo Benitez (right) at a Cucuta aid warehouse

On Friday rival concerts were held over the issue just 300m (980ft) away from each other on either side of the Venezuelan-Colombia border.

Mr Guaidó unexpectedly turned up at Venezuela Aid Live in Cucuta, organised by British businessman Richard Branson, on Friday.

He was greeted there by the presidents of Colombia, Chile and Paraguay – three of the nations who have recognised the 35-year-old lawmaker as interim president.

He alleged that he was able to cross over on Friday with the help of the Venezuelan armed forces. The claim is significant as President Nicolás Maduro has been able to retain power largely because of his military support.

Hours after his appearance, the announcement about the closure of bridges in Tachira state was made.

It follows a similar announcement made on Thursday about the closure of the border with Brazil – where another aid collection is being raised.

Violent clashes broke out there on Friday morning after members of an indigenous community reportedly confronted Venezuelan troops in the southern village of Kumarakapay.

Witnesses said that troops opened fire on individuals who tried to block a road to stop preventing military vehicles from passing.

Human rights campaigners said soldiers shot and killed two people and wounded 15 others.

Image copyright Reuters

Image caption An ambulance photographed responding to violent clashes near the border with Brazil

A spokeswoman for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he had a meeting with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza on Friday in New York, in which he urged authorities to refrain from using lethal force against demonstrators.

Why is the aid delivery contentious?

Economic conditions have deteriorated rapidly since President Maduro took power in 2013.

The UN says about three million people have fled the country over the last few years.

Hyperinflation has caused the cost of essentials to soar, leaving many unable to afford basics like food and medicine.

Mr Guaidó has said the aid deliveries are necessary to stop Venezuelans dying. He has vowed to get his supporters to mobilise en-masse to get it in on Saturday.

‘Deeply uncertain’ day ahead

Analysis by Katy Watson, BBC News South America correspondent

This is the day Venezuela’s opposition has been waiting for. A day that will test the loyalty of the country’s armed forces towards Nicolas Maduro and determine his future.

Lorries laden with aid are expected to set off from both Colombia and Brazil and attempt to cross the border. A ship carrying aid is also travelling from Puerto Rico.

Throughout Venezuela, people will gather at military barracks to ask soldiers for their help in the aid effort.

Until now, senior officers have remained loyal to Mr Maduro – but with pressure being heaped on them to help the Venezuelan people, will they listen to their leader or change sides, support Juan Guaido and open the borders? These next few days are deeply uncertain.

President Maduro denies there is any crisis and has branded the aid plans a US-orchestrated show.

Performers at his rival concert on Friday performed in front of a backdrop that said #TrumpHandsoffVenezuela, the AFP news agency reports.

Please upgrade your browser to view this content.

hide

How the story unfolded

What happened next? Show all

Was this timeline useful?

Yes No Thank you for your feedback.

Share this chatbot.

The US President has led the effort to recognise Mr Guaidó as president, and has implemented economic sanctions to put pressure on President Maduro’s government.

At a speech earlier this week, he urged the Venezuelan military to switch sides and abandon their support of the president.

He has repeatedly reiterated that “all options are open” in regards to the US response to the unfolding crisis.

[theconservativebrief]

The political world went into a frenzy Monday morning as various reports suggested Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — special counsel Robert Mueller’s boss — was out. Some reports claimed he had resigned, and some that he was about to be fired.

But as of early Monday afternoon, Rosenstein was still in his job. And apparently, he’ll be there for at least a few more days — the White House has said he’ll meet with President Trump on Thursday.

Trump has complained about Justice Department investigations into his associates for over a year now, and has repeatedly discussed firing various top Justice Department officials, including Rosenstein, so he could replace them with loyalists.

The precipitating incident for Monday’s drama, though, was a New York Times report that, after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey last year, Rosenstein discussed the possibility of secretly recording the president of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. (Rosenstein has disputed the report.)

As deputy attorney general, Rosenstein was responsible for the day-to-day running of the Justice Department. But the main reason his departure would have such import is that he appointed Mueller and continues to oversee the Russia investigation (thanks to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s recusal on the topic). Many have feared that Trump would try to install a crony to replace Rosenstein who would rein the probe in or even shut it down completely.

All this comes at a crucial moment for the probe — just a week and a half after Paul Manafort agreed to cooperate with the special counsel’s team, but during a preelection period when Mueller isn’t expected to make other big new moves. And, as is common these days, much of this drama has unfolded in competing and contrasting leaks to the press.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Rosenstein joined the Justice Department all the way back in 1990 and has been there ever since, serving as a public corruptions prosecutor and then taking on management jobs under presidents of both parties. In 2005, President George W. Bush appointed him to be US attorney for the state of Maryland, and he held that position throughout the Obama presidency as well.

After Trump won the presidency, he picked Jeff Sessions to be his attorney general. As a US senator, Sessions was an outsider to the DOJ. So he wanted someone who knew the department well in the deputy post (which is traditionally responsible for running things day to day). So he chose Rosenstein, who was respected by legal professionals in both parties.

The pick got little attention at the time — but proved to be supremely important. In March 2017, Sessions announced he would recuse himself from the Russia investigation — meaning that, as soon as Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate, he’d be the top Justice Department official in charge of it.

Then, once Rosenstein was finally sworn in in late April, Trump waited only two weeks before inviting him and Sessions to the White House to discuss firing James Comey. On May 8, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memo harshly criticizing Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton email investigation, and gave it to the White House. The very next day, Trump fired Comey and released Rosenstein’s memo as his justification.

Rosenstein announces the indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers in connection with election-related email hacking in July 2018. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Comey’s firing was a shocking breach of political and institutional norms (the FBI director traditionally stays on for a 10-year term), and it threw the US political system into crisis. The ensuing chaotic days were filled with leaks claiming that Trump had privately pressured Comey for “loyalty,” that he’d and urged Comey to drop an investigation into Michael Flynn, and that he’d disclosed classified information to Russian officials in the Oval Office. With such allegations of Trump apparently trying to corrupt the rule of law, even some Republicans began to talk about impeachment.

It was Rosenstein who made the key choice that abated this crisis — appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the Russia probe on May 17, 2017. The appointment of a special counsel restored confidence that the rule of law would be preserved and that, if there was anything to the Russia scandal, he’d get to the bottom of it. Mueller in particular had sterling credentials as former FBI director appointed by George W. Bush, which likely made him feel empowered to investigate quite vigorously.

Since then, there’s been an endless amount of ink spilled about the “Mueller investigation.” Yet all along, Mueller has had a boss: Rod Rosenstein. And Rosenstein’s backing of Mueller has clearly been crucial in shaping the probe so far.

Mueller’s team has said in court that they inform Rosenstein of all their major decisions in advance, and that he would have the authority to overrule them.

Rosenstein approved Mueller’s assembly of an all-star team that at its height totaled 17 prosecutors.

In August 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memo to Mueller listing many people and topics he was authorized to investigate (the publicly released version is heavily redacted).

Rosenstein held press conferences announcing Mueller’s two major indictments of Russians for election interference — the social media propaganda indictment in February, and the email hacking indictment in July.

He was also reportedly involved in Mueller’s decision to refer an investigation into Michael Cohen to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, resulting in Cohen’s guilty plea to tax, bank fraud, and campaign finance charges in August.

Finally, Rosenstein has also helped preemptively protect Mueller from firing. He did so by testifying that the regulation under which he appointed Mueller gives only him — not the president — the authority to fire Mueller. He has also said that he believes the regulation only permits Mueller’s firing for “good cause.” With that testimony, it’s clear that a Trump order to fire Mueller would be legally dubious.

So, naturally, the president began to muse about firing Rosenstein instead.

Sessions and Rosenstein, in June 2017 Chip Somodevilla/Getty

The president has raged about the Russia probe and his Justice Department for well over a year now, both privately and publicly, with Sessions and Rosenstein frequent targets of his ire. (He’s reportedly dubbed them “Mr. Magoo” and “Mr. Peepers.”)

He’s repeatedly complained that the Russia investigation is a “witch hunt,” that “flipping” witnesses (like Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, and Paul Manafort) almost ought to be illegal, and that the Justice Department isn’t doing enough to investigate Democrats like Hillary Clinton and isn’t loyal enough to him personally.

Trump’s staunchest allies in Congress and in conservative media have joined him in this effort, too, training criticism on Sessions and Rosenstein. Hardline House conservatives even threatened to force a vote on Rosenstein’s impeachment this summer, based on the thinnest of pretexts (though they eventually backed down).

The obvious fear many have is that if Trump ousts Sessions or Rosenstein, he could at least temporarily install a crony who would take over the Russia probe — one who could manage to rein it in or even shut it down entirely, to protect the president.

A permanent replacement for either Sessions or Rosenstein would have to be confirmed by the Senate. And traditionally, the temporary replacement would be whoever’s next in line in the Justice Department’s line of succession. (Solicitor General Noel Francisco is next after Rosenstein.) However, it’s possible that Trump could try and use a law called the Vacancies Act to slot in someone from elsewhere in the government (any appointee already confirmed by the Senate would do).

Mario Tama/Getty

For a time, it appeared that Rosenstein had weathered the storm. A Wall Street Journal report from early August even claimed that his and Trump’s relationship was improving.

Later that month, however, Paul Manafort was convicted of financial crimes charged by Mueller, and Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to tax, bank, and campaign finance violations referred by Mueller to SDNY. Then, a week and a half ago, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller and agreed to cooperate. Cohen, too, has reportedly talked with Mueller’s team for hours in recent weeks.

But what seems to have put Rosenstein’s future in the most immediate jeopardy was a report the New York Times’s Adam Goldman and Michael Schmidt published on Friday.

The report describes purported conduct by Rosenstein in mid-May 2017, during the chaotic days between Comey’s firing and Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller. The Times claimed that, in meetings with top FBI and Justice Department officials, Rosenstein made two eyebrow-raising suggestions: first, that they try to secretly record the president, and second, using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. (Neither was carried out.)

The Times report was based primarily on anonymous source accounts and descriptions of contemporaneous memos written by then-acting FBI director Andrew McCabe. But Rosenstein publicly disputed the report. And in the hours after its publication, various outlets were told by an anonymous source in the room for the “recording” comments that Rosenstein was clearly being sarcastic.

Trump critics fearful of Rosenstein’s ouster soon latched onto the “he was being sarcastic” excuse. But the Times’s Michael Schmidt professed to be quite confident that wasn’t the case. He said in an interview with Slate’s Isaac Chotiner:

If this was a joke, we don’t think it would have been so difficult for us to have worked to get to this information. If this was a joke, this would not have been memorialized, documented, and discussed in the FBI in the way that it was. If this was a joke, Rod Rosenstein probably wouldn’t have made it more than once. Also, if this was a joke, the other thing is, this 25th Amendment stuff is in a memo as well. So this is like—is this a broader conspiracy of jokes that was going on?

Indeed, other accounts, such as from the Washington Post, seem to confirm that McCabe thought Rosenstein was serious and has been telling people such. (McCabe, another frequent target of Trump’s ire, was fired from the FBI this March and may be prosecuted for lying to investigators about leaks he had authorized.)

It is, however, important to keep in mind what was going on before Rosenstein allegedly made the “recording” comments on May 16, 2017. For one, it had just been reported that Trump had disclosed classified intelligence to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in the Oval Office. For another, Comey’s accounts of Trump’s private pressure on him had just leaked out. It was a wild time.

At the time, Trump was interviewing candidates to replace Comey as FBI director, and it was widely feared that he’d appoint a corrupt crony who’d made him private promises. The Washington Post reports that Rosenstein’s suggestion was that FBI director candidates record their private interviews with Trump.

Trump’s staunchest supporters were split on what he should do in the wake of the Times report. On Friday, Fox’s Laura Ingraham tweeted that “Rod Rosenstein must be fired today,” but Fox’s Sean Hannity notably urged the president not to fire anyone. (Ingraham later deleted her tweet.)

One interesting line of argument from some Trump supporters was that the allegations about Rosenstein were based primarily on memos written by Andrew McCabe — who the president has tried to attack and discredit for months now, and who may soon be prosecuted. Firing Rosenstein based on McCabe’s memos, some thought, would grant him credibility.

Then, on Monday morning, Axios’s Jonathan Swan dropped a bomb, publishing a short post claiming that Rosenstein had “verbally resigned” to White House chief of staff John Kelly, in anticipation of being fired by President Trump.

In the next few hours, there was a frenzy of leaks claiming several different things. Some claimed Rosenstein was not going to resign and was instead going to make Trump fire him. Others claimed he was merely “expecting to be fired.” Others said he had offered his resignation but stressed that it had not been accepted. (Vanity Fair’s Gabe Sherman even suggested the spectacle may have been entirely intended to distract from sexual assault accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.) But no one really seemed to know what was happening as Rosenstein headed over to the White House.

There, Rosenstein met Kelly, and spoke with Trump (who is in New York) over the phone “to discuss the recent news stories,” according to a statement by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. “They will meet on Thursday when the President returns to Washington,” Sanders continued.

So, after all that, Rosenstein is still the deputy attorney general, after all — at least, it seems, until Thursday.

Original Source -> Is Rod Rosenstein fired, resigning, or staying? The drama, explained.

via The Conservative Brief

[takebackthedream]

Did Trump Revive Failed Cold War Cuba Policy to Buy Rubio’s Loyalty? by Miles Mogulescu

Donald Trump has made clear that there’s little room in his “America First” foreign policy for pressure on authoritarian foreign governments – whether Russia, Saudi Arabia, or China – to improve their human rights record. When it comes to human rights, as Trump told Arab leaders last month in Riyadh, his message seems to be “We’re not here to tell you what to do.”

The one exception to this see-no-evil policy is Cuba, where Trump has moved to reimpose failed Cold-War sanctions, ostensibly to pressure the island nation to improve human rights.

How can we understand this seeming contradiction? The answer may be close at hand – indeed, standing right next to the president.

The president had reportedly been advised by the Departments of Commerce, Defense, State, Treasury, Agriculture and Homeland Security not to reinstate sanctions on Cuba which had been rolled back by President Obama.

The generally Republican-leaning Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, too, have supported keeping Obama’s steps towards normalization in place, as do Human Rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. All of these believe that America’s 57-year effort to isolate Cuba has been a failure and is bad for Americans and Cubans.

As former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote, Trump’s new hard-line Cuba policies, “will hurt ordinary Cubans, harm the image of the United States, and make it harder for Americans to do business and travel somewhere they want to go.”

But as reported by The Miami Herald, Politico, and Mother Jones,  one man in particular – Florida Senator Marco Rubio – intensively lobbied Trump with fellow Miami Cuban Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart to reimpose the sanctions.

Rubio’s Bid

Rubio was standing next to Trump in Miami as he announced the Cuba shift, and he quickly took to Twitter to claim credit for the new policy:

What does Trump get out of this deal? Rubio defended Trump from questions raised by former FBI Director James Comey in the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings. As Miami Herald journalist Fabiola Santiago wrote,

Rubio seemed more interested in getting Comey to publicly admit that President Trump ‘was not personally under investigation’ than in obtaining any new evidence for the Senate investigation. It was as if Rubio…was acting as Trump’s defense attorney instead of as a member of a bipartisan committee investigating crucial national security issues.

It’s fair to ask if this is a quid pro quo. Rubio is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is actively investigating possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and now possible obstruction of justice. He has used his position to defend Trump in both public hearings and in statements to the press. Indeed, it’s fair to ask if such a deal between Trump and Rubio could in itself constitute an obstruction of justice.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller should require Rubio, Rubio staff members, and others with knowledge of the dealings between the two on Cuba policy to answer whether Trump directly or indirectly asked for Rubio’s loyalty in the Russia investigation, and whether Rubio directly or indirectly promised any loyalty in exchange for Trump accepting Rubio’s Cuba policy.

Russia’s Play

In a further irony, Trump’s policy of isolating Cuba from the United States helps Russia, adding another coat to the Cold War-patina of the deal.

The loss of revenues from American tourists and business will likely lead Cuba to turn back to Russia as an economic, and even military, patron. Russian has recently forgiven billions of dollars of debt owed by Cuba and has once again become a major supplier of oil to the island, replacing Venezuela which is in the midst of its own political and  economic crisis.

According to Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, there is even talk of Russia reopening military bases in Cuba, which could put Russian signal intelligence 90 miles from U.S. shores. As Leahy wrote in The Hill last week,

One obvious way to mitigate Russian influence in our hemisphere is through enhanced engagement with Cuba… As two retired US military generals wrote in an op-ed in Politico last month, cooperation with Cuba has been a game changer for regional security. Since the thaw in US-Cuba relations, our two governments have signed nine formal bilateral agreements on issues related to matters of national security, including human trafficking, counter-narcotics, and cybersecurity. Why cast aside this opportunity to coordinate on cross border and maritime law enforcement…and instead cede the playing field to Putin?”

On The Links

Finally, Trump’s Cuba policies may gain him personal economic advantage over The Trump Organization’s competitors in the hotel industry. Starwood Hotels, which was recently acquired by Marriott, has negotiated deals to manage several hotels in Cuba, some of which are partly owned by Gaviota, a tourism company owned by the Cuban military, which, in socialist Cuba, is widely involved in the Cuban economy. Other major American hotel chains hope to use the Starwood deal as a template for their own expansion into Cuba.

These efforts by the American hotel industry to invest in Cuba will likely be slowed or halted by Trump’s new Cuba sanctions. But Trump himself told CNN last year that he would like to open a hotel in Cuba “at the right time,” And The Trump Organization has been exploring investing in Cuba hotels since as early as 1998, sometimes in violation of U.S. law.

According to Newsweek,

A company controlled by Donald Trump… secretly conducted business in Communist Cuba during Fidel Castro’s presidency despite strict American trade bans that made such undertakings illegal, according to interviews with former Trump executives, internal company records and court filings. Documents show that the Trump company spend a minimum of $68,000 for its 1998 foray into Cuba at a time when corporate expenditure of even a penny in the Caribbean country was prohibited without U.S. government approval.

In 2012 and 2013, Trump Organization officials again travelled to Cuba to explore opportunities to open golf courses, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.  These included Trump Organization executive V.P. Larry Glick, environmental consultant for golf Edward Russo, chief legal officer Jason Greenblatt, and Trump golf executive Rob Lieberman.

Trump Organization executives playing golf in Cuba. Photo credit: Facebook

Russo referred questions about the trips to Eric Trump, who responded, “[M]any major competitors have sought opportunities in Cuba… [I]t is important for us to understand the dynamics of the markets that our competitors are exploring.”

Summing It All Up

So – Trump’s new Cuba sanctions earn him an important political ally in Rubio, harm his business competitors and potentially give the Trump Organization time to catch up before his competitors get too far ahead in establishing American-managed hotels on the island. And the new policies help Russia.

There’s plenty here for Special Counsel Mueller and Congressional Committees to look in to. Things could start to get even more interesting than they are already.