DELEITURAS

The Justice Department is alleging that the former Obama White House general counsel made ‘false and misleading’ statements regarding consulting work done for Ukraine.

• Greg Craig was lead partner for the law firm Skadden Arps on its Ukraine work, which was done in partnership with Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman. 
• Skadden Arps agreed Thursday to settle with the Justice Department by registering as a foreign agent of Ukraine and paying a $4.6 million fine.
• Craig’s fate remains uncertain.

The former general counsel for President Obama made “false and misleading statements” to the Justice Department regarding work he did for the Ukrainian government that has come under scrutiny in the special counsel’s probe.

Greg Craig’s alleged false statements were revealed in a settlement announced Thursday by the Justice Department. The agency announced it was settling with Craig’s former firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which worked with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on behalf of Ukraine beginning in 2012.

Skadden Arps agreed to register retroactively with the Justice Department as a foreign agent of Ukraine and to pay a $4.6 million fine, the same amount that the firm was paid for its consulting work.

Craig, who left Skadden Arps in April 2018, is not identified by name in the Justice Department announcement, but he has previously been identified as the lead Skadden Arps partner who worked on its Ukraine account. Other clues from the Justice Department settlement point to Craig as the lead partner referenced in case.

As part of the settlement, Skadden Arps acknowledged that it acted on behalf of the Ukrainian government “by contributing to a public relations campaign directed at select members of the U.S. news media in 2012.”

Craig and others at Skadden Arps helped promote a report that raised questions about Yulia Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minister who was seen as a foe to Viktor Yanukovych, who served as prime minister through 2014.

The Justice Department says that it contacted Skadden Arps in 2012 and 2013 about registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) after the law firm released a report that defended Tymoshenko’s imprisonment.

But the firm ended up not registering under FARA based on false assurances provided by Skadden Arps’ partner.

“A partner then at Skadden made false and misleading statements to the FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] Unit, which led it to conclude in 2013 that the firm was not obligated to register under FARA,” the Justice Department said.

“The facts, when uncovered, showed that Skadden was indeed required to register in 2012, and, under the Agreement, it will do so retroactively.”

The Skadden Arps media outreach centered mostly on a report about Tymoshenko that was finalized in December 2012. According to the Justice Department, the Skadden Arps lead partner, seemingly Craig, contacted a major national newspaper on Dec. 12, 2012, to provide a preview of the report as well as a quotation.

The news outlet appears to be The New York Times, which quoted Craig in an article laying out Skadden Arps’ report regarding Tymoshenko.

The Skadden Arps report determined that some of Tymoshenko’s legal rights were violated during her trial in Ukraine. But it ultimately sided against Tymoshenko and with Yanukovych’s administration.

Craig, who contacted the newspaper, is quoted in the article, saying that “We leave to others the question of whether this prosecution was politically motivated.”

“Our assignment was to look at the evidence in the record and determine whether the trial was fair.”

According to the Justice Department, the Skadden Arps partner provided misleading statements about the dissemination of the Tymoshenko report and the interactions with the media.

“In both written and oral responses to the FARA Unit between February 6, 2013, and October 11, 2013, Skadden, in reliance on the lead partner, made false and misleading statements including, among other things, that Skadden provided a copy of the Report only in response to requests from the media and spoke to the media to correct misinformation about the report that the media was already reporting,” the Justice Department said.

The agency also asserted that the Skadden Arps’ partner’s “pre-release outreach” to the journalist “was consistent with Ukraine’s media strategy for the Report.”

That strategy involved “leaking the Report prior to its official release so as to ‘effectively set the agenda for subsequent coverage,’” according to the DOJ.

It is unclear whether Craig faces any legal jeopardy in the case or whether he concurs with the Skadden Arps settlement. The government’s agreement with Skadden Arps explicitly states that the settlement does not protect “current or former partners” from criminal liability.

CNN reported on Sept. 15, 2018, that the Justice Department was weighing charges against Craig, who left the Obama White House on Jan. 3, 2010.

An attorney for Craig responded, “no comment” to an inquiry by TheDCNF.

The settlement closes one chapter of the ongoing saga over the Ukraine lobbying effort. Two other lobbying firms, the Podesta Group and Mercury Public Affairs, are also reportedly the subject of an investigation into the Ukraine work.

Manafort has pleaded guilty in the special counsel’s investigation to working as an unregistered foreign agent for Ukraine. He was convicted on Aug. 21, 2018, for money laundering and fraud related to money he made on the Ukrainian consulting gig.

President Donald Trump announced Friday that the United States will pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty beginning Saturday, Feb 2 due to unlawful conduct by Russia.

“Tomorrow, the United States will suspend its obligations under the INF Treaty and begin the process of withdrawing from the INF Treaty, which will be completed in 6 months unless Russia comes back into compliance by destroying all of its violating missiles, launchers, and associated equipment,” President Trump said in a statement. “We will move forward with developing our own military response options and will work with NATO and our other allies and partners to deny Russia any military advantage from its unlawful conduct.”

While the United States has adhered to the treaty since its signing, Russia has continued to develop and test missiles in direct violation of the terms of the agreement and has used half-truths and other misrepresentations to hide their actions.

“We will not remain constrained by its terms while Russia misrepresents its actions,” Trump said. “We cannot be the only country in the world unilaterally bound by this treaty.”

According to the statement, members of NATO support the president’s actions “because they understand the threat posed by Russia’s violation and the risks to arms control posed by ignoring treaty violations.”

The U.S. begins the process of leaving the treaty just 60-days after threatening to do so if Russia did not return to verifiable compliance with the agreement.

Click:低樓底風扇燈

Las Vegas lives up to its notorious title of “Sin City” as the most vice-filled city in America, and many other cities are plagued by similar vices, according to a Monday study.

Las Vegas, Los Angeles and New York rank as the top three most sinful cities in the U.S., respectively, according to a WalletHub study published on Nov. 26. Houston and St. Louis follow as the most vice-filled cities, respectively. St. Louis has a higher share of adult smokers than any other city, according to the study.

South Burlington, Vermont, and Pearl City, Hawaii, rank as the least sinful cities, respectively, according to WalletHub. Columbia, Maryland, and Burlington, Vermont, rank third and fourth, respectively.

The WalletHub authors conducted their study by comparing 182 cities across factors of anger, jealousy, excesses and vices, greed, lust, vanity and laziness. The cities selected for the study include America’s 150 most populated cities along with at least two of the most populated cities in each state, according to WalletHub.

The number of sex offenders, violent crimes, hate crimes, deaths by firearm and bullying rates were factored into WalletHub’s calculation of sin. The number of mass shootings, terrorist attacks, thefts — including of identity — and fraud were also included.

Cities were compared across obesity and high school dropout rates, as well as by number of fast food restaurants, smokers, DUIs, opioid prescriptions, adult entertainment establishments, active Tinder users, and beauty and tanning salons.

Irvine, California, has the lowest crime rate, according to WalletHub, where St. Louis has over 34 times that rate, according to the study. Yonkers, New York, also has the fewest thefts per 1,000 residents. Springfield, Missouri, has the highest rate at nearly 91 thefts per 1,000 residents.

New York, however, has the most beauty salons and spas per square root of population.

Las Vegas lives up to its notorious title of “Sin City.” Source: WalletHub

Fremont, California, has the lowest share of obese adults and Detroit has the highest, according to the study. San Jose, California, also has the lowest share of adult smokers.

Addiction to gambling causes roughly $100 billion in losses for U.S. consumers every year, according to the study. Identity theft and fraud also totaled $16 billion in 2017, according to WalletHub.

Smoking kills half a million people in America every year, and costs roughly $300 billion dollars in medical care and lost productivity, according to a January WalletHub report.

With great fanfare and a nationwide, prime time presidential address to the American people, President Obama announced the formation of a “broad coalition” that would wage war together to destroy the Islamic State also known as ISIS or ISIL. Although few other details were given about the coalition, a senior administration official said on Wednesday “we are very confident that this will be a broad-based coalition with countries from the Arab world, from Europe, but also other key allies around the globe, like, for instance, Australia, which has joined us in humanitarian airdrops already in Iraq; or Canada, which has already put advisers on the ground.”

From President Obama’s “ISIL isn’t Islamic” speech:

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven. …

This is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners. Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq; sending arms and assistance to Iraqi Security Forces and the Syrian opposition; sharing intelligence; and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Secretary Kerry was in Iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity, and in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria to drive these terrorists from their lands. This is American leadership at its best: we stand with people who fight for their own freedom

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel outlined some more of the possible participants. He suggested that a “core coalition” would include the United States, Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark. The 10 Arab “frenemy” states that committed on Thursday to the fight against ISIS included the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. The new coalition also includes Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. At the time of the publication of this article some 40 nations had supposedly joined this “broad coalition” to defeat ISIS. But does that mean anything other than the provision of some thin cover for a nation still perceived as Christian raining down death and destruction (complete with inevitable civilian casualties) on what are in fact, despite Obama’s protestations, Muslims?

But tough talk is often very cheap. It’s only been a few days and Obama’s “very significant counterterrorism operation” is already a disaster and falling apart before it ever got started.

In less than a day after Obama’s speech, both the UK and Germany (despite their earlier saber-rattling and tough guy talk) announced they have no interest in actually actively participating in any Obama led coalition to go after ISIS’ main bases of power in Syria. France has announced that they will not participate in any land or air actions at all. NATO member Turkey abstained from even pretending to join the anti-ISIS coalition and will not let the US use their airbases to attack ISIS targets in Syria. And now the Saudi’s probably won’t either.

What Obama will get from the Arab League and the others will be some supportive talk, perhaps a trickle of funds and arms to the locals, and that’s about it. When Bush invaded Iraq three other nations provided troops for the invasion and 37 other nations of the “Coalition of the Willing” provided ground troops for occupation and nation building attempts afterwards. In stark contrast to that, Obama’s “Broad Coalition” in the end will basically be a “Coalition of One” with a few local forces thrown into the mix. All led by a Commander-in-Chief who doesn’t want to fight, doesn’t want to be there, and known for walking away from ‘red lines.’ One can already sense this may not go well. Chances are he’ll screw around with this for a couple more years without really accomplishing too much and then hand it over to his successor to deal with. We’ll see and time will tell. I hope he proves me wrong.

What does this quick collapse of his coalition say about Obama’s strategic preparation? Did he even bother to check in with the Brits, French, and the Germans before pledging his “broad coalition of partners.” Apparently not. It would  instead appear that The One simply assumed our European allies would quickly just fall in line with his newly proclaimed war on terror.

And what tactics does the President envision utilizing against The Islamic State? From the Washington Post:

[Campaigns in Somalia and Yemen]  have dragged on for years and involve far smaller and less-well-financed adversaries than the Islamic State. Although Obama promised a “steady, relentless effort” in a nationally televised address Wednesday night, he also said that “it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL,” using a common acronym for the Islamic State.
Such a mission was not the U.S. military’s preferred option. Responding to a White House request for options to confront the Islamic State, Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, said that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants, according to two U.S. military officials. The recommendation, conveyed to the White House by Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was cast aside in favor of options that did not involve U.S. ground forces in a front-line role, a step adamantly opposed by the White House. Instead, Obama had decided to send an additional 475 U.S. troops to assist Iraqi and ethnic Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment.
Recommitting ground combat forces to Iraq would have been highly controversial, and most likely would have been opposed by a substantial majority of Americans. But Austin’s predecessor, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, said the decision not to send ground troops poses serious risks to the mission.

So, in effect, President Obama has rejected the “Afghan model” that was used to successfully drive the Taliban from power in 100 days. It consisted of front line Special forces  and CIA paramilitaries calling in pinpoint US airstrikes on targets as they moved and worked in tandem with local opposition forces to defeat the enemy. It’s a devastating strategy that’s proven to be extremely effective in the past. What a shame. It’s how we really should wage war from now on.  On top of that, an unnamed U.S. general also told WaPo the other day that defeating ISIS would be much harder than anything we’ve done in Afghanistan or Iraq. Great, just great.

If President Obama quickly waffles, loses interest, and walks away from this tough talking but shallow commitment as well, we can then rename it the “Broad Coalition of None.”

A Montana newspaper published an article praising the Trump administration for having negotiated a deal that will result in about $2.5 billion in beef sales to China.

The Great Falls Tribune reported that starting in July “for the first time in about 14 years, U.S. cattle producers will have access to that market.”

China, along with many other countries, halted U.S. beef imports after cattle in this country tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which destroys the brain and central nervous system of infected cattle. Humans who eat nerve tissue of infected cattle can get variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease, which is fatal.

While other countries lifted their U.S. beef bans, China has remained off limits, until now.

The Obama administration had tried, unsuccessfully, in 2012 to get beef into China. The US-China Agricultural Symposium was touted as a way to return America to being the breadbasket of the world.

The persistence of many paid off and now Montana ranchers and our state’s economy will benefit.

President Donald Trump is accomplishing much that team Obama was unable to complete. He brought home Otto Warmbier and now has opened China up to American beef. Those in the cattle industry are understandably thankful.

Trade deals are long and complicated. China’s ban on U.S. beef imports meant that the entire time former Montana Sen. Max Baucus was the Ambassador to China, from 2014 to earlier this year, he could not get a steak from a U.S.-raised cow in China.

The persistence of many paid off and now Montana ranchers and our state’s economy will benefit.

He’s making better trade deals, creating American jobs, getting better results from hostile regimes and dealing strongly with America’s enemies. In a sentence, he’s delivering on his campaign promises.

Attorney and election expert Tara Ross said the electoral college has nothing to do with slavery during an interview with “Fox & Friends” Wednesday.

“You hear today that it’s just about slavery and the southern slave-owning states wanted to have an electoral college. Nothing could be further from the truth,” she said.

“If you look at the discussions, it was large versus small. Some of the large were northern states. Some of the large were southern states. And vice versa. It was about the size of the states. It was not about slavery at all. It was about, let’s have a presidential candidate who addresses the needs of the whole country.”

Ross said small states were concerned about being left out of the fold, which led to a compromise and the current system we have today.

“The small states were terrified that they would be run over by the large state delegates if anything like that were to happen,” she said earlier in the interview.

“There are so many memorable quotes of small state delegates sitting on the floor of the constitutional convention, thundering at the large state delegates next to them, ‘we do not trust you’ … The small states were very scared,” Ross added. “And so, of course, we ended up with this compromise, a constitution that blends many kinds of principles together so that we can balance power between the large and the small states.”

She also criticized the idea of awarding electoral votes to the popular vote winner and specifically highlighted states like New York and Illinois.

“It’s crazy. And Illinois has to do that by the way even if the candidate did not appear on Illinois’s ballot at all. They would agree that the will of the nation trumps what Illinois voters say,” Ross said.

“Now 12 states, plus D.C. have signed on to this compact. That’s 181 electors. There are two other states, New Mexico, Delaware, that have legislative approval there but the governors have not yet signed. That would be 189 electors on board. They need 270 to put their compact into effect.”

The rickety elevator atop former Air Force Missile Site 8 slowly teeters its way 35 feet underground, opening up to a nuclear missile bunker filled with Cold War-era technology, fixtures and decor. It makes you feel like you’ve stepped into an old sci-fi movie — or perhaps the hatch from the show “Lost.”

Except the nuclear warhead on the other end of the 250-foot tunnel is real — although no longer functional — and the best part? Anyone can visit it.

Missile Site 8 is now a National Historic Landmark and the home of the Titan Missile Museum. The Air Force still owns the Green Valley, Arizona, property, which houses the only remaining Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile complex left of the 54 that were active during the Cold War. The site became a museum so the public could better understand one of the DOD’s biggest missions — nuclear deterrence.

When you walk into the site’s underground launch control center, it feels like you’ve stepped back in time.

“It is very much the same in appearance as it was in 1963 when the site became operational,” said museum director Yvonne Morris. The site was one of 18 she worked at as one of the first female crew commanders chosen in 1978 for the Titan missile program.

Despite the bunker’s dated look, visitors get a clear view of the importance of nuclear deterrence.

Nuclear Deterrence: How the Site is Important

Missiles are part of the land-based portion of the nuclear triad.

“Our job in the Titan II program was to project a credible threat to the Soviet Union and to convince the Soviet Union that if they were to initiate a preemptive strike against the U.S., we would still be able to retaliate with such force and devastation that it would be suicide for both countries,” Morris said.

And no one wants that, hence the nuclear triad’s mission: peace through deterrence. It’s something Morris said is the biggest takeaway from the missile site.

“You can read books and the internet about nuclear weapons. You can study it. But you really don’t have a frame of reference for how these things work or what’s involved in maintaining them day to day. That’s one of the things we can provide here,” she said. “The overall technology has not changed in the strategic deterrent … so this is a really good picture for folks.”

What It Was Like ‘On Alert’

Each missile crew had a four-day rotation. They were “on alert” for the first and last 24 hours.

“[We were] responsible for everything that went on at the missile site during that time. We oversaw maintenance, we inspected all of the equipment,” Morris said. “We’re generally just maintaining the missile so it’s ready to launch at all times.”

There were bunks for sleeping and a kitchen for eating … and there was boredom.

“Being on alert could very much be like any other kind of shift work. You’re sleeping and working at odd times,” Morris said.

How the Titan II Differs From Today’s Arsenal

The Titan II was the largest land-based missile the U.S. ever deployed, standing about seven stories tall. It carried the W53 warhead — the explosive equivalent of 9 million tons of TNT.

“One Titan II could pretty much lay waste to about 900 square miles,” Morris said.

 

U.S. Air Force airmen from the 576th Flight Test Squadron missile handling team install a cable raceway on an intercontinental ballistic missile at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., Feb. 3, 2014. The missile handling team transports and handles ICBMs and performs operational check-out actions of the flight destruct ordnance package on the Minuteman III boosters. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jonathan Snyder/RELEASED)

 

The Minuteman missile program that’s used today began when the Titan program did. The current version in the U.S. arsenal is called the Minuteman III and it’s smaller than the Titan II.

“[The Minuteman III] uses a solid rocket propellant instead of a liquid propellant like the Titan II,” Morris said. “It’s more efficient and a more reliable weapons system than the Titan II, given the state of today’s technology.”

The Minuteman program only requires two people on a crew versus the four required for a Titan II crew.

“But when people come here, they’re getting a pretty accurate picture of the life of people who do this kind of thing for the Air Force, and they’re getting a good look at the engineering requirements to launch a missile from an underground structure,” Morris said.

The Intricate Process of Launching

Morris took us through the launch process, which included lots of authentication, locks and decoding. One of the many failsafe devices, for example, required entering a six-digit code into a combination lock — meaning there were 17 million possible combinations — and you only had seven chances to get it right. On the eighth, the lock would commit “electronic suicide.”

“At a time when the hacking technology we have today didn’t exist, if you were going to try to guess the code, you were going to have to do it the old-fashioned way,” Morris said.

The last step required two crew commanders to turn separate keys simultaneously for five seconds.

Each key had to be held in position, or it would bounce back — another failsafe — and the keys weren’t near each other, so it was impossible for one person to turn both.

After that, it took less than a minute for the missile to launch, and from that point, there was no going back.

“There’s no way to stop a launch without a malfunction. There’s no ‘oops’ button,” Morris said. “If we could communicate with it, there was also the risk that the Soviet Union could communicate with it and take it off course.”

A Successful Launch Is Still a Failure

If they shot off the missile successfully, great. But that meant the mission — deterrence — was a failure.

Morris said they let visitors sit in the commander’s chair in the control room to go through the launch scenario. She said many can’t turn the key.

“It’s one thing to talk about World War III and nuclear winter and all the terrible things that would happen, if that were to happen,” Morris said. “It’s that person-to-person connection that makes it more real, especially when you’re sitting in the environment that would have participated in that.”

Source: Department of Defense

• The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission broke its deadlock over approving liquefied natural gas terminals.
• Commissioners hashed out a bipartisan agreement over how to account for greenhouse gas emissions.
• The Energy Department sees this as a major “breakthrough” for American energy.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) broke a two-year partisan deadlock Thursday night to approve a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal in Louisiana.

Top Department of Energy (DOE) officials said this was a major breakthrough that will alleviate a growing problem for U.S. energy producers — a lack of export infrastructure.

“We have been promoting US energy around the world and today’s decision by the FERC is a very important one,” DOE Deputy Secretary Dan Brouillette told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview.

The Calcasieu Pass LNG export terminal is the first such project to get FERC approval in two years. Republican FERC commissioners Neil Chatterjee, the chairman, and Bernard McNamee worked with Democrat Cheryl LaFleur to hash out an agreement to get her support.

Chatterjee and McNamee needed LaFleur’s vote to approve Calcasieu Pass, which they secured after working out a new approach to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the export facility.

“This is a tremendous breakthrough,” DOE Under Secretary of Energy Mark Menezes told TheDCNF. “We hope it will serve as an analytical template going forward.”

Once complete, Calcasieu Pass terminal will export up 12 million metric tons of LNG a year. Brouillette said the project already has buyers, including in Europe, waiting for American natural gas.

Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling spurred an oil and natural gas boom over the past decade, making the U.S. the world’s top hydrocarbon producer. However, a limiting factor on oil and gas is the lack of export terminals and pipelines.

Menezes said breaking FERC’s deadlock was also an important step in helping DOE improve its own LNG terminal approval process, including “making sure there’s no duplicative reviews.”

Getting approval to build and LNG export terminal is a long, complicated process that requires approval from multiple agencies. FERC currently has a backlog of a dozen LNG projects awaiting approval.

The Trump administration has been pushing for speedier approvals for LNG terminals, but FERC has been holding up the process amid pressure from environmental groups to factor global warming into their approval process.

LaFleur, for example, called on FERC to factor in estimates, like the controversial “social cost of carbon,” for a cost-benefit analysis. However, LaFleur agreed to compromise with her Republican colleagues.

FERC’s other Democratic commissioner Richard Glick opposed the terminal, arguing his colleagues were “deliberately ignoring the consequences that its actions have for climate change.”

The commission’s environmental review of Calcasieu Pass found the facility would emit roughly 3.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year — about 0.07 percent of total U.S. emissions.

Brouillette argued that while an individual LNG export terminal would emit greenhouse gases, it would help lower global emissions because countries want gas as an alternative to coal.

“To the extent that LNG is displacing coal around the world, we think the impact is going to be positive,” Brouillette said.

Brouillette also stressed the geopolitical implications of LNG exports and the role energy could play in President Donald Trump’s foreign policy.

“These are decisions that impact the president’s ability to make foreign policy decisions,” Brouillette told TheDCNF. “We get to assist Poland, we get to assist Lithuania, we get to assist the Baltic states.”

It’s not the real thing anymore. The country of Greece, facing continuing problems learned today that Coca Cola Hellenic will leaving them. This news is particularly devastating as unemployment in Greece jumped over 25% this week.

Coca Cola Hellenic announced it will be shifting its trade listings from Athens to London and moving headquarters to Switzerland. As the largest company in Greece this loss is a further blow to the sinking Greek economy.

From the Economic Times: CCH’s announcement coincided with data that showed Greek unemployment climbing for a 35th consecutive month in July to 25.1 percent from a revised 24.8 percent in June. The jobless rate has more than tripled since the country’s now five-year-old recession began.

Fifty-four percent of Greeks under 24 continue to be jobless fueling more riots as the country struggles to regain its footing.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein plans to leave the Justice Department in mid-March, agency officials told news outlets on Monday.

According to CNN, a Justice Department official said that Rosenstein’s departure is not related to a controversy surrounding his alleged offer wear a wire during conversations with President Trump. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe claimed in an interview that aired Sunday that Rosenstein broached the idea of wearing a wire to the White House in May 2017, days after James Comey was fired as FBI director.

McCabe also claimed that Rosenstein suggested using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. Rosenstein has disputed McCabe’s claims, saying that he was being sarcastic about wearing a wire.

Rosenstein was reportedly planning to leave the Justice Department soon after Attorney General William Barr’s confirmation. Barr was confirmed by the Senate last week.

Rosenstein planned to remain in office to ensure a smooth transition from Matthew Whitaker, the former acting attorney general, to Barr.

According to CNN, the Justice Department could announce a replacement for Rosenstein as soon as this week.

Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller special counsel on May 17, 2017, around a week after Comey’s firing. He oversaw the probe because former Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from Russia-related matters.