yYAXssKCQaUWZcXZ79RJTBLvo-c;SfREtjZ9NYeQnnVMC-CsZ9qN6L0 Finance, Economics, Globus, Brokers, Banks, Collateral-Oriano Mattei

mercoledì 22 gennaio 2020

LETTERA APERTA ALLA SIGNORA RADMILA SAVICEVIC EX GENERAL MANAGER DI PODGORICKA BANKA MONTENEGRO............

Milano - Gentile signora Radmila Savicevic, noi non ci conosciamo, ma lei conosce perfettamente il mio nome e conosce altresì perfettamente la vicenda che mi vede fin dal lontano 1996 parte lesa nei confronti del Governo dello Stato del Montenegro e in compartecipazione con piena responsabilità della Podgorica Banka, della quale lei in quel periodo era in qualità di General Manager.
Come lei ben saprà, durante il processo civile a partire dal Marzo 1999 presso il tribunale civile di Zurigo, dove vedeva la mia persona ottenere un sequestro conservativo nei confronti della Podgoricka Banka e nei confronti del Governo del Montenegro, lei leggendo la sentenza del citato sequestro, si sarebbe presentata o avrebbe inviato una dichiarazione all'avvocato Andres Baumgartner del foro di Zurigo, avvocato che difendeva le parti in causa, nella quale lei dichiara di non avere mai conosciuto e nemmeno parlato telefonicamente l'avvocato Anthony Apap Bologna.

Inoltre, lei dichiarava che i documenti dove era apposta la sua firma e timbro della Podgorica Banka, sarebbero firme false, in quanto lei dichiarava di essere completamente all'oscuro di tutto.

Cara signora Savicevic, la cosa sembra alquanto strana, anche perché io personalmente ho conosciuto l'allora Ministro degli Esteri Janko Jeknic e proprio il ministro alla presenza del signor Giancarlo Sironi, che lei naturalmente non conosce e mai ha sentito nominare detto nome, dichiarava che le 3 garanzie bancarie che sono il contendere da anni, erano state da lei AVALLATE e che la lettera che riporto nell'articolo, era lettera da lei inviata all'avvocato Anthony Apap Bologna.

Naturalmente lei non sapeva nemmeno che, i ministri di allora e mi riferisco al ministro degli Esteri Janko Jeknic e Ministro delle finanze Predrag Goranovic, avevano firmato MANDATO FIDUCIARIO in nome e per conto del Governo del Montenegro in favore dell'avvocato Anthony Apap Bologna.

Inoltre cara signora Savicevic, lei non era al corrente che il mandatario del governo del Montenegro avvocato Anthony Apap Bologna, riceveva per conto del Montenegro titoli finanziari per l'ammontare totale di oltre 1 miliardo di dollari americani.

Mi scusi signora Savicevic, ma almeno lei era al corrente che la Podgorica Banka negli anni novanta, aveva conti correnti aperti presso UBS BANK ZURICH????

Lei in quegli anni era praticamente GENERAL MANAGER di PODGORICKA BANKA e non mi dica che non ne era al corrente.

Signora Savicevic, lei deve sapere che tutti i documenti depositati dai miei legali durante il processo civile in Zurigo, erano tutti documenti ufficiali e con tanto di timbro notarile, mentre gran parte dei documenti depositati sia dal Governo del Montenegro e sia da singoli soggetti montenegrini, sono ed erano documenti privi di timbri notarili e pertanto il giudice li aveva ritenuti inutili e privi di fondamenta.

Qui di seguito signora Savicevic, invio una piccola parte della sentenza dove proprio il signor Giancarlo Sironi, fa una dichiarazione davanti a un notaio svizzero e dichiara :

A riguardo il contestatore dell'opposizione consegna uno scritto notarile autenticato di Giancarlo Sironi del 6ottobre 1999 (act. 61/21) in cui quest'ultimo dichiara che le “Guarantees” sarebbero state redatte dallaopponente, da lei valutate e firmate dal ministro degli esteri Janko Jeknic alla presenza sua così come diAnthony Apap Bologna (“Le garanzie furono fatte arrivare dalla Podgorica Bank di Pdgorica Montenegro,avallate dalla stessa e firmate per conto del governo del Montenegro dal ministro degli esteri Janko Jeknic inpresenza dello scrivente Sironi Giancarlo e dell'avv. A. Apap Bologna.”). Giancarlo Sironi – così il contestatore dell'opposizione – sarebbe stato ingaggiato dal ministro degli esteri Jeknic con il fine di trovare nuove fonti di finanziamento (act. 60 pag. 2).


Inoltre signora Savicevic, la prego di trovare un attimo del suo tempo prezioso e si legga la lettera che la signora Dusanka Jkenic (non mi dica che non la conosce), scrive al suo attuale presidente Milo Djukanovic e forse forse, qualcosa di poco chiaro è stato dichiarato durante il processo civile presso il Tribunale di Zurigo.

Per finire cara signora Savicevic, tutti gli addetti ai lavori di quel periodo, sapevano perfettamente che la Podgoricka Banka dove lei fungeva da General Manager, era in effetti la banca privata dei ministri e sopratutto dell'allora premier Milo Djukanovic.


Se lei non sapeva niente cara signora Savicevic, beh allora mi domando quali mansioni avesse lei in quel periodo in Podgorica Banka, perché ripeto che in vari incontri che io ebbi con il Ministro degli Esteri Janko Jeknic alla presenza del signor Giancarlo Sironi, il ministro dichiarava apertamente che la Podgorica Banka era sotto il totale controllo del premier Milo Djukanovic e visto che Janko Jeknic purtroppo è passato ad altra vita, Predrag Goranovic che io sappia è vivo e vegeto, come lo è ancora la signora Duska Jeknic, la quale sa perfettamente tutto quello che è successo, come sa perfettamente che le tre garanzie in oggetto, erano e sono tutto VERE, CERTE E REALI.......

Un caro saluto non mi aspetto certo nessuna sua risposta, in quanto oramai ho capito perfettamente che il suo padrone ha dato il divieto assoluto di rispondere alle mie pubblicazioni, e quando il vostro padrone da un ordine, voi scattate tutti in piedi come dei soldatini.......



                                                                                                                      ORIANO MATTEI

martedì 21 gennaio 2020

IMPEACHMENT DONALD TRUMP...........



Washington, DC - The impeachment trial of United States President Donald Trump is set to begin in earnest on Tuesday as Senate Republicans and Democrats remain divided over the law and important procedural issues.........

Trump listens as Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt speaks on proposed changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, at the White House [Evan Vucci/AP Photo]
Trump listens as Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt speaks on proposed changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, at the White House [Evan Vucci/AP Photo]
Washington, DC - The impeachment trial of United States President Donald Trump is set to begin in earnest on Tuesday as Senate Republicans and Democrats remain divided over the law and important procedural issues.
The first business to be addressed is a resolution on the rules that govern the trial. Late on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell presented his resolution, which would allow House managers, who work as prosecutors, up to 24 hours over the course of two days to present their case. Trump's defence team would have the same amount of time. The arguments would be followed by 16 hours for questions and answers from senators and then four hours of debate.
Democrats rejected the proposal, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, calling it a "national disgrace".
"It's clear Senator McConnell is hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses and documents and intent on rushing the trial through," Schumer said on Monday "On something as important as impeachment, Senator McConnell's resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace." He promised to propose amendments to the resolution, but with Republicans holding a 53-47 majority, their preferred rules package is expected to pass. 

Trump's team urges Senate to reject articles

Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives last month for abuse of power related to his dealings with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress for refusing to participate in the impeachment inquiry. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and labelled the impeachment trial a "hoax". He is in the Swiss city of Davos this week for an annual four-day gathering of the World Economic Forum. 
The president's lawyers on Monday filed a memorandum, arguing the articles of impeachment should be rejected as "an affront to the Constitution and our democratic institutions".
"The Articles themselves - and the rigged process that brought them here - are a brazenly political act by House Democrats that must be rejected," the lawyers said, adding that Trump did not break any laws in his dealings with Ukraine.
Trump impeachment
In this image from video, Majority Leader Senate Mitch McConnell speaks as the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump begins in the Senate at the US Capitol in Washington, DC [Senate Television/AP Photo]
House Democrats accuse Trump of abusing his power in office by orchestrating a pressure campaign to get Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading Democratic political rival, as well as launch a probe into a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 presidential elections.
The House impeachment investigation centred on a whistle-blower complaint in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the investigation into Biden and his son, Hunter, who had served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.
At the time of the call, the Trump administration was withholding nearly $400m in congressional-approved military assistance to Ukraine.

Witnesses?

In a written response to the Senate on Monday, the House managers, led by Democrat Adam Schiff, said the arguments being made by Trump's defence team are faulty.
"President Trump maintains that the Senate cannot remove him even if the House proves every claim in the Articles of impeachment. That is a chilling assertion. It is also dead wrong," the House managers said in an eight-page letter.
"The Framers deliberately drafted a Constitution that allows the Senate to remove Presidents who, like President Trump, abuse their power to cheat in elections, betray our national security, and ignore checks and balances," the letter said.
impeachment trial
In this image from video, Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger introduces the House impeachment managers on the Senate floor as the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump begins in the Senate at the Capitol in Washington, DC [Senate Television/AP Photo]
Democrats are pushing Republicans to allow the Senate to call witnesses in the trial, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.
Democrats may also seek testimony from Lev Parnas, a former associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who has provided House investigators with emails and texts showing the extent of Parnas's role in the campaign to pressure Zelenskyy.
Under McConnell's rules proposal, the question of witnesses would not be addressed until after opening arguments and the question-answer session. 

Rare, serious event

The Senate trial is unlikely to lead to Trump's removal, as no Republican senators have voiced support for convicting the president.
A new CNN poll, conducted last week, suggested that 51 percent of Americans want the Senate to convict the president. About 45 percent said they do not want to see the president removed from office. But public sentiment is sharply divided along partisan lines, with 89 percent of Democrats supporting a conviction, and 89 percent of Republicans opposing it.
The trial also comes just weeks before the first voting event of the 2020 presidential primary and caucus season. Four Democrats vying for their party's nomination will be forced off the campaign trail and in the Senate during the trial. 
Senate impeachment
Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts swears in senators during the procedural start of the Senate impeachment trial of US President Donald Trump in this frame grab from video shot in the Senate Chamber at the US Capitol [US Senate TV/Handout/Reuters] 
Although the Republican-led Senate is expected to acquit Trump, the trial marks a rare, sombre event, highlighting the deep divisions of the country. That seriousness was echoed throughout the Senate chamber last week as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who presides over the trial, swore the senators in as jurors.
Trump is only the third US president in history to face a trial. No president has ever been removed from office.

di  &  per "aljazeera.com"

The Greens are the extended arm of the United States in the German Bundestag. This has been demonstrated again and again, most recently on the subject of fracking gas. In the interest of environmental protection, they should refuse to buy this dirty gas. But as “Friends of the USA” they keep coming up with something to enable the sale of this over-priced gas in Germany and Europe......

Germany’s Greens Are Not Green – They Are Stars And Stripes

Chair of Die Linke Party comments on Frack-gas, Nordstream II and German politics

Green Party wants costly US Fracked gas to spite Russia
The Greens and the Fracking Gas
The Greens are the extended arm of the United States in the German Bundestag. This has been demonstrated again and again, most recently on the subject of fracking gas. In the interest of environmental protection, they should refuse to buy this dirty gas. But as “Friends of the USA” they keep coming up with something to enable the sale of this over-priced gas in Germany and Europe.
Now the green co-chair Annalena Baerbock has come up with something new. We have “a considerable amount of leverage in our hands with the Russian Nordstream 2 pretige project,” she says, “to bring Putin to reason.” After all, the Russians supported the bombing of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in the Idlib region.
Why not leverage on the US?
The jihadists armed by the United States and their Arab friends have settled there. It is striking that Annalena Baerbock and many Greens see no leverage in the “US Prestige Fracking Gas Project” against the US bombardments in several countries and their drone wars that violates international law. Despite styling themselves as a “human rights party”, they repeatedly refuse to pillory the state which is responsible for most human rights violations with their arms deliveries, trade wars, covert wars, drone wars and bomb wars terrorizing the world.
Baerbock is in the tradition of Joschka Fischer, who played a major role in Germany’s participation in the Yugoslavia war that violated international law. He is now Senior Strategic Counsel for the advisory firm of Madelaine Albright, the former Secretary of State who believes that the US sanctions against Iraq, that resulted in the death of 500,000 children, were “worth the price”.
So far, Baerbock has only become a member of the German Marshall Fund and the transatlantic advisory board of the US-friendly Heinrich Böll Foundation – but it is only just beginning.


di Tom Winter per "fort-russ.com"

When the US began its military adventure in Iraq in 2003, many Western scholars noted that Washington’s unilateral aggression was leading to a rethinking of international processes, as well as the legitimisation and institutionalisation of multipolar thinking. There were various analyses of these events, from concepts of using force to ideology........

SAVIN: Iraq – A Multipolar Restart

By Leonid Savin for Oriental Review

US President George W. Bush meets pilots and crew members of the aircraft carrier USS Abrahan Lincoln as they return to the US after being deployed in the Gulf region 01 May 2003. President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier which is scheduled to dock in San Diego 02 May. Bush in a speech to be delivered from the ship is expected to tout Saddam Hussein's ouster as "a crucial advance" in the war on terrorism but warned "difficult work" lies ahead in that campaign and in Iraq. AFP PHOTO / HECTOR MATA (Photo credit should read HECTOR MATA/AFP/Getty Images)
When the US began its military adventure in Iraq in 2003, many Western scholars noted that Washington’s unilateral aggression was leading to a rethinking of international processes, as well as the legitimisation and institutionalisation of multipolar thinking. There were various analyses of these events, from concepts of using force to ideology.
Criticising America’s actions in the Middle East, for example, the Asia Times noted, “This war is a self-destructive cancer growing inside US neo-imperialism.”
While considering that the Bush administration was making a serious mistake with its Iraq campaign, Immanuel Wallerstein saw more serious reasons behind the decline of American strength associated with a change in the world-system[1].
Clifford Kiracofe, a former senior staff member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, blamed the distortion of US foreign policy on George W Bush and his entourage.
In his view, the Bush administration’s mistake was disrupting US continuity in international affairs. One of the most well-known authorities in the field of international relations and diplomacy, John Bassett Moore, wrote that, “American statesmen sought to regulate the relations of nations by law, not only as a measure for the protection of the weak against the aggressions of the strong, but also as the only means of assuring the peace of the world.”[2] But George W Bush used Nazi Germany’s concept of Machtpolitik, which led to an imbalance of power in the world.
Thus, the US neocons that had a great deal of influence in the White House and the US State Department in the early 2000s were often compared to Hitler’s Nazis.
The Bush
Former Vice President Joe Biden (left) and National Constitution Center Committee Chairman Doug DeVos (right) present former President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush with the 2018 Liberty Medal during ceremonies at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on November 11, 2018.
But most revealing of all in 2003 was the decision by America’s European allies (except the UK) to refuse support for US aggression against Iraq. Europe’s resistance was led by France and Germany.
It goes without saying that Russia was also opposed to America’s unjustified military intervention, which killed millions of Iraqi civilians and sowed the seeds for a new kind of terrorism that later evolved into ISIS.
Commenting on the Iraqi crisis in an interview on French television in February 2003, Vladimir Putin noted: “if we want the world to be more predictable, more prognosticated, and then safer, it has to be multipolar, and all the participants of international intercourse have to abide by certain rules, namely, the rules of international law.”
Now, the US has done virtually the same thing again by using military drones to kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, one of the leaders of Iraq’s Shi’ite militia, and several others. Some believe it to be a fatal error by Donald Trump, who is unknowingly being taken advantage of by America’s warmongering Iranophobes. Others see it as an act of provocation in the interests of Israel. And there are other conspiracy theories.
More alarming, however, are the possible scenarios for the region and for the world as a whole. Depending on how the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies, including the Hezbollah network in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, choose to respond, the estimated consequences range from a limited armed conflict in the region to World War Three.
A possible scenario that may be the best option for regional security, however, is to change the foreign policy agenda of a number of countries and create a strategic alliance. In other words, using the situation to step up the establishment of a polycentric world order, seeing as the US has become an unwelcome partner not just in the Middle East, but in most of Eurasia. The US-led world order has been demonised by members of the US establishment themselves. And the numerous protests against war with Iran, as well as the speeches by US politicians condemning the political assassination, testify to an emerging new wave of political crisis within the United States.
The first steps have already been taken.
The Iraqi parliament voted in favour of the withdrawal of US troops from the country and an investigation into the targeted murder of Iraqi and Iranian citizens by Americans. Other countries need to support this initiative, despite the threat of harsh sanctions coming from America. Russia, Iran, Turkey and Syria could undertake specific commitments in support of Iraq and put the necessary pressure on neighbouring Jordan. The involvement of China and other Asian countries, particularly Muslim ones, could also help shift the balance of power towards multipolarity and portray the US in a negative light, since the principle of diplomatic immunity has been violated.
An important factor in Iraq will be the decision of the Kurds in the north of the country, since they once provided a support base for the US against the regime of Saddam Hussein. But after Trump’s cynical decision, which the Kurds regarded as an act of betrayal, it’s unlikely that Washington will be able to take advantage of Erbil quite so easily this time. Russia has some political clout in the eyes of the Kurds, among other things because it has various ways of influencing Turkey on the Kurdish issue.
US embassy in Iraq
U.S. troops fired tear gas on January 1, 2020 to disperse protesters who were gathered outside the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad for a second day.
As well as its military response to the murder of Soleimani, Iran also reached a political decision – to withdraw from the nuclear agreement once and for all. This could give the West an incentive for further escalation. Iran’s partners could also play an important role in preventing any aggressive US actions against the country.
It is telling that Pakistan has officially declared it will not allow the US or any other country to use its territory or assist with military operations against another country, thereby pre-empting speculation about the country’s role in a possible conflict. Qatar has also rejected the possibility of its territory being used.
The US is hurriedly looking to other NATO countries for support, but given how Trump used to troll NATO in an effort to drag its members into a new venture, the US will have to pay a high price. Turkey is a key player in this regard, but if Ankara refused to lend its support to the US in 2003, the chances of it doing so in 2020 are slim.
One also needs to understand that Americans are still under attack in Afghanistan and a number of other countries, where their presence leads to backlashes.
Incidentally, after the Somali al Shabaab group successfully attacked a US military base in Kenya, killing at least three Americans and destroying flight and ground equipment, both Donald Trump and the US State Department remained deathly silent. As if it wasn’t Americans who were killed and it hadn’t been a terrorist attack. Earlier, the White House had officially declared in a statement that, “Qasem Soleimani is terrorist number one”, but it did not provide a scrap of evidence to justify this. Why such a selective approach to the regions and the choice of targets? It is obvious that the US was not particularly concerned about the actions of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which was led by the late General Soleimani.
At the same time, the US is using its fight against terrorism as official justification for its presence in the Horn of Africa. But why, then, did it allow militants from neighbouring Somalia to cross freely into Kenya and blow up six aircraft, including a twin-engine turboprop aircraft configured for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions and equipped with multi-sensor platforms? The material losses suffered as a result amount to tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars, while the benefit of using such technology and the effectiveness of US intelligence and special forces are reduced to zero, since the attack could not be prevented.
Apparently, America’s real objectives in East Africa were completely different and the fight against terrorism is just a cover for other activities, including the establishment of military and political control over the region. Could these objectives have something to do with current events in the Middle East, perhaps?

di Leonid Savid per "fort-russ.com"

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “applauded” Colombia’s President Ivan Duque‘s response to anti-government protests on Monday despite mass reports of human rights violations........

Pompeo ‘Applauds’ Colombia’s Violent Response To Peaceful Protests


US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “applauded” Colombia’s President Ivan Duque‘s response to anti-government protests on Monday despite mass reports of human rights violations.
Pompeo made the controversial statement during a visit to the South American country where he will attend a regional anti-terrorism summit and meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido.
During a joint press conference with Duque, Pompeo said “we applaud the way Colombia responded to the demonstrations, with professionalism, respect for human dignity and calling for national dialogue.”
Our commitment is to respect human rights and the rule of law. We applaud the way Colombia responded to the demonstrations, with professionalism, respect for human dignity, calling for national dialogue.
United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Authorities’ attempts to violently suppress the largely peaceful protests killed at least three people and injured hundreds.
According to the Committee for Political Prisoners, more than 1,000 peaceful protesters were unlawfully arrested.
The Foundation of the Freedom of Press FLIP additionally additionally reported the unlawful arrest of dozens of journalists trying to cover the protests, claiming “no similar situation has occurred in FLIP’s recent records.”
As the protests began in November, US ambassador Philip Goldberg was among the first to defend the peaceful nature of the protesters, countering the Colombian president’s attempts to stigmatize them as “vandals.”
The international pressure helped curb the human rights violations and the protests proceeded peacefully.
Days later, however, Pompeo endorsed Duque after which police violence against peaceful protests spiked again.
The United Nations Human Rights Office is expected to release its annual report on Colombia in February, in which it reportedly will say that the police “would have violated international norms and standards relating to the use of force” during the protests.


di Adriaan Alsema per "fort-russ.com"

sabato 18 gennaio 2020

A coalition of 13 states, New York City and Washington DC are suing the Trump administration over new restrictions for food stamp benefits for unemployed Americans – a measure they say could disqualify nearly 700,000 from federal food assistance......


The Snap program, launched in 1977, uses federal dollars to provide millions of low-income Americans with help buying groceries.
 The Snap program, launched in 1977, uses federal dollars to provide millions of low-income Americans with help buying groceries. Photograph: Lucas Jackson/Reuters
A coalition of 13 states, New York City and Washington DC are suing the Trump administration over new restrictions for food stamp benefits for unemployed Americans – a measure they say could disqualify nearly 700,000 from federal food assistance.
The new rule, introduced in December, would eliminate states’ discretion to waive work requirements in distressed economic areas, saving the federal government $5.5bn in spending over five years.
The lawsuit is the latest pushback by Democratic states against the Trump administration, as opponents criticize the president for what they say are proposed changes that target the poor, unemployed and those in large metropolitan areas.
In the suit, filed on Thursday, states say that by limiting their discretion, the new rule would actually terminate “essential food assistance for benefits recipients who live in areas with insufficient jobs”.
The coalition includes states like Oregon, Nevada, Minnesota and more areas hit hard by economic decline and job scarcity. The suit claims cuts to food stamps benefits, known as the Snap program, would burden states with new administrative and economic costs from “the negative health effects of malnutrition and instability”.
They argue the administration adopted the cuts despite no evidence of a need, or any research on current labor market conditions – potentially affecting 688,000 to 850,000 adults without children.
“States are in the best position to evaluate local economic circumstances and to determine where there are insufficient job opportunities such that work requirements would be ineffective,” the suit says.
In December, the agriculture secretary, Sonny Perdue, insisted the new restrictions would begin the “groundwork for the expectation that able-bodied Americans re-enter the workforce where there are currently more job openings than people to fill them”.
“We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand,” he said.
New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, and the District of Columbia attorney general, Karl Racine, co-lead the lawsuit. In a statement, James said restrictions to Snap benefits would push “already vulnerable Americans into greater economic uncertainty”.
“The federal government’s latest assault on vulnerable individuals is cruel to its core,” he said.
The Snap program, first launched in 1977, uses federal dollars to provide millions of low-income Americans with food assistance, aimed at reducing food insecurity. States operate the program, splitting the cost of administering it with the federal government. The federal government pays the full cost of Snap benefits to recipients.
James adds that the restrictions will force states “to grapple with rising healthcare and homelessness costs” that could result from a “shortsighted and ill-conceived policy”.
The new restrictions were first announced as Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill, a federal relief for distressed farmers, that included stricter work requirements. Those requirements were ultimately dropped.

di  per "theguardian.com"