Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Thoughts And Prayers For All The GOP Lawmakers Concerned About Trump’s Behavior

But will all these members of Congress actually do anything to check Trump?


Go to Original
By Amanda Terkel

After The Washington Post published its explosive report that President Donald Trumprecently disclosed “highly classified” information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, politicians in Washington did what they usually do in reacting to serious matters: They said they were troubled and concerned and then went about their way.
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) said the news was “deeply concerning,” and he will raise it when the House Intelligence Committee meets.  
“I would be concerned anytime we’re discussing sensitive subjects with the Russians,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). 
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) similarly said the revelations were “deeply disturbing,” while Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told the White House to get its act together: “The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order. It’s got to happen.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said he wants a “full explanation” from the administration of what Trump disclosed, while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would simply like “a little less drama from the White House on a lot of things so that we can focus on our agenda.”
None of them offered ways in which they’ll be a check and balance against Trump.
Lawmakers in Trump’s party largely reacted the same way when Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said he was “troubled” by the timing of the firing, which came as the FBI is investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 elections ― and whether there was any collusion with Trump’s campaign. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) went a step further and called Comey’s dismissal “very troubling.” Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) called for “a transparent explanation as to how this decision was reached and why it was executed at this time.”
Those lawmakers were some of the most critical of what Trump did; others defended his decision. Most Republican lawmakers ― even those who don’t like that Comey was fired ― still don’t think it’s necessary to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Russia and the 2016 election. 
On Tuesday, when The New York Times reported that Trump pressed Comey to end the FBI’s investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn and his contacts with Russian officials, Burr ― who is chair of the Intelligence Committee and has subpoena power ― threw his hands up in the air and said it was the media’s job to hold Trump accountable. 
Members of Congress have always been great at putting out strongly worded statements. They’re also quick to issue thoughts and prayers after a national tragedy. But they’ve never been as good at actually using their power to take action, especially when it means punitive action against a member of their own party. 
The proper handling of classified information is something the Republicans have been deeply concerned about for quite some time. Some were, after all, willing to go so far as to say Hillary Clinton should be impeached if she became president because of the way she handled classified information by setting up a private email server as secretary of state. (The FBI cleared her of wrongdoing.)
In July, Ryan called on the director of national intelligence to refrain from giving Clinton classified briefings during the campaign.
In October 2015, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said Clinton ― who had not yet even won the Democratic nomination ― would be a “unique president...because the day she’s sworn in is the day that she’s subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.” He questioned “how many lives she put at risk by violating all rules of law that are designed to protect America’s top-secret and classified information from falling into the hands of our geopolitical foes.”
Brooks, however, was less gung-ho about going after Trump Tuesday, saying that it didn’t appear the president violated any laws. 
“That’s a distinction” between the Clinton and Trump situations, he told HuffPost. “If that changes, then let me see what the change is.”
He eventually acknowledged it could be “worrisome” if Trump shared highly classified information with the Russians that could reveal sensitive sources critical in the fight against terrorists. 
“If it’s true [it’s worrisome]. If it’s not true, it’s not worrisome,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s true or not.”
And in the end, if nothing else works, there are always thoughts and prayers.
“I have put more time in prayer than perhaps I had before,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Monday. “There is nothing about how [Trump] conducted the campaign or his actions in the first few months that would give me hope, but that is what faith after all is, is the triumph of hope over experience.”

Why the Comey memo could be so explosive for Trump

Go to Original
By 



A memo in which former FBI Director James B. Comey says President Trump asked him to shut down a criminal investigation of former national security advisor Michael Flynn is likely to emerge as a key piece of evidence in the case, legal experts say.
During a Feb. 14 meeting in the Oval Office, the president urged Comey to “let this go,” according to a memo Comey wrote afterward. An associate of Comey who had read the memo described its contents to the Los Angeles Times. News of the memo was first reported by the New York Times.
Flynn had been fired one day before the purported conversation between Trump and Comey for misleading White House officials about the nature and extent of his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States. Last week, Trump fired Comey.

Why the memo is important

If Comey were called to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has launched one of several investigations into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, the existence of the memo could lend credence to any testimony he gave, said Richard Drooyan, a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.
“That memo is significant because it predates him being fired and it basically precludes anybody from making the claim that he’s testifying about that situation because he was fired,” Drooyan said.
The White House denied that Trump asked Comey to end the Flynn investigation.

Why Comey would write the memo

Drooyan said it was not unusual for FBI officials to document meetings with people connected to high-profile investigations.
“It’s not surprising to me at all that Comey would have memorialized a conversation like that if he felt that the president was potentially trying to influence him in the conducting of that investigation,” Drooyan said.
The Senate Intelligence Committee could subpoena the memo, according to Drooyan, who said the document might be exempt from rules governing hearsay if it was found to be a “public record” that detailed FBI activities.
“It’s arguably a memo that sets out the office’s activities, namely what Comey was doing having a conversation with the president,” Drooyan said.
Members of the House Intelligence and Oversight committees suggested on Tuesday they would seek to subpoena the memo.

How could Trump try to blunt the memo

Trump could claim executive privilege to block a subpoena of the memo, but he would be unlikely to succeed, Drooyan said.
“The only issue is sometimes presidents do claim executive privilege of communications with their subordinates,” Drooyan said. “In U.S. vs. Nixon, a court clearly ordered the president to turn over tape recordings that he had with his closer aides…. I don’t see any reason why this would not be subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee.”
The veracity of Comey’s recollection of the meeting could be called into question, according to Eugene O’Donnell, a former New York prosecutor who is now a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
“Then you get into an issue like how precise his documentation was. Did he exactly write word for word what the president said?” O’Donnell asked.

Do Trump’s alleged actions amount to a crime?

Determining whether or not Trump’s comments constitute an effort to obstruct or impede an FBI investigation is complicated. The federal criminal statute for obstruction of justice requires prosecutors to prove someone “acted with a corrupt intent to influence, intimidate or impede an investigation,” according to Drooyan.
That conduct must happen in conjunction with “some type of criminal proceeding,” such as a grand jury investigation or the issuing of subpoenas. A federal grand jury in Virginia issued subpoenas for records related to Flynn in recent weeks, but the conversation between Trump and Comey took place before those subpoenas were issued.
“That’s a tricky statute,” O’Donnell said. “Was it intentional? Was it his conscious objective to thwart the investigation? Could you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?”

Immigrants in Detention Centers Are Often Hundreds of Miles From Legal Help

Only a tiny percentage of detained immigrants have attorneys, leaving even those with solid cases to stay in the United States to fend for themselves.

Go to Original
By  Patrick G. Lee

One morning in February, lawyer Marty Rosenbluth set off from his Hillsborough, North Carolina, home to represent two anxious clients in court. He drove about eight hours southwest, spent the night in a hotel and then got up around 6 a.m. to make the final 40-minute push to his destination: a federal immigration court and detention center in the tiny rural Georgia town of Lumpkin.
During two brief hearings over two days, Rosenbluth said, he convinced an immigration judge to grant both of his new clients more time to assess their legal options to stay in the United States. Then he got in his car and drove the 513 miles back home.
“Without an attorney, it’s almost impossible to win your case in the immigration courts. You don’t even really know what to say or what the standards are,” said Rosenbluth, who works for a private law firm and took on the cases for a fee. “You may have a really, really good case. But you simply can’t package it in a way that the court can understand.”
His clients that day were lucky. Only 6 percent of the men held at the Lumpkin complex — a 2,001-bed detention center and immigration court — have legal representation, according to a 2015 study in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Nationwide, it’s not much better, the study of data from October 2006 to September 2012 found: Just 14 percent of detainees have lawyers.
That percentage is likely to get even smaller under the Trump administration, which has identified 21,000 potential new detention beds to add to the approximately 40,000 currently in use. In January, President Trump signed an executive order telling the secretary of homeland security, who oversees the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, to “immediately” start signing contracts for detention centers and building new ones.
If history is any guide, many of those facilities will end up in places like Lumpkin, population 2,741. The city’s small downtown has a courthouse, the police department, a couple of restaurants and a Dollar General. There’s no hotel and many of the nearest immigration lawyers are based 140 miles away in Atlanta.
“It’s been a strategic move by ICE to construct detention centers in rural areas,” said Amy Fischer, policy director for RAICES, a San Antonio-based nonprofit that supports on-site legal aid programs at two Texas facilities for detained families. “Even if the money is there, it’s very difficult to set up a pro bono network when you’re geographically three hours away from a big city.”
ICE currently oversees a network of about 200 facilities, jails, processing centers and former prisons where immigrants can be held, according to a government list from February.
Unlike criminal defendants, most immigrants in deportation proceedings are not entitled to government-appointed lawyers because their cases are deemed civil matters. Far from free legal help and with scant financial resources, the majority of detainees take their chances solo, facing off against federal lawyers before judges saddled with full dockets of cases. Frequently they must use interpreters.
An ICE spokesman denied that detention facilities are purposely opened in remote locations to limit attorney access. “Any kind of detention center, due to zoning and other factors, they are typically placed in the outskirts of a downtown area,” said spokesman Bryan Cox. “ICE is very supportive and very accommodating in terms of individuals who wish to have representation and ensuring that they have the adequate ability to do so.” At Lumpkin’s Stewart Detention Center, for instance, lawyers can schedule hourlong video teleconferences with detainees, Cox said.
But a ProPublica review found that access to free or low-cost legal counsel was limited at many centers. Government-funded orientation programs, which exist at a few dozen detention locations, typically include self-help workshops, group presentations on the immigration court process, brief one-on-one consultations and pro bono referrals, but they stop short of providing direct legal representation. And a list of pro bono legal service providers distributed by the courts includes many who don’t take the cases of detainees at all. Those that do can often only take a limited number — perhaps five to 10 cases at a time.
The legal help makes a difference. Across the country, 21 percent of detained immigrants who had lawyers won their deportation cases, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review study found, compared to just 2 percent of detainees without a lawyer. The study also found that 48 percent of detainees who had lawyers were released from detention while their cases were pending, compared to 7 percent of those who lacked lawyers.
Legal counsel can also speed up the process for those detainees with no viable claims to stay in the country, experts said. A discussion with a lawyer might prompt the detainee to cut his losses and opt for voluntary departure, avoiding a pointless legal fight and the taxpayer-funded costs of detention.
Lawmakers in some states, such as New York and California, have stepped in to help, pledging taxpayer money toward providing lawyers for immigrants who can’t afford their own. But such help only aids those detainees whose deportation cases are assigned to courts in those areas.
“What brings good results is access to family and access to counsel and access to evidence, and when you’re in a far off location without those things, the likelihood of ICE winning and the person being denied due process increase dramatically,” said Conor Gleason, an immigration attorney at The Bronx Defenders in New York.
Romniel, who asked that his last name not be used for privacy reasons, said he quickly could have lost everything without a lawyer.
A native of the Dominican Republic and a U.S. green card holder, Romniel, 53, was picked up by ICE agents during an early morning raid at his New York home in 2015. He was sent to the Hudson County Correctional Facility in Kearny, New Jersey.
“It was like a nightmare,” Romniel said in Spanish during an interview. “It’s very important to have a lawyer to defend yourself, because I didn’t know anything about immigration law. I didn’t know what was happening to me.”
Gleason, who was paid by a local government program to assist Romniel, tracked down 17 years of his tax records, compiled 21 letters of support from family and community members, coordinated a psychosocial evaluation by a social worker and submitted research on the harsh treatment of deportees sent back to the Dominican Republic. In court, Gleason argued that Romniel’s positive contributions to society –— his full-time employment as a maintenance and security person, his consistent payment of taxes, his family ties — outweighed the harm of a single drug conviction from several years earlier.
After more than four months in detention, an immigration judge ruled in Romniel’s favor, allowing him to return to his family in New York. In September, he became a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Advocates and lawyers for immigrants worry such happy endings will become even more uncommon as detentions ramp up.
Saba Ahmed, a staff lawyer at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition in Washington, D.C., said a detainee she recently advised, a middle-aged man with a green card, was scooped up and sent to a Maryland detention facility in March because ICE agents wrongly believed he was a convicted robber — making him eligible for deportation.
When Ahmed met the man during a visit to the detention center about two weeks later, she realized that the government had meant to pick up someone else with the same name, and she helped secure his release.
“He didn’t have access to do an online search to prove it wasn’t him,” Ahmed said. “All he could say was, ‘It’s not me.’ You can’t just go on Google. You don’t have smartphones. There’s really no access.”
Immigrants, even those with the proper papers, can get locked up by ICE for a variety of reasons. Some are detained soon after crossing the border; others come to ICE’s attention after an arrest (whether or not they’re convicted of a crime). Federal agents have also swept up undocumented people in the proximity of raids targeting a specific person. Others have shown up for a scheduled check-in with ICE and are taken into custody instead.
Once in detention, even those with strong cases are at a disadvantage. Phone calls from inside the facilities can be expensive, lawyers said, limiting detainees’ contact with people who can help with their cases, such as community members for letters of support or officials who can send them corroborating records.
Many detention centers have law libraries with outdated materials. Without updated resources, detainees can’t research the current conditions in their countries of origin, which can be a crucial component of their defense if they fear violence or persecution there, lawyers said.
And even if they don’t speak English, all detainees without lawyers must compile their own legal documents and get them translated into English, a requirement for all paperwork submitted to immigration courts. Individuals must find translators on their own, attorneys said, and they sometimes rely on fellow detainees who know more English to help fill out forms.
Emory University School of Law adjunct professor Shana Tabak, who works with law students to represent immigrants facing deportation, said she typically puts together asylum packages of at least 200 pages containing documentary evidence, affidavits, testimony and expert opinions. “There’s no way a client who is detained and who does not have an attorney could put together that sort of evidence in order to advocate for him or herself and successfully win an asylum claim,” she said.
Perhaps as a result, 32 percent of detained immigrants with lawyers apply for asylum or other legal protections from deportation, whereas only 3 percent of detainees without lawyers do the same, according to the University of Pennsylvania Law Review study.
Ahmed, who has been working with detainees for 2 1/2 years, said some immigrants don’t realize that their life circumstances may qualify them for legal relief.
One man from El Salvador, she said, initially told her that he’d fled to the United States after gang members threatened to kill him if he didn’t give them money. After a few meetings, the man revealed he’d been thrown out of his family’s home because he was gay and had been repeatedly sexually abused by gang members.
“This is someone who had been persecuted and feared for his life, and would not have been able to avail himself of asylum if someone had not explained, ‘This is how asylum works,’ and then represented him,” Ahmed said.
After about five months in detention, she said, the man won his asylum case last October.
But even when detainees are linked up with attorneys, the geography of the detention system can make representing them challenging.
Arcenio, who asked that his last name not be used, was picked up in February and sent to Boone County Jail in Burlington, Kentucky, said Ted Farrell, his Louisville-based lawyer. He had a prior deportation order on his record and said he was fleeing death threats from Guatemalan gang members who opposed his political views. Farrell wanted to make sure that the 41-year-old would get the right kind of interview with the asylum office and that he would have time to prepare him for it over the phone.
But after five days in detention, Farrell said, Arcenio was sent to a facility in Brazil, Indiana. Farrell made an appointment to talk with him there, but on the day it was scheduled, he was transferred to a facility in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Farrell made a new appointment, but Arcenio was then moved to a different building in the same town. After several days of tracking, Farrell said, he finally got in touch.
Even then, Arcenio’s request for an interview was denied. ICE scheduled him to be deported to Guatemala and sent him to yet another detention facility, this one in Kankakee, Illinois, Farrell said.
After multiple phone calls, Farrell learned that immigration agents had requested the wrong type of interview with the asylum office. ICE acknowledged its mistake and took Arcenio off the manifest for a flight back to Guatemala, Farrell said. Arcenio passed his initial screening in March and is now waiting in detention to make his full case before an immigration judge later this month.
Meanwhile, he is still being held in Kankakee, a four-hour drive from Farrell’s office. They can only speak by phone with 24 hours advance notice, Farrell said, and sometimes they are asked to limit calls to around 15 minutes when there are several people waiting for the phone.
Farrell took on Arcenio’s case for a fee. “If he doesn’t win, I’m not going to go chase him down in Guatemala and make him pay,” Farrell said. “I’m sure there are attorneys out there who just won’t take a detained case or a potential detained case, because of the risk that they won’t ever get paid.”
Most free or low-cost legal help currently goes to detained mothers and children through such programs as the CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project in Texas, immigration lawyers said. The project brings in about a dozen volunteer lawyers, law students and interpreters from around the country to serve one-week stints at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, about 75 miles from San Antonio. The volunteers help mothers who have fled sexual abuse, violence or other conditions in their home countries prepare for initial asylum interviews. They also represent families in bond hearings. A small group of staff rotates through Dilley to provide administrative support.
The program is able to advise nearly all of the families who pass through the detention center, according to Crystal Massey, one of the project’s coordinators. Another legal aid program that provides similar services exists 95 miles away at a family detention facilityin Karnes City, Texas. Once families are released from either place, they must find their own lawyers to handle the rest of their asylum cases.
Since Trump’s vow to increasedeportations, newer efforts to provide legal help to detainees have accelerated, but they remain unevenly distributed across the country.
Since 2013, New York City has provided lawyers for detained immigrants unable to afford them. This year, the program expanded to cover detainees with cases in immigration courts throughout New York. The state was the first in the country to guarantee representation for its indigent detained immigrant population, but last month Mayor Bill de Blasio said that the city should not provide legal aid to immigrants with certain criminal records.
In December, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti announced a $10 million fund — half from taxpayer dollars, half from foundations — to support immigrants facing deportation. But a city council committee voted in March to excludemost individuals with violent criminal convictions. A statewide effort, which promises $12 million toward legal support, passed the California Senate last month with a similar exception.
In San Francisco, nonprofit groups have secured initial private funding to take on 180 cases per year on behalf of detained immigrants, said Valerie Zukin, a lawyer with the Bar Association of San Francisco who is helping coordinate the new efforts. Starting in June, the city’s public defender office will support another three lawyers who will work exclusively on detained deportation defense cases.
And there is help coming to Lumpkin, too. A $1 million project led by the Southern Poverty Law Center started hosting volunteer lawyers last month to spend a week at a time representing eligible detainees at their bond hearings. Eventually volunteers will represent detained immigrants throughout their deportation cases, but even that effort will initially focus on detainees with the strongest cases, said Dan Werner, the attorney who is overseeing the program.
As for Rosenbluth, the North Carolina lawyer now lives in Lumpkin full time, save for the occasional weekend visit to his spouse back home. His house in Lumpkin is five minutes from the detention center and the mortgage costs about $95 a month, he said — cheaper than if he stayed for a night at a hotel.
“It takes a certain personality type to be willing to move to the middle of nowhere,” said Rosenbluth, who is currently working on about 15 detained cases. “To be in the courtroom, and reading the judge’s face and reading the trial attorney’s face, it makes all the difference.”

If You Think Corporate Media Is Bad Now, Wait Until This Monster Merger Goes Through

The right-leaning Sinclair Broadcasting Group could soon reach nearly three-quarters of American homes.

Go to Original
By Alexandra Rosenmann



Sinclair's proposed acquisition of Tribune Media for $3.9 billion would allow the right-leaning broadcast group to reach nearly three-quarters of American homes.
For Democrats and progressives, the consequences could prove disastrous.
"There are some ramifications [of the deal], especially when you consider the fact that they force the networks they work with to run these (very obviously right-leaning) must-run ads," explained "Young Turks" co-host Ana Kasparian on Monday. 
"Must runs," as the New York Times calls them, are "short video segments that are centrally produced by the company [worked] into the broadcast over a period of 24 or 48 hours." One of Sinclair's most propagandist ads in the past year included a package urging voters not to support Hillary Clinton and the historically "pro-slavery" Democratic Party.
"I know there are a lot of democrats who did not like Hillary, but they felt that way due to justifiable reasons," noted Kasparian. "The Democratic Party being historically in favor of slavery is not one of the reasons why people did not want to vote in favor of Hillary." 
"That is a classic propaganda lie that people who are right-wing put out there for the purpose of deceiving you," added Cenk Uygur, followed by a brief overview of major party switches in political history.
While the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, fought against the slave-owning Confederacy, "what they don't tell you is in 1964, because of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, the parties, in essence, switched and the Republicans did what is called the Southern Strategy to make sure they could get racist voters in the south to vote for the Republican Party," Uygur explained. 
Watch:

Leaked: UK £7 billion export credit for fossil fuel industry violates 'clean energy' pledge

Go to Original
By Lawrence Carter

Between 2011 and 2016 the UK's export finance agency UKEF provided £109m to underwrite exports of equipment to coal mines in Russia, writes Lawrence Carter - despite the agency's commitment not to support 'investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production'. And that's just a fraction of the £6.9 billion UKEF has lavished on the corrupt, polluting sector since 2000, while it was meant to be backing the clean energy technologies of the future.

With 2016 now confirmed as the hottest year on record, it is simply astounding that the Government is still funding fossil fuel projects through export finance - never mind that such support may increase over the coming years.
The UK government has provided fossil fuel companies with £6.9 billion in financial support since 2000, according to a joint investigation by Energydesk and Private Eye.
The support came from UK Export Finance, the government agency that underwrites loans and insurance for risky export deals as part of efforts to boost international trade.
The vast majority of this support - £4.8bn - has been pledged since 2010, despite a government commitment to back clean technologies "instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production".
In contrast, the total value of deals involving clean energy projects was just £39m - with the first deal for a renewable energy project being made in 2012.
The news comes after UKEF's budget was doubled to £5 billion by chancellor Philip Hammond in November as part of efforts to promote trade after Britain leaves the European single market.
Government data breach
The new figures were calculated using a confidential database that was accidentally disclosed to Private Eye earlier this year. The database provides the most comprehensive list to date of the deals entered into by UK Export Finance (UKEF).
Projects receiving government backing in recent years include a petrochemical refinery owned by Vladimir Putin's son-in-law; oil fields owned by Petrobras - Brazil's state-owned oil company - which has been at the heart of the country's massive corruption scandal; and coal mines in Russia.
UKEF - an agency of the Department for Trade - provides credit guarantees, loans and insurance designed to shift the financial risk of exporting goods and services away from businesses and on to UK taxpayers.
A spokesperson for UKEF told Energydesk that the agency is actively seeking to support renewable energy projects but can only provide export finance if there is demand: "While we welcome and encourage applications from companies in the renewable sector, our role is to respond to demand from exporting companies, and we can only provide support where it is requested."
"UKEF's mission is to ensure that no viable UK export should fail for lack of finance or insurance, and it supports exports in all sectors", he continued. "The UK's oil and gas supply chain is a significant contributor to the economy, employing hundreds of thousands of people and generating over £40 billion in revenue annually."
View all energy deals from the database here.
Post-Brexit trade priorities - dirty energy
Since Brexit, UKEF's budget for exports to Qatar and Angola - both huge hydrocarbon exporters - have been substantially increased.
Trade secretary Liam Fox has also pledged £1 billion in export finance for trade with Colombia as part of a 5 year strategic partnership with the Colombian government to develop its offshore oil reserves. Fox told Colombian officials that he wants the UK to be the partner of choice for the country's nascent offshore oil sector.
These developments have led to concern that the use of the export finance budget to support fossil fuel exports will accelerate further post-Brexit - undermining efforts to tackle climate change.
Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas told Energydesk: "With 2016 now confirmed as the hottest year on record, it is simply astounding that the Government is still funding fossil fuel projects through export finance - never mind that such support may increase over the coming years."
"It seems clear that this Government is set on negotiating a series of reckless trading relationships that will undermine many decades worth of environmental policies, whilst simultaneously failing to grasp the economic opportunities that come from the transition to a zero-carbon economy.
"It is a sign of the depths to which this Government has sunk that fossil fuels, the dirty energy of the past, may be the go-to for our trade deals of the future."
Oligarchs with links to Putin
The latest UKEF announcements could add to a series of controversial deals made by the UK's export credit agency.
In October 2013 UKEF guaranteed a £45m loan to a Russian company part owned by Vladimir Putin's son-in-law, Kirill Shamalov. The loan was made to help Russian firm Sibur Holding purchase the design of a petrochemical plant from Ineos, one of the world's largest petrochemicals companies.
At the time, Sibur was majority owned by two billionaire oligarchs - Leonid Mikhelson and Gennady Timchenko. Timchenko was placed under US sanctions in March 2014 - months after UKEF agreed the loan guarantee with Sibur - for being part of the Putin administration's 'inner circle'.
The US Treasury department stated that "Gennady Timchenko is one of the founders of Gunvor, one of the world's largest independent commodity trading companies involved in the oil and energy markets. Timchenko's activities in the energy sector have been directly linked to Putin. Putin has investments in Gunvor and may have access to Gunvor funds."
Shamalov, who was Sibur's deputy chairman and a minority shareholder at the time of the deal, has since increased his stake in the company to become a major shareholder.
Brazil corruption scandal
UKEF has provided loan guarantees worth £1.3bn to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras since 2011. This includes £555m after the Petrobras corruption scandal broke in March 2014.
The company is accused of colluding with a cartel of construction companies to inflate the cost of contracts and pay billions in kickbacks to politicians.
Last year Energydesk revealed that UKEF had issued a new £245m loan at the height of the political crisis sparked by the Petrobras revelations.
In March 2016 - as people took to the streets across the Brazil to protest the scandal - UKEF was agreeing yet another line of credit with the oil company at the heart of the controversy.
The confidential database reveals that the total level of support for Petrobras in 2016 alone was £361m. This enabled the company to purchase equipment for developing offshore oil fields from UK-based companies.
Russian coal mines
Between 2011 and 2016 UKEF provided £109m to underwrite exports of mining equipment to coal mines in Russia - despite the agency's commitment not to support "investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production".
The majority of the credit - £98m - has supported deals between US-owned mining equipment firm Joy Global (UK) Ltd and Siberian Coal Energy Company (SUEK).
The latter is one of the world's largest coal exporters - including to the UK - and is majority owned by billionaire oligarch Andrey Melnichenko, through offshore firms in Cyprus and Bermuda. When contacted by Energydesk regarding these deals, a UKEF spokesperson said:
"UKEF is committed to high standards of environmental, social and human rights risk management. UKEF follows the OECD Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence (OECD Common Approaches) and the Equator Principles - which inform how Export Credit Agencies and International Financial Institutions, such as UKEF, should address potential environmental, social and human rights issues."
Confidential database
The document obtained by Private Eye provides the most comprehensive list to date of the deals entered into by UKEF since 2000.
Much of the information has not been made public before due to concerns over commercial confidentiality and the potential to embarrass companies deemed too risky to export to without insurance.
It also compiles 16 years worth of deals previously spread across UKEF annual reports - making it possible to analyse trends and levels of support for different sectors and companies.
This has enabled Energydesk and Private Eye to present the most complete picture yet of the scale of UKEF support for the fossil fuel industry, as well as the sometimes controversial nature of these deals.