Mike Benz

creating a unified, cohesive block against the Assad government in Syria with U.S. and Sue Peace funds, the same lawyer who's now successfully sued because Judge Beryl Howe blocked the Trump administration's attempt. Now we're back to square one with that. He simultaneously is representing the Wireless Trade Association, where Syria just turned over its IT infrastructure Today, TNT.

creating a unified, cohesive block against the Assad government in Syria with U.S. and Sue Peace funds, the same lawyer who's now successfully sued because Judge Beryl Howe blocked the Trump administration's attempt. Now we're back to square one with that. He simultaneously is representing the Wireless Trade Association, where Syria just turned over its IT infrastructure Today, TNT.

So, I mean, just think about that. You've got the U.S. Institute of Peace organizing this regime change in Syria, including using these narco-traffic drugs while calling for the narco networks to keep going.

So, I mean, just think about that. You've got the U.S. Institute of Peace organizing this regime change in Syria, including using these narco-traffic drugs while calling for the narco networks to keep going.

So, I mean, just think about that. You've got the U.S. Institute of Peace organizing this regime change in Syria, including using these narco-traffic drugs while calling for the narco networks to keep going.

And simultaneously, the, you know, the senior executives effectively, I know he's senior, he's top outside counsel, but the senior executives effectively are representing the companies that are the direct beneficiaries of this regime change action. So it doesn't matter if it's good for U.S. national security or U.S.

And simultaneously, the, you know, the senior executives effectively, I know he's senior, he's top outside counsel, but the senior executives effectively are representing the companies that are the direct beneficiaries of this regime change action. So it doesn't matter if it's good for U.S. national security or U.S.

And simultaneously, the, you know, the senior executives effectively, I know he's senior, he's top outside counsel, but the senior executives effectively are representing the companies that are the direct beneficiaries of this regime change action. So it doesn't matter if it's good for U.S. national security or U.S.

national interest to topple Bashar al-Assad because they have a fundamentally unique and singular benefit, whether it's good for us or not, which is that they get rich from it.

national interest to topple Bashar al-Assad because they have a fundamentally unique and singular benefit, whether it's good for us or not, which is that they get rich from it.

national interest to topple Bashar al-Assad because they have a fundamentally unique and singular benefit, whether it's good for us or not, which is that they get rich from it.

Well, it's funny you say that because last week at the Council on Foreign Relations, I think the panel was titled Reflections on the Post-Soviet Era and Implications for the Modern Day. This is the Council on Foreign Relations. And one of the questions asked to the panelists directly was, there was a deep state in Russia in the 1990s, these oligarchs. Yes. And, uh, We lost control over Russia.

Well, it's funny you say that because last week at the Council on Foreign Relations, I think the panel was titled Reflections on the Post-Soviet Era and Implications for the Modern Day. This is the Council on Foreign Relations. And one of the questions asked to the panelists directly was, there was a deep state in Russia in the 1990s, these oligarchs. Yes. And, uh, We lost control over Russia.

Well, it's funny you say that because last week at the Council on Foreign Relations, I think the panel was titled Reflections on the Post-Soviet Era and Implications for the Modern Day. This is the Council on Foreign Relations. And one of the questions asked to the panelists directly was, there was a deep state in Russia in the 1990s, these oligarchs. Yes. And, uh, We lost control over Russia.

They're basically analogizing Trump to Putin. And they're saying, we had all this control. We had total control over Russia during the Boris Yeltsin period. And we had all these relationships with the Russian oligarchs. But then Putin had a natural advantage as being the head of state, was somehow able to take over the Russian deep state. And then we lost control over Russia.

They're basically analogizing Trump to Putin. And they're saying, we had all this control. We had total control over Russia during the Boris Yeltsin period. And we had all these relationships with the Russian oligarchs. But then Putin had a natural advantage as being the head of state, was somehow able to take over the Russian deep state. And then we lost control over Russia.

They're basically analogizing Trump to Putin. And they're saying, we had all this control. We had total control over Russia during the Boris Yeltsin period. And we had all these relationships with the Russian oligarchs. But then Putin had a natural advantage as being the head of state, was somehow able to take over the Russian deep state. And then we lost control over Russia.

Well, what they say is that he also co-opted it and got the oligarchy working for him rather than for outside.

Well, what they say is that he also co-opted it and got the oligarchy working for him rather than for outside.

Well, what they say is that he also co-opted it and got the oligarchy working for him rather than for outside.