Lessons From Two Corruption Stories in North America: Trudeau vs Trump I

Recently, two North American countries witnessed their leaders facing charges of corruption.

In and of themselves they were not particularly interesting. But they were very telling about how political scandals affect conservatives and liberals. And how the media propagates the dominant narrative.

It was edifying.

Corruption In Canada 

Here is a summary of the Canadian scandal. Feel free to add air quotes around the word scandal.

SNC Lavalin, one of the largest engineering and construction companies in the world, paid bribes in Libya in between 2001 and 2011 to get construction projects. When this became public knowledge after the fall of Gaddafi, RCMP charged them with corruption and fraud. The management issued a mea culpa and promised to change their ways and establish corporate procedures to prevent something like this happening again.

They lobbied openly in favor of remediation as opposed to prosecution. In the latter case, if found guilty, and they would certainly be, thanks to their mea culpa, they would be barred from bidding for federal contracts for a full decade. And the company would almost certainly go bankrupt. In remediation, a plea deal would be entered, some fines would be paid and no jobs would be lost.

These deferred-action prosecutions are pretty common in the US but they are a recent introduction in Canada. It is fair to note that this might have been the result of SNC Lavalin's lobbying efforts.

In any event, SNC Lavalin is an aggressive company operating mostly in the developing world and they were willing to do anything to get new contracts. For instance, since 2013 SNC-Lavalin has been unable to bid on World Bank contracts because of another bribery scheme in Bangladesh.

I can't tell you that bribing officials in Bangladesh was necessary but in Gaddafi's Libya - I know from several companies that operated there - that it was a sine qua non. No pay no play. I can affirm that any company that had any contract in Libya paid bribes.

So put yourself in Justin Trudeau's shoes and you have a Quebec company that could go bankrupt if the Attorney General took the bribery in Libya charge too seriously.

Quebec is also a Canadian province that held two referendums to seek independence. And Trudeau is from Quebec.

As a politician what would you do?

Here is the crime he is alleged to have committed: He sent some intermediaries to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to ask her to consider the lighter option.

When she demurred (she says she held firm), Trudeau did a cabinet shuffle and moved Wilson-Raybould to Veterans' Affairs which is a demotion.

She didn't react at first but when the story came out, she accused the Prime Minister of pressuring her to save the company, Quebec jobs and Liberal Party votes in the Province.

She then testified before the judiciary committee of the House of Commons.

During her testimony, Wilson-Raybould said that Trudeau and his senior aides had embarked on a “consistent and sustained” effort to get her to interfere in the case against SNC-Lavalin. She described the pressure as inappropriate but said that in her opinion, it “was not illegal.”

This is an understatement. In the British system, and by colonial extension first-past-the-post single constituency system, any Member of Parliament or MP is obliged to defend, support and look after the interests of their constituency.

This is what Trudeau did. Unlike Jean Chretien's Shawinigate, there is no allegation that he benefited from this support financially or did it for personal benefit.

Yet Canadians were outraged and this whole episode might cost him the election. After a sustained media campaign, the feeling is summarized as "He's not a bad person but..."

This is the first feminist, progressive Prime Minister or President anywhere, a unicorn and he might be replaced by a conservative politician because he tried to protect jobs.

For Canadian liberals, or indeed any of us who cling to outdated ideas such as good governance and liberal democratic values, it was like watching a unicorn get flattened by a lorry. 

Was he blameless? No.

Butts and Wilson-Raybould

A cabinet shuffle after pressuring the Justice Minister was simply stupid. I also suspect that he sent his private secretary and closest confident Gerald Butts to see Ms. Wilson-Raybould and he was likely to be heavy handed.

Butts denied it of course but he is combative and as a former national debating champion his style is confrontational.

That is the extent of the "scandal."

But why did it become a such a big deal?

In a word, the relentless and skewed media coverage.

Canadian media outlets are owned by a small number of companies, (Bell, Corus, Rogers, Newcap, Quebecor) which also hold "a diverse mix of television, cable television, radio, newspaper, magazine, and/or internet operations." (That is the main reason why Canadians still pay long distance charges)

As a group with similar interests, they tend to present a cohesive point of view. And on the whole they favor a conservative editorial perspective. Theirs is not a blatant propagandist position a la Fox News. It is more along the lines of pushing certain priorities and omitting certain points a la The Economist, though with more subtlety.

For instance, prior to the Conservative Party's electoral victory in 2006, deficit was the most important issue that dominated the headlines and evening news, only to be completely forgotten after the Stephen Harper victory.

Similarly, when Canada escaped relatively unscathed the 2008 financial crisis, the media credited Harper even though it was the specific policies of the previous government (such as not relaxing the real estate borrowing rules) that were responsible for that outcome.

The way media outlets achieve their goal to emphasize a specific point of view while appearing objective is to give disproportionate access to right-wing politicians.

Boris Johnson, David Davis, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage dominating television debates during the Brexit referendum is a classical example. No broadcaster confronted their blatant lies about the economic impact, the NHS gains or impossibility to maintain Irish border open.

There are many other examples of wingnuts getting more coverage than anybody else.

One of the best illustration of this in this case is this recent item from the BBC. They posted an article that did very little other than simply list Conservative charges and refute Liberal arguments.

This is the picture of Trudeau they used.

The piece maintained that SNC Lavalin intervention was unnecessary, implied twice that there was more to the story, called Trudeau a "fake feminist" for shuffling a woman minister and cast doubt on possible job losses if SNC Lavalin was convicted of fraud. It only provided quotes from opposition politicians and analysts who question the Trudeau position.

For instance, on the likelihood of job losses, the piece quoted opposition figures and academics who maintained that there was no evidence that if SNC Lavalin was unable to bid on federal contracts, the 9,000 jobs on its payroll might be at risk.

Think about it for a second. What evidence can there be? This is a firm that is already on World Bank's blacklist until 2023, which means most other multilateral lenders shun them. If they were banned from Canadian federal contracts for a decade, where would they get their next project? Why would you need evidence to indicate a substantial number of jobs would be lost? It is a simple equation. No new revenue stream, layoffs. The company might survive but it is a virtual certitude that they would shed a large number jobs.

Which was the Liberal point.

So far no one's is listening.

I expect another Conservative government will come to power in the Fall and start implementing the same blueprint we see everywhere else. Fake news accusations, blaming the immigrants for everything and denying climate change. And dividing the nation into Us and Them.

I do not expect the Canadian media to have a major problem with that platform. There will be a couple of critical op-eds in some regional papers like the Ottawa Citizen. The Globe and Mail will have some investigative journalism reports which will not have any impact, National Post will praise the government and that will be that.

Now let's take a look at the other scandal, one that involves massage parlors, prostitution and paying the President for foreign access.

And the American media's reaction.

Deep Misogyny of Mainstream Media and Women Candidates

The day after Elizabeth Warren announced her intention to form an exploratory committee something very familiar happened.

Politico ran a piece about how Warren was really Clinton "redux" and as an unlikable witch, her candidacy should be dismissed. And, unsurprisingly, it was written by a woman, as editors love to give those hatchet jobs to female journalists:

She’s too divisive and too liberal, Washington Democrats have complained privately. Her DNA rollout was a disaster — and quite possibly a White House deal-breaker. She’s already falling in the polls, and — perhaps most stinging — shares too many of the attributes that sank Hillary Clinton.

It took less than 24 hours to frame her candidacy negatively. And she is by far the most qualified and electable Democratic candidate. She is the one who gave this speech in 2011 when both Republicans and Democrats had moved to the right of Richard Nixon.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. ... You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

She passed legislation to protect consumers, she made life difficult for too-big-too-fail banksters and she went after the Republican grifters.

Yet she is just Clinton redux.

But her DNA?

Around the same time Kirsten Gillibrand announced her intention to explore. A backlash followed. She was the first woman senator to have asked Al Franken to resign. And ever since then, this implicit accusation of humorless harpy followed her everywhere.

Compare this to the reaction to Joe Biden, who, if elected would be 78 in 2020. He declared himself to be the most qualified person in America to be president and the media reported this without any commentary.

Can you imagine the media shitstorm if Hillary Clinton, Kirsten Gillibrand or Elizabeth Warren made such a statement? All the liberal (i.e. deeply conservative) and conservative (i.e. proto-fascist) opinion-makers would have a field day with "them arrogant feminazi."

(As I explained before, women are the only minority anyone can call nazi and the normally hyper-vigilant ADL has no problem with that.)

In all this, the corporate media is extremely complicit.

This is how it works. The Republicans will invent a crisis, say Benghazi, and the corporate media will report every utterance or tweet from the Republican leadership. The issue will remain on the front page for as long as the Republicans chose to talk about it.

Conversely, if they uncover (Democrats are too wussy to do it on their own) a Republican scandal, say, Trump's lies or his massive conflicts of interest or his racist record. The so-called liberal media will do a one-off detailed report and that will be that.

During the presidential race, they covered Trump family's racist rental policies, his Washington Hotel or his dubious business associates all linked to Russian criminal circles. But do you know how many articles were published on her emails between March 2015 and September 2016?

560,397. Yes over half a million stories on Clinton's emails. 

Cable news was not any better.

Network newscasts have, remarkably, dedicated more airtime to coverage of Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined. 

Cable news has been, if anything, worse, and many prestige outlets have joined the pileup. One malign result of obsessive email coverage is that the public is left totally unaware of the policy stakes in the election. Another is that the constant vague recitations of the phrase ‘‘Clinton email scandal’’ have firmly implanted the notion that there is something scandalous about anything involving Hillary Clinton and email, including her campaign manager getting hacked or the revelation that one of her aides sometimes checked mail on her husband’s computer.

In fact, this is standard modus operandi when it comes to women candidates The Republican slurs are repeated so frequently by the media that they become qualifying adjectives in the minds of the electorate.

And it won't do for such candidates to fight against the bogus charges. The media will use such efforts to rehash the original attack.

Let's take a look at the Pocahontas racial slur used by Trump to taint and belittle Elizabeth Warren. The Republican claim was that Warren lied about having Native American heritage for professional gain.

Well, is it true? No.

Snopes reports that:

-She did put herself on Minority Law Teacher list as a Native American
-Harvard used her Native ancestry to bolster their claim of diversity

But they could find no evidence that she used her ancestry to gain professional advantage. She maintained that

[S]he was recruited for the positions and did not “apply” for them; and for the most part, her record did not indicate any identification as part of a minority group:

The Globe obtained a portion of Warren’s application to Rutgers, which asks if prospective students want to apply for admission under the school’s Program for Minority Group Students. Warren answered “no.”For her employment documents at the University of Texas, Warren indicated that she was “white.”

Now calling her Pocahontas is racist. Do you remember media outlets bringing up this fact repeatedly or at least every time Trump used it in a tweet?

Me neither.

Let's take a look at your options when you are under attack as a progressive woman politician.

If you say nothing, the Republicans will continue to attack and the media will continue to report their attacks. Soon you are a liar and a fraud.

If you push back, they report your statement and counter it with a Republican talking point.

So, Elizabeth Warren was accused of lying about her heritage. She took a DNA test to show that she had Native American DNA only to be ridiculed by the same media outlets. They even quoted the execrable Lindsey Graham saying that he was going to take a DNA test to try to beat Warren's results.

You are doomed if you say nothing and doomed if you defend yourself.

And finally, the media will gleefully put these bogus changes around your neck by repeating them every time you make a statement.

Case in point: When Warren  announced her bid to presidency, most media outlets brought up her DNA tests and claim of Native American heritage. This is what the New York Times said:

While Ms. Warren’s stinging attacks on Mr. Trump and Wall Street have helped make her a favorite of grass-roots liberals, she also faces challenges as a presidential candidate: controversy over a DNA test to prove her Native American heritage, skepticism from the party establishment and a lack of experience in a national race.

Then they ran a piece about Warren apologizing to the Cherokee nation for the DNA test. And quoted Trump saying this

"[Warren's credibility has] "been hurt very badly with the Pocahontas trap". 

"I think she's been hurt badly. I may be wrong, but I think that was a big part of her credibility, and now all of a sudden it's gone."

Donald Trump the man who lied more than all politicians in American history combined was asked to comment on Elizabeth Warren's credibility. Can you see the irony? They don't.

The next day BBC brought it up and had Cherokee Nation's Secretary of State attack Warren:

"Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage." 

"It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonouring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven."

I can give you CNN, Washington Post, USAToday or Vox.

Compare this with Joe Biden withdrawing his 1988 presidential bid for plagiarism. No one remembers it. Do you know why? Because he is a man, no one brings it up.

Just like no one brings up regularly the fact that Donald Trump lied 7,645 times since taking office.

Do you see epithets like "his tendency to make misleading statements dogged him since he became president?"

Or do you see periodic reports on his paying off a porn star or a Playboy model on the anniversary of these incidents?

Me neither.

Yet Monica Lewinsky incident is always back in the news. This is from 15 February 2019 BBC News and the item was on the front page for five days.

In case you think this is about Bill Clinton, it is not. It is still the media's way of skewering Hillary Clinton.

Do you see periodic pieces on Dennis Hastert, the former Republican speaker who abused boys as a wrestling coach and paid them off afterwards?

Do you see anyone mentioning Louisiana (R) Senator David Vitter whose sex worker dealt with his diaper fetish?

All ancient history.

But Benghazi and email servers all the time. Or Warren's DNA.

They tried to do it with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but it didn't work for once, because millennials called their bullshit.

But that doesn't mean they won't try again.

There is a special place in hell for corporate media journalists.

Why Did Trump Pull Out Of Syria: Another Khashoggi Gift

Something funny happened last Thursday.

To the shock and dismay of Republicans in Congress, the military-industrial complex and America's NATO allies, Donald Trump declared that he was withdrawing all the American troops in Syria.

He did it despite strong opposition from his own cabinet, his staunch supporters in the Senate and America's various allies around the globe.

He didn't even flinch when his Secretary of Defense James "Mad Dog" Mattis abruptly resigned over the issue.

Subsequently, when Syria envoy Brett McGurk resigned, he called it a "non-event."

America's withdrawal from Syria means several things.

One, Bashar al-Assad will remain in power completing the dreaded "Shia Crescent."

Two, without the US, Russia and Iran will be the main players in Syria and will largely determine the future of the country and the entire Middle East.

Three, Turkey will be free to enter Northern Syria and bomb Syrian Kurds, a key US ally in fighting ISIS, killing tens of thousands.

Please tell me how these three points make any sense from an American perspective.

The Shia Crescent, which assumes that Iran, Iraq and Syria are trying to encircle the Sunni Arabs, was the main reason why the Gulf countries tried to destabilize Al-Assad's regime and Saudis launched their murderous campaign in Yemen.

Why would they accept this silently?

Moreover, leaving Iran and Russia as the main power players in the region could not be desirable for Israel or the Sunni countries.

Iran will now steadily increase its influence throughout the region.

Already, Russia, Iran and Turkey are working with the Special UN Envoy Staffan de Mistura to draft the new Syrian constitution.

Why was Iran's most implacable foe Bibi Netanyahu's reaction a muted "we will study it"?

Other than Russia and Iran the country that clearly benefits from this withdrawal is Turkey. There are now reports that Trump made that decision on the spot while talking to Turkey's President on Thursday stunning his advisors.

“Why are you still there?” Erdoğan demanded, according to the account.

With the Turkish leader still on the line, Trump asked the same question of his national security adviser, John Bolton, who repeated US policy until then, that the defeat of Isis had to be “enduring”, preventing the possibility of a resurgence.

To the surprise of Bolton and Erdoğan, Trump instantly sided with the Turkish president.

I don't believe for a minute that Trump is the kind of guy who would not react belligerently to a question like "why are you still there?" let alone side with such an interlocutor.

He made it clear that the pull out was to leave Turkey in charge.

Before the Trump's withdrawal decision Erdogan had already declared his intention to attack Syrian Kurds in the coming weeks. He gave a major speech announcing the start a large scale operation in Syria. Two days later he threaten to invade Manbij if the US refuses to remove YPG fighters from the area.

Typically such a bellicose approach does not work well with Pentagon or the White House especially since Turkey is not in a position to start hostilities anywhere if the US is opposed to them.

When I heard the withdrawal decision, I immediately concluded that it had something to do with the Khashoggi murder and Trump's desire to protect Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS).

The muted Israeli reaction and the deafening silence from the Gulf countries supported my guess.

Then I saw this on Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based news network:

"They [people in Congress] are also suggesting that Trump is doing this as a favour to Turkey - the reason he wants Turkey onside, perhaps, is to ease the pressure on Saudi Arabia, particularly over the death of Jamal Khashoggi," said Fisher, referring to the October 2 murder of the Saudi journalist inside the kingdom's consulate in the Turkish city of Istanbul.

In other words, Trump threw the Syrian Kurds under the bus to protect MBS, which means Turkey, as I have been claiming, has damning evidence implicating the Crown Prince and is threatening to use it at every turn.

Unfortunately for both MBS and Trump, this will not go far. The pull out is scheduled to complete in 100 days.

During that time, Syrian Kurds will reach out to Bashar Al-Assad and offer their help and support in his campaign to reclaim his rule and the Russians will support that move.

At that point neither Turkey nor the US will be able to do much the change the power balance on the ground.

Once again Putin will be the kingmaker. Because of that there is even a chance that the withdrawal might never take place.

The timeline also coincides with the conclusion of the Mueller investigation, whose findings are expected to be made public sometime in February.

With Trump in a fight for his life, MBS will lose his principal backer. At which point a palace coup might take place and a new Crown Prince might emerge.

We'll see in due course.

But one thing is clear, the Khashoggi murder will continue to have profound consequences.

----------------

UPDATE:

In case you were wondering:

But shortly after announcing Mr Shanahan's appointment on Sunday, Mr Trump moved to calm widespread concerns over the pullout which he initially said would be "rapid". 

Mr Trump said on Twitter that he had spoken with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey about "our mutual involvement in Syria, & the slow and highly coordinated withdrawal of US troops from the area".

He was blackmailed. And now he is trying to reassure the American "deep state."

Good luck with trying to square that circle.

--------------
UPDATE 2

In case you were wondering about the corner Trump found himself in:

Turkey is massing troops near a town in northern Syria held by a Kurdish-led force backed by the US, a war monitor and Turkish media have said.
The buildup comes despite Ankara saying it would delay a promised offensive in eastern Syria in the wake of Donald Trump’s surprise announcement on Wednesday to withdraw US troops from the country, which it welcomed.

I really wish MBS was worth it.

But he is not.

----------------
UPDATE 3

Here is what former NATO commander retired General Wesley Clark said about the withdrawal:

During a CNN appearance on December 24, Clark stressed that “there doesn’t seem to be any strategic rational for the decision. And if there is no strategic rational, then you have to ask, ‘Why was the decision made? I can tell you that people around the world are asking this. And some of our friends and our allies in the Middle East are asking, ‘Well, did Erdogan blackmail the president? Was there a payoff or something? Why would a guy make a decision like this?’” [my emphasis]

You read it here first.

The End Game In Khashoggi Murder: Is MBS on His Way Out?

In my previous post, I suggested that the gruesome murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul could be the result of a joint Qatar-Turkey intelligence operations which aimed to provoke Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) to greenlight a risky hit and find himself in big trouble.

Prison room service

Since ordinarily the disappearance of a Saudi citizen would not have gotten much attention, I offered my guess that the surprisingly sustained media campaign and the withdrawal of CEOs from the Davos in the Desert might have been engineered by Al-Waleed bin Talal, the royal prince who was previously imprisoned, tortured and robbed by MBS.

As a wealthy investor, bin Talal is on very friendly terms with media barons like Rupert Murdoch and also Wall Street and industry titans. No other Saudi has his contacts or his influence.

To me, it was the only theory that explained all the incongruous elements of the Khashoggi case.

Since that post, a couple of interesting things happened to lend support to my thesis.

Initially, Turkey was not among the countries to be granted an Iranian oil import waiver by the Trump administration. The Bloomberg article I linked to did not have Turkey on the list, now it does. The day after my post, Turkish Trade Minister said that they hoped to be on the list but will know for sure by the following Monday.

Second, Al-Waleed bin Talal's brother who was detained for almost a year was promptly released with no explanation. Unlike Khashoggi, Khalid bin Talal was a vocal critique of MBS.

Tellingly, his release led to a lull in the Khashoggi coverage. It could be a coincidence as there were midterm elections. However, it may be worth noting that the Khashoggi murder was the top story in the weeks and days leading to the same elections.

The Khashoggi story reclaimed its front page status when Turkey's president Tayyip Erdogan announced that Turkish intelligence agency MIT shared an audio recording of the murder with French, German, Russian, Canadian and American authorities.

A major scramble ensued. The French denied it, Canadians acknowledged it and the rest remained silent.

One party that wasn't very happy about this new light shone on the murder was the Trump Administration as they have been trying very hard, along with Benyamin Netanyahu, to keep MBS as the Crown Prince.

Then something very strange happened. Unlike the Trump Administration the American deep state took a decisive position against MBS.

The CIA, whose chief reportedly blackmailed Erdogan to shut him up, went to the Capitol Hill to inform lawmakers that its analysis supported the conclusion that it was MBS who ordered the Khashoggi hit.

And to top it off, they leaked the existence of a phone call recording between Khashoggi and Khalid bin Salman, MBS' brother and Saudi ambassador to the US.

Khalid told Khashoggi he should go to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to retrieve the documents and gave him assurances that it would be safe to do so, the Post said. The newspaper, citing people familiar with the call, said it was not clear if Khalid knew Khashoggi would be killed, but he made the call at his brother’s direction.

More damningly, the CIA also shared another phone call from the consulate.

Maher Mutreb, a security official who has often been seen at the crown prince’s side, made the call to Saud al-Qahtani, a top aide to Prince Mohammed, to inform him the operation had been completed, the Post said, citing people familiar with the call.

There is more.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is in possession of a phone call recording of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in which he is heard giving an instruction to “silence Jamal Khashoggi as soon as possible,” Hürriyet columnist Abdulkadir Selvi wrote on Nov. 22.

The columnist is very close to the government and has been known to have solid ties with the intelligence community. In his column, he suggested that it was Haspel who informed her Turkish counterpart of the existence of the recording.

According to Selvi, CIA Director Gina Haspel “signalled” during her trip to Ankara last month the existence of the wiretapped phone call between Crown Prince Mohammed and his brother Khaled bin Salman, who is Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States.

Why would the CIA share this bit with Turkey who is hellbent on getting rid of MBS?

Second indication that the deep state doesn't find MBS acceptable anymore was the heavy pressure they exerted on him to dramatically change course. After months of complicit silence, as soon as the Khashoggi murder hit the front pages, the Pentagon and the State Department began pressuring Saudi Arabia to cease hostilities in Yemen and end the massive loss of human life.

They also asked MBS to end the Qatari embargo. And there are reports that he refused. At least so far.

That's why the Khashoggi case is so interesting: its extensive coverage and the carefully planned leaks by Turkey provided significant leverage to those who wanted to either force MBS to change course or to simply force him out.

Washington believes it has more influence with Riyadh as its ally tries to repair the damage to the kingdom's standing, and wants to use this opportunity to push for an end to the Yemen war and rebuild Gulf unity against Iran, four sources familiar with the matter said. (...)

Against this coalition of the willing stand Trump and Netanyahu.

As you know, Trump double downed and shrugged off the CIA information. Yesterday the White House prevented Haspel to brief Senators on the Khashoggi murder asking Mike Pompeo and James Mattis to inform them. Apparently, this is not the regular protocol.

Bruce Riedel, a veteran CIA official and an expert on the US-Saudi relationship at the Brookings Institution, said: “Gina [Haspel] has been the case officer on this. She traveled to Turkey and she is the one who listened to the tapes and is reported to have briefed the president multiple times. 

“This is further evidence that the White House is trying to outdo the Saudis in carrying out the worst cover-up in modern history,” Riedel added.

So what is the endgame? And will MBS survive this?

Erdogan's End Game

The biggest beneficiary of the Khashoggi operation has been Turkey's president.

His daily announcements about the gruesome details of the murder and persistent claims about having audio and video evidence put Western governments in a difficult position: He made it impossible for them to ignore the Saudi crime.

Europeans had to humor him. Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Vladimir Putin accepted his invitation for a Summit on Syria and had to give him grudgingly the role of peacemaker in Syria.

Look at Macron's expression.

Four Amigos

He also outplayed the Saudis. They had no idea what kind of evidence he had and consequently, they couldn't put together a coherent defense. Their frequently changing story confirmed their guilt and seriously damaged MBS' and royal family's international standing.

Saudis offered Erdogan money, more investment and the lifting of the Qatari embargo and he refused. In a nicely cynical move, he leaked the offer to make himself look like an honest politician interested only in getting justice for Khashoggi.

He also got offers from the Trump administration.

First they extended an embargo waiver for Iranian oil.  Then White House looked for ways to extradite the preacher Fethullah Gulen "to ease Turkish pressure on Saudis". It didn't go over well with career bureaucrats.

Justice Department officials responded to the White House's request saying the review of Turkey's case against Gulen two years ago showed no basis for his extradition and that no new evidence to justify it has emerged, the U.S. officials and others familiar with the requests said. 

Trump administration officials then asked for other options to legally remove him, the U.S. officials and others said. 

When that didn't work, Trump made another offer:

Trump and Erdogan also recently discussed another option to relieve tensions — the release of Turkish banker Mehmet Hakan Atilla, who was sentenced in May to 32 months in prison by a U.S. federal judge for his role in a scheme to evade U.S. sanctions against Iran, two people familiar with the discussion said.

Interestingly, no one is mentioning the Halkbank fine anymore even though the trial ended almost a year ago. I am sure a reasonable number is being negotiated.

As a sign of their deep desperation, they offered a bounty of $12 million for PKK's leadership. The offer was met with suspicion and derision with one official saying that "Turkey won't be duped by US in Syria."

My guess is that Erdogan has a gruesome video of the killing and an incriminating conversation about MBS.

He is waiting for two reasons.

The first is to get as much as possible from the Trump Administration. He wants them to reduce the Halkbank fine, give him more room of maneuver in Syria and give him a pass about his increasingly autocratic rule.

He is also waiting for Trump to fully commit himself to MBS' defense. Besides the rambling "maybe he did it, maybe he didn't do it" memo, Trump keeps claiming that nobody knows what happened. If Turkey (or the American deep state) released all their information, he would look like a cartoonishly cynical politician.

And while his ignorant and racist base might not notice, this may cost him the support of many old style conservatives who are increasingly unhappy to see "America the beacon of human rights and freedom" rhetoric being destroyed by Trump's crass Mafioso discourse.

Needless to say, the degree of the damage will depend on the upcoming scandals. Mueller report must be almost done. Among other issues, they now connected Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager to Julian Assange. He visited Assange several times at the Ecuadorian Embassy before Wikileaks dumped the DNC emails.

With Trump's tax returns subpoenaed and money laundering schemes exposed by the Democratic majority in the House, Trump will find himself on the defensive and I suspect he will no longer care about MBS.

American Deep State's End Game

When I first wrote about the Khashoggi murder, I expressed my doubt that MBS would lose his position because of this incident. Since the CIA revelations, I am no longer sure.

The Haspel move indicated that the Pentagon, the State Department and the intelligence community consider MBS a volatile and unpredictable leader who is likely to further destabilize the region. Look at his list of achievements:

- Kidnapping and forcing the Lebanese Prime Minister out.
- Attacking Yemen and creating the worst civilian disaster in recent memory with no end in sight.
- Executing the revered Shia leader Nimr al-Nimr and increasing the persecution of the Kingdom's Shia minority.
- Imposing a blockade and severing diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar (and trying to invade it).
- Continuously provoking Iran in an effort to start a war.

In other words, from a long-term American perspective, MBS is no longer a viable leader and the institutional forces which I call the deep state do not want to continue to work with him.

This is the reason why Senators who are Trump allies are pushing for his dismissal in a forceful fashion.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., long one of Saudi Arabia’s most vocal defenders in Congress, said Tuesday that the kingdom’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has “got to go” and vowed never to return to the country as long as the young leader remains in power.

There is also the issue that the intelligence community never forgave Trump for his initial attacks on them and his siding with Putin against them. Look at the vociferous tweets of  former CIA Director John Brennan accusing Trump of treasonous complicity with Putin.

In short, very soon, there will be no one, save perhaps Netanyahu, left to defend MBS.

But Netanyahu is as weakened as MBS himself. His botched Hamas assassination attempt, his unpopular ceasefire, his piles of corruption dossiers and the departure of Avigdor Lieberman that left his fragile coalition teetering on the brink are all threat to his political survival. He may not be around after the next elections.

Domestically, in Saudi Arabia, I am pretty sure that forces within the Royal Family are already circling MBS like sharks watching a prey. If it wasn't for the way he handled the aftermath of the Khashoggi murder he could and would have pushed back ruthlessly. Now he is too exposed to be able to go after his enemies.

The House of Wahhab wants him gone as do most of the Princes. The ruling elite that always revered stability above all else fear that MBS is incapable of achieving that. And they worry about their own survival.

The army and the intelligence agencies may no longer have any loyalty to him after he decided to prosecute the Khashoggi team with death penalty hanging over them. You do his dirty deeds and he ends up throwing you under the bus to save his skin.

Remember Caligula and the Praetorian Guard? These things never end well.

In that sense, if I were to guess, I would say MBS' days as Crown Prince are numbered. As soon as Trump finds himself in the fight of his life, he will let go of him and that will be enough for his domestic enemies to unseat him.

And if my theory is correct, this would be a monumental Qatari and Turkish achievement.
----------------------
UPDATE:

CIA is leaking like nobody's business. Wall Street Journal just published this:

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman sent at least 11 messages to his closest adviser, who oversaw the team that killed journalist Jamal Khashoggi, in the hours before and after the journalist’s death in October, according to a highly classified CIA assessment.

As an aside, let me add that until his detention by MBS, Al-Waleed bin Talal owned 5.5 percent of News Corp (the owner of Wall Street Journal) and was considered a close ally of Rupert Murdoch. He was forced to sell all his shares while in custody.

The Journal also noted this:

The electronic messages sent by Prince Mohammed were to Saud al-Qahtani, according to the CIA. Mr. Qahtani supervised the 15-man team that killed Mr. Khashoggi and, during the same period, was also in direct communication with the team’s leader in Istanbul, the assessment says. The content of the messages between Prince Mohammed and Mr. Qahtani isn’t known, the document says. It doesn’t say in what form the messages were sent.

And this

 The highly classified CIA assessment says that the Saudi team sent to kill Mr. Khashoggi was assembled from Prince Mohammed’s top security units in the Royal Guard and in an organization run by Mr. Qahtani, the Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Royal Court, the Saudi royal court’s media department.

“We assess it is highly unlikely this team of operators…carried out the operation without Muhammed bin Salman’s authorization,” it says. 

And it wasn't just the CIA leaking.

 A U.S. official said that the U.S. government has recently developed information that under Mr. Qahtani, personnel from the Center for Studies and Media Affairs have for two years engaged in the kidnapping—sometimes overseas—and detention and harsh interrogation of Saudis whom the monarchy perceives as a threat. The interrogations have led to repeated physical harm to the detainees, the official said.

Why Was Jamal Khashoggi Killed: A Contrarian Theory

As my longtime readers will remember, I have a bit of an obsession with Saudi Arabia.

I have been fascinated by how they spend hundreds of billions of dollars since 1979 to radicalize Muslims everywhere by reducing Islam to three ostracizing notions through Wahhabi imams they dispatched everywhere. With nary a peep from the West.

I also expressed my doubts about the economic viability of the Kingdom and pointed to the inherent risks hidden in their succession mechanisms.

The Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) dramatically exacerbated the structural flaws of the regime by launching a costly war in Yemen, removing subsidies that kept Saudis docile, ruthlessly eliminating rivals, increasing the oppression of the Shia minority, alienating the ulema and the House of Wahhab and extorting money from prominent Saudi businessmen and royal family members.

Add to this, his move to invade Qatar to grab their Sovereign Wealth Fund, you have the making of a Shakespearean Crown Prince whose fate may be determined by the numerous domestic and foreign enemies.

This is the context of the Jamal Khashoggi murder.

There were three very important elements of the story that made no sense as I noted at the outset.

Why Khashoggi?

Jamal Khashoggi

Why would you have a mild mannered journalist with no discernible domestic constituency killed in a such risky and gruesome manner.

And why would you do this in a country that stood with Qatar against Saudi Arabia just because the guy said free press is good and the war in Yemen is bad in Washington Post.

Since then, I found out that Khashoggi was even less of a threat than I realized. It turns out that in his writings in Arabic, Khashoggi was a conservative Islamist who sided with the Saudi regime on almost anything.

You might be surprised to learn that he was a believer in Osama bin Laden's jihad and he covered his Mujahideen efforts by joining his army.

The other Jamal Khashoggi

The guy at the center holding an RPG is him.

Even if you buy the preposterous notion that bin Laden would allow embedded reporters, does he look like one to you?

He later advocated the Islamization of Arab politics and viewed secular regimes like Al-Assad's Syria as unreformable.

And he thought Mohammed Bin Salman was a good reformist.

Khashoggi’s vision was an “Arab uprising” led by the Saudi regime. In his Arabic writings he backed MbS’s “reforms” and even his “war on corruption,” derided in the region and beyond. He thought that MbS’s arrests of the princes in the Ritz were legitimate (though he mildly criticized them in a Post column) even as his last sponsoring prince, Al-Walid bin Talal, was locked up in the luxury hotel. Khashoggi even wanted to be an advisor to MbS, who did not trust him and turned him down.

While it is true that his monthly Post columns occasionally mentioned the importance of free press, they hardly constituted a devastating attack on MBS or the royal family.

Besides, MBS banned Khashoggi's family to travel abroad. If MBS was so upset about his columns he could have used his son Salah as leverage and shut him up.

Why Turkish Media Play?

The second element that was puzzling was Turkey's daily insistence that they had audio and video proof that Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered by a squad of assassins without ever divulging that evidence.

But when you think about it, that unusual Turkish tactic served a purpose.

Those regular leeks kept the narrative alive. One day, it was the gruesome dismemberment, the next, the name of the goons and the next there was the bone saw. And then a musically-oriented autopsy specialist.

The daily leaks also put MBS in a difficult position about what explanation to push.

In fact, because Saudi officials didn't know what kind of evidence Turkish authorities had, they were forced to use trial balloons to test various theories. If it was video, then rogue elements; just audio, then interrogation went wrong, outside audio, then accidental death in a fist fight and inside audio-video, rogue elements again.

Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan promised to reveal the audio and video recordings he claimed he had on 23 October but after a brief visit from Ms. Torture Gina Haspel he changed his mind.

Haspel’s brief was very simple. She took with her intercept intelligence that purportedly shows massive senior level corruption in the Istanbul Kanal project, and suggested that Erdogan may not find it a good idea if intelligence agencies started to make public all the information they hold. 

Former ambassador Craig Murray maintains that the story had legs and put Western government on the defensive because Turkey showed the evidence they had to all the relevant intelligence agencies.

The Turkish account of the murder of Khashoggi given by President Erdogan is true, in every detail. Audio and video evidence exists and has been widely shared with world intelligence agencies, including the US, UK, Russia and Germany, and others which have a relationship with Turkey or are seen as influential. That is why, despite their desperate desire to do so, no Western country has been able to maintain support for Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman.

Why The Turkish Intelligence Presence?

The third element that is strange is the fact that the Turkish intelligence agents were ready to collect evidence that fateful day.

Embassies are legitimate intelligence targets and every country tries to spy on foreign delegations. But consulates are rarely relevant to justify expensive surveillance. And clearly, Saudis thought that was the case in Istanbul.

However, Turkish intelligence officials were there in full force ready to greet the assassins.

Unbeknown to the Saudis, Turkish intelligence officials from the national spy agency, MIT, were listening in. (...)

Scenarios range from a bug placed in the consulate itself to a directional microphone focused on the building from outside – both technically within the realms of Turkey’s capabilities.

Craig Murray, who was shown some still pictures from the murder scene, suggests that they did not look like they were taken with a fixed camera. The two possibilities are: one, Khashoggi wearing a camera as he went in, which would mean he was expecting to be accosted. In which case, why would he take that risk?

Two and the more likely explanation is a Skype exchange with Riyadh and there are many unconfirmed reports that the Turks intercepted such a communication. What is interesting is the fact that Skype conversations are encrypted end-to-end using uncrackable 256 bit AES encryption.

The only way they could do it is to compel Microsoft to hand them over the video call, as such communications flow through its servers and are routinely decrypted and encrypted before sending them forward.

The speed with which Turkish authorities gathered this evidence would indicate prior knowledge of the incident.

A Contrarian Theory of Murder

If, as I and some Middle East experts believe, Jamal Khashoggi would not have been killed for his Washington Post columns, the question then is, what would it take to get MBS overreact and order his murder in Turkey?

And who would set it up?

Remember that, unlike previous victims who were drugged or duped to be taken to Saudi Arabia for their eventual disposal, MBS wanted Khashoggi to be questioned right away. Time was of the essence. That's why they tortured him. And why they reported back via Skype.

My theory is that it was a joint Qatar Turkey intelligence operation with the sole purpose of embarrassing, weakening or perhaps pushing out Mohammed Bin Salman.

And my guess is that, the plot received substantial support from inside the royal family.

Let me explain.

A short while ago, a Jeddah daily accused Khashoggi of secretly meeting the Emir of Qatar at New York's Four Seasons Hotel. Here is a Google Translate link of the article. They author even claimed that the Washington Post gig was a gift from Qatar.

Now, that's a biggie.

Why would the Emir of Qatar even be in the same room with an insignificant Saudi journalist? What could they have discussed? It had to be something very important for the Emir to talk to Khashoggi.

MBS had to know. Hook, line, sinker.

At that point Khashoggi applies for his divorce papers in a Saudi consulate in the US (I can't find the link). On Riyadh's instructions he was told to get them in Istanbul since he was getting married there.

It's no hardship since his fiancee is in Istanbul. He travels to Turkey and applies to the consulate. They tell him to come back the following week to get his papers.

While the Saudis get ready to grab him in the consulate, Turkish intelligence agents set up shop around the consulate with all their snooping devices. They have a court order to compel Microsoft to hand over Skype communications originating from the consulate.

Hatice Cengiz was waiting at the gate. In her shoes how long would you have waited? She waited eleven hours from 1 PM to midnight.

She also immediately alerted pro-government journalists who started asking questions about Khashoggi's disappearance and the next day they penned incendiary columns branding the incident as a stain on Turkey's honor.

Turkish authorities immediately declared that Khashoggi was dead and insisted that they had incontrovertible evidence showing his murder.

They started drip-feeding daily information. The tail number of the planes, the names of the assassins, Khashoggi's call for help, bits of conversation in the consulate, anything.

In Europe and North America, the story grew bigger by the day. Turkey feeding daily info could not have kept the story at the top of the headlines, especially with Trump doing everything to make it disappear.

Someone else must have been involved, I thought.

Then (to my utter surprise) powerful financial forces joined the fray and started pulling out of the Davos in the Desert, which is a brainchild of MBS.

The Dutch, French, UK ministers were the first along with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. World Bank and IMF followed suit.

On the business side, besides Richard Branson, the CEOs of Deutsche Bank, Siemens, ABB, Uber, JP Morgan Chase and Softbank cancelled. Bloomberg, CNN, Financial Times and New York Times withdrew their media sponsorship.

When was the last time, business titans rebuked a wealthy autocrat?

These are folks who didn't even raise the issue of tens of thousands of Yemenis being slaughtered by Saudi bombs every day. Why would they let go of an opportunity to make more billions just because a journalist was killed in a diplomatic mission.

It makes sense only if one of their friends leaned on them and promised future business opportunities if they embarrass MBS further and damage him economically.

At Ritz-Carlton Prison

There is only one Saudi in the world who can do that and that is Al-Waleed bin Talal.

The man whom MBS imprisoned, tortured, humiliated for 83 days and extorted billions from. The largest individual shareholder of the Citigroup and second largest voting shareholder of the 20th Century Fox.

Besides being worth $30 billion, he is close friends with Rupert Murdoch, everybody on Wall Street and all the CEOs listed above.

Why Would Qatar and Turkey (Erdogan) Do This?

In Qatar's case the stakes are obvious. The costly embargo is still on and the invasion plans are simply on hold. Weakening and then removing MBS is a critical goal for Qatar.

In Turkey's case, this is a gift that keeps on giving.

Saudi Arabia had cooled its relations with Turkey after Erdogan's angry criticisms of Saudi-sponsored could d'etat that toppled Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi. Now they are begging Erdogan not to release the murder evidence.

The New York Times, citing an unnamed Turkish official, reported that Saudi Prince Khalid bin Faisal Al Saud, who secretly met with Erdogan last week in Turkey, had “offered a package of inducements for Turkey to drop the case — including financial aid and investments to help Turkey’s struggling economy and to end a Saudi embargo on Qatar, a Turkish ally.” Erdogan had “angrily rejected” them as a “political bribe.” 

It's likely that Prince Mohammed made some fresh offers to Erdogan, who is now clearly in the driver’s seat.

Ending the Qatar embargo was on the table. Can you believe that? And he rejected it as he wants more.

Wow!

Erdogan has also pushed Trump in a tight corner.

Sure, Trump is a cynical and shameless liar, but how do you handle the daily drip-drip information coming from the Turkish side. MBS is Kushner's buddy and Trump's main partner against Iran. If he goes, there goes Trump's entire Middle East policy.

And Erdogan says he has the goods to make it happen. And he shared them with every intelligence agency that mattered. So Trump cannot afford to attack Erdogan.

What does Erdogan wants from Trump?

A much smaller Halkbank fine would be the first thing. If that happens, you'll know that my crazy contrarian theory makes sense.

Two, he would insist on Iran oil waivers. Currently, eight countries have received them, there is still no word about Turkey. If that happens, well, you know what that means.

Moreover, in the Middle East, this would position Erdogan as the honest broker between Sunni and Shia. Once MBS is out of the way, Al-Sisi of Egypt would become a much lonelier figure and he is the only competition Erdogan has.

Erdogan deals with Iran on a daily basis and has no (real) problem with them. Every other Sunni country does. So that makes him the go to guy in the region. And that spells regional superpower.

Finally, that enables Erdogan to present himself as the guy who takes the moral ground, someone who, far from being an autocrat, fights such odious people.

Would This Be Enough to Get Rid of MBS

I don't know.

Saudi Arabia is doing a little better with $80 barrel price point but the war in Yemen is eating up all the additional revenue.

If the price goes higher, fracking outlets will come back online so MBS does not have much room of maneuver.

The Aramco IPO is not happening and may never happen.

On the other hand, King Salman is not lucid and he might not be able to sign a decree to replace MBS with someone else.

Time will tell.

-------------------------
UPDATE:

This is from the BBC:

Do the senior princes temper this all-powerful figure by removing just enough of his powers to appease the US Congress and other Western bodies, some of which are now calling for an arms boycott? 

Do they "dethrone" him altogether, giving him some titular promotion to a meaningless sinecure? 

Or do they try to weather the storm, as they tried to do, unsuccessfully, after this story broke a month ago?

In fact, there are extremely serious discussions going on right now behind closed doors in Saudi royal circles. 

Returning Brother

The gravity of the crisis facing the ruling al-Saud family can be gauged by the sudden return to Riyadh on Tuesday of Prince Ahmed bin Abdelaziz, the last surviving full brother of the 82-year old King Salman. 

What is interesting is that Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz, the last of the Sudairi Seven was convinced that MBS was out to get him for having criticized the war in Yemen and he was living in London in self-imposed exile.

Some view this as a challenge to MBS. And a power play for the throne.

MBS was one of the senior people who greeted him at the airport.

Clearly he is worried.

------------------------
UPDATE 2

Turkey's bombastic President Tayyip Erdogan came out with another accusation against MBS and brought Nato in.

In an op-ed published in the Washington Post, he maintained that while King Salman was unaware of the plot to kill Jamal Khashoggi, the order was given by the highest levels of Saudi government.

"We also know that those individuals came to carry out their orders: Kill Khashoggi and leave. Finally, we know that the order to kill Khashoggi came from the highest levels of the Saudi government."

If King Salman is out, this could only mean MBS.

And for good measure he added this:

"No one should dare to commit such acts on the soil of a Nato ally again," he said. "If anyone chooses to ignore that warning, they will face severe consequences."

That is clearly a hint to Trump, reminding him that what happened in Turkey should be seen in the larger context of Nato alliance.

According to the Washington Post, Egypt's President Al-Sisi and Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu lobbied the White House to protect MBS.

Curiously, Washington Post's editorial board brought Nato in as well to support their argument that MBS should be removed.

Mohammed bin Salman’s advocates argue that holding him accountable would risk turmoil. There is a fundamental illogic to this. The crown prince has already done much to destabilize the region, by leading a military intervention in Yemen, launching a boycott of Qatar and kidnapping the Lebanese prime minister. If he is allowed by the United States to get away with murdering a journalist inside a diplomatic facility in a NATO country, what will he be emboldened to do next — and what license will other dictators take, both in the Middle East and elsewhere?

And the silence from the White House and the State Department is deafening.

Khashoggi Case: How Foreign Investment Will be Affected?

In my last post, I expressed my incredulity about Khashoggi murder being just a botched Saudi operation.

There were too many unprecedented elements including the massive media attention and unusually strong reactions from Western leaders, including, the US Congress and with some delay, and some equivocation, The Orange Man.

All of which is unheard of.

Now Sir Richard Branson suspended investment talks with Saudi Arabia over the Khashoggi assassination.

In a statement, Sir Richard said: "What has reportedly happened in Turkey around the disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, if proved true, would clearly change the ability of any of us in the West to do business with the Saudi Government.

Note the "any of us in the West to do business with the Saudi Government" bit.

It's not just him, it's any of us.

When MBS imprisoned, selectively tortured and extorted money from his relatives or when he abducted and made disappear three royal princes in the last three years or when he persisted in killing hundreds of thousands of Yemenis to teach Iran a lesson, did any of these incidents affected the ability of "any of us in the West doing business with the Saudi Government?"

They did not.

How likely is it for Sir Richard to give up a cool billion dollars and jeopardize future investment opportunities in the Kingdom because Saudis murdered one of their citizens?

Remember, nobody even pressured Virgin or questioned this transaction. Nobody knew.

He volunteered it himself.

Can you remember another such incident where people gave up Saudi money because Saudi government did something terribly wrong?

Ever?

Me neither.

There is only one plausible explanation.

There is an expectation that MBS will be pressured to go as a result of this scandal (or rather because of the surprisingly concerted and effective Western reaction to it) and when that happens, those who helped the process by standing up to him will be rewarded.

That's my take. Tell me what else makes more sense.

One more thing.

The Turkish government is toying with MBS.

There is a drip, drip information leaking they undertake everyday. This time, they announced that they have a recording of Jamal Khashoggi being tortured and killed.

Once again, they did not share it with the media. They simply asserted that they have the recording.

Without knowing what they have Saudis are unable to issue specific denials.

More importantly, since these audio and video recordings would have to come from inside the consulate (his smartwatch wouldn't have video), meaning from Turkish intelligence assets working there, why would they expose them over a story like this?

Would they burn their assets for a murdered foreign journalist? Of course not.

It is as if they want to see what they can get from MBS to make the whole thing go away.

Maybe the price is Mohammed Bin Salman giving up his dreams of becoming the king.

We live in interesting times as I say frequently.

You know what? Since I went out on a limb with a theory no one even contemplates, let me put forth this additional speculation.

I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, we found out that Waleed Bin Talal was somehow associated with all this.

At least on the Western end of things.

Yeah, interesting and cynical times.
----------------
UPDATE:

I changed the title after finding out that Jim Kim, the head of the World Bank has pulled out of the Future Investment Initiative conference that is going to take place on 23 October in Riyadh. For now IMF chief Christine Lagarde and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin are still participating but this could change.

In the next few days, if more businesspeople follow the example of Sir Richard then we could safely assume that MBS is outmaneuvered and cornered. I don't think he will give up his position but he will be much weakened for his enemies to take him on without fear.

By the way, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres joined the chorus and called on the Saudis to come clean.

The pressure is mounting.
________
UPDATE 2

A former British foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, called for the removal of MBS and if that doesn't happen sanctions to punish Saudi Arabia.

“If the current crown prince remains in power for the indefinite future, then in the first instance the United Kingdom must work with the United States, France and other countries to see if there can be a combined response, a punishment of some kind, of sanctions of some kind."

Do you know who joined the "punish the Saudis" chorus a little later?

 In an interview with CBS News, Mr Trump said that, if true, the fact that a journalist was murdered was "terrible and disgusting".

"We're going to get to the bottom of it and there will be severe punishment," he said. "As of this moment, they deny it vehemently. Could it be them? Yes," he added.

As for the Davos of the Desert, the Guardian reports that, besides Sir Richard Branson, Viacom and Uber pulled out.

Moreover,

The Financial Times and CNN said they were pulling out as media sponsors, with all CNN’s anchors withdrawing from the event. Bloomberg also pulled out. 

The New York Times withdrew its sponsorship two days ago, prompting a string of withdrawals across the globe, including of Ariana Huffington, the LA Times owner, Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, and the CNBC anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin.

When Saudi Arabia realizes that they can put all this behind them by simply removing the Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman will be in trouble.

Especially now that Trump is not firmly on his side.

And Jared has no reason to be nice to him as Qatar took care of his mortgage problem.