MMN Editor

Alaska’s Decoy Scandal Brings Back The Usual Suspects For Shady Election Tactics

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,Below is my column on the return of Marc Elias in another campaign controversy with the Alaskan decoy scandal. The Elias Law Group and other lawyers were tied to the effort to confuse Alaskan voters by The New York Times in its recent investigative report. These lawyers presumably have a growing conflict of interest as dozens of subpoenas shower down on Alaska. What is clear is that this scandal will not end on Tuesday and, if the results are close in favor of Democrat Mary Peltola, there could be a major fight over her taking her seat in the Senate.Here is the column:Marc Elias is back. The notorious Democratic lawyer who played a critical role in the 2016 Russia hoax is again in the news. His law firm has been identified by the New York Times as part of the expanding scandal involving Democratic effort to confuse voters in Alaska with a decoy candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan.For those familiar with Elias’s checkered history, this is a case of rounding up the usual suspects.The scandal involving Democratic candidate Mary Peltola has quickly snowballed this week. A New York Times blockbuster investigative report quotes former staff who claim she knew of a cynical effort by her own campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to confuse voters by recruiting and fielding a decoy “Dan Sullivan” candidate in the race against incumbent Sen. Daniel S. Sullivan (R-Alaska). State and federal investigations are now unfolding, with dozens of federal subpoenas raining down on Alaska.The effort to get voters to cast mistaken ballots is grossly unethical and, even in these rage-filled times, a uniquely disgraceful scheme. Peltola and the Democratic Party had long denied any involvement in the other Sullivan’s candidacy. So when the Times produced evidence that she allegedly knew, and that Democratic staffers and lawyers had been deeply involved from the beginning, many of us were surprised – that is, until the name “Marc Elias” emerged. Then it made more sense.The Elias Law Group was already in the news this election cycle for threatening reporters with defamation lawsuits if they kept asking questions about the health of former Gov. Roy Cooper, the Democratic nominee for Senate in North Carolina. Earlier, Elias caused a stir during an unsuccessful Democratic gerrymandering effort, raising the idea that Democratic leaders could abolish the entire Virginia government after courts blocked their attempted radical redistricting plan.The fact that figures such as Peltola and Cooper wanted to be associated with any law firm headed by Elias is itself an indictment of their judgment and standards.Despite his losses in cases such as National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, Elias is still a favorite of many on the left thanks to his aggression and partisan fervor. The controversies that make him notorious to many make him popular with others.Elias was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it secretly funded the infamous Steele Dossier and pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy theory. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was later indicted but acquitted for making a false statement to the FBI.)Clinton campaign officials lied to reporters during the 2016 campaign, denying any involvement in the Steele Dossier. Journalists discovered the truth after the election – that the Clinton campaign had hidden payments for the dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said that when he tried to report the story, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.'”Times reporter Maggie Haberman later observed that “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” The Federal Election Commission ultimately sanctioned the Clinton campaign for the subterfuge.While raising money as the self-proclaimed defenders of democracy, Elias’s group has been involved in gerrymandering and efforts criticized as seeking to invalidate Republican votes, including unsuccessful efforts to challenge Democratic electoral losses.In Maryland, Elias’s team supported another abusive gerrymandering scheme that a court found not only violated Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the proposed map “subverts the will of those governed.”One media site accused Elias and his group of “making millions off gerrymandering efforts” while publicly denouncing Republican gerrymandering.In 2024, Elias’s legal team was also accused of pushing “to bar third-party presidential candidates – including Cornel West – from swing state ballots where they might siphon votes” from Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.Likewise, the New York Times reported that the Elias firm’s work “on behalf of a Soros-funded PAC in Texas … was opposed by a left-leaning election watchdog as undermining laws intended to limit the influence of major donors.”His group’s work for New York’s redistricting effort was ridiculed as not only ignoring the express will of the voters and also effectively negating Republicans’ votes.In 2024, the Chief Judge of the Western District of Wisconsin criticized the Elias Law Group for one of its challenges. Judge James Peterson (an Obama appointee) said that the argument “simply does not make any sense.”Now, Elias’s group is linked to the decoy scandal in Alaska, which allegedly aimed to make voters cast mistaken ballots. What distinguishes lawyers involved in this type of voter disruption is less their talent as their willingness. There are simply some things that most lawyers will not do.There is also a difference in how lawyers are treated in such controversies. It often seems that election controversies involving Republican lawyers are more likely to end with bar charges and disbarments. Take John Eastman, the former Trump lawyer disbarred in California after a state bar panel found that he had pushed unfounded legal theories and conspired to obstruct the electoral vote count on Jan. 6, 2021.Although I publicly disagreed with Eastman’s theories, I opposed the effort to disbar him as setting a dangerous precedent for lawyers seeking to advance novel or unpopular theories of recovery or liability. After all, lawyers on the left routinely advance dubious theories, including some that are more ideologically than legally driven. Such controversies rarely rise to the level of disbarment, especially when more appropriate sanctions are available, ranging from reprimands to fines.Eastman is currently asking the Supreme Court to overturn his disbarment. It is unlikely that Elias Law Group or Peltola’s lawyers will face similar disbarment efforts – nor should they, in my view, unless they were involved in criminal conduct. But the disparate treatment afforded to counsel in this country by party remains a growing concern. What draws a shower of bar complaints for Republican lawyers brings a windfall of clients for Democratic lawyers.The New York Times has produced sources alleging that lawyers for Peltola’s campaign were involved in this effort, even though they previously told a federal court that they “lack knowledge or information” and “deny any allegation about those purposes.” Such filings and statements could raise ethical or even criminal questions in investigations at both the state and federal levels.Meanwhile, though, tens of thousands of voters in Alaska have already cast ballots that included the decoy Sullivan candidate. This could result in a nasty fight in Congress if Peltola prevails in the vote count. And when it happens, that is where we will find Marc Elias in his element.Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/02/2026 – 20:30

US Attacks Iran’s Qeshm Island On Election Eve

SummaryUS bombs Qeshm Island on Monday: confirmation comes after a series of explosions were heard in the region.Trump Delays Iran Decision: Trump says he is in no rush to resume strikes, favoring more time for diplomacy despite Netanyahu’s reported push for renewed military action.Ayatollah Signals Openness to Talks: Supreme Leader authorizes dialogue with Washington as Qatari mediation reportedly makes progress toward a draft agreement.Faster Hormuz Reopening on the Table: Iran says it could reopen the Strait within two days if Washington accepts its demands, including lifting the US blockade.Oil Prices Tumble: Hopes of a diplomatic breakthrough send Brent toward $106 and WTI below $100, triggering a broader risk-on market rally.Supply Risks Persist: Nearly 1 billion barrels have reportedly been drained from global inventories, leaving oil and diesel markets vulnerable to renewed escalation.
 US announces end of Iranian blockade by December 31, 2026?Yes 43% · No 58%View full market & trade on Polymarket Trump Bombs Qeshm IslandSince Sunday into Monday, Iran headlines were driven by a return to ‘peace talks imminent’ claims, pushing down oil prices; however, late in the day we learn via official channels speaking to The Wall Street Journal that President Trump just bombed Qeshm Island earlier the same day.This bold and risky act came right on the eve of the midterm elections, at a moment the war remains deeply unpopular with voters. But interestingly, Trump didn’t openly announce the attack, like with some prior escalations and bombings.”The U.S. attacked Iran’s Qeshm Island on Monday, U.S. officials said, in the latest of a series of limited strikes Washington has secretly carried out against the country in recent weeks as President Trump touted the possibility of a diplomatic deal,” WSJ writes. The paper further underscores that he spent the whole day signaling there won’t be a renewed bombing campaign against Iran any time soon:The assault follows comments by Trump playing down the possibility of a return to war with Iran after Tuesday’s midterm elections. “We had a war with Iran. We won,” Trump told reporters Monday. “I don’t know if you even call it a war because we haven’t been doing any fighting for months.”But the U.S. has been engaged in smaller-scale strikes against Iran for several weeks, officials said, with explosions reported around Qeshm island on Monday on social media. Some of the officials described the assaults as defensive in nature to prevent Iran from having the freedom to attack commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. .So there’s clearly a political reason for the administration not officially reporting such strikes. It would certainly negate any attempt to portray de-escalation in the conflict.”The U.S. has been purposefully keeping the campaign quiet so as not to signal any intention of resuming major combat operations,” one official speaking to the Journal says.Trump Says ‘No Rush’ on Renewing Iran WarOn midterm election eve, President Trump is seeking to appear confident and is trying to reassure voters. He told Axios in a phone interview published Monday afternoon that he’s “in no rush” to decide whether to resume attacks on Iran.There’s lately been an avalanche of speculation saying that he’s likely to order a new bombing campaign soon after the midterm vote on Tuesday. There are also reports saying that Israel’s Netanyhu is strongly lobbying for renewing the war. Of course, Trump knows the war is deeply unpopular with the average voter (on both sides of the aisle) right now, and so the obvious attempts at ‘calming’ the populace…Trump told Axios that “it’s coming together nicely, that’s why oil is down” – in reference to indirect negotiations being mediated by Qatar. He also indicated that Iran asked to stop killing its leaders, to which he responded, “we will” – in his accounting of recent messaging.Vance also weighs in….@VP on Iran: “The President and I both feel pretty good about the prospects for potentially coming to a negotiated settlement. We’re going to keep on working at it… We’ve certainly made some progress. We’ll see if we can make some more.” pic.twitter.com/i2OSmoBfyt— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) November 2, 2026
Iran’s Supreme Leader Floats More US Talks In Rare OvertureOil is tumbling in the wake of a somewhat rare headline out of Tehran:Iranian President Pezeshkian says the Supreme Leader has granted the government some authority on dialogue, ISNA reportsOIL FALLS TO INTRADAY LOW, BRENT TRADES NEAR $106/BBLOil prices down 6% on hopes of US-Iran diplomacyThis marks some of the most significant confirmation yet that the Supreme Leader – who has been in hiding and not seen in public since the assassination of his father upon the opening of Operation Epic Fury – is still ‘open’ to a negotiated solution to the war. It has long been speculated that he and the more ‘hardline’ IRGC and affiliated officials are against talks and are preparing for war.Meanwhile, more Monday reporting of ‘breakthroughs’ via regional sources – and the possibility that Washington might give up on isisting the nuclear enrichment issue be resolved…A breakthrough in US-Iranian negotiations was seen after Qatari mediation successfully overcame procedural obstacles, reports Al Jadeed citing a diplomatic sourceThe US is leaning towards not making the nuclear issue a priority and instead including it within the overall negotiation framework.Washington’s priority is achieving a breakthrough in the nuclear file, which Trump would present to the American people, in exchange for concessions on other issues in favor of Iran.There are fears that Netanyahu will succeed in undermining the breakthroughs in the US-Iranian negotiations and pushing the region towards escalation and war.Any US-Iranian agreement will inevitably have repercussions for Lebanon, while any war on Tehran would be fateful and would push Hezbollah to enter it.Implementing any agreement on Lebanon requires Israel’s conditional approval, which is contingent upon Hezbollah’s disarmament and the dismantling of its military apparatus; otherwise, Israel will launch a war to achieve its objectives.Presdient Trump too has signaled he wants to give diplomacy more time, amid reports that Israel’s Netanyahu is lobbying for more military action.Newsquawk notes of the immediate reaction in markets: Risk-on trade seen as reports Iran’s Pezeshkian said the Supreme Leader has granted the government some authority on dialogue got wider airing; downside in oil and the Dollar, with upside in US equity futures, Treasuries and spot gold.Earlier in the morning a report in the NY Post included some of the details related to ongoing indirect dialogue:Earlier, sources said Iranian negotiators left the Doha talks on Sunday, but not due to difficulties in negotiations, with a draft proposal circulated for feedback and a follow-up meeting possible. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Baghaei also said the compression of Tehran’s seven-day proposal into two days is a sign of goodwill and that “America must make a decision”, which added modest pressure to the complex.It was also reported earlier today that Iran had reportedly conveyed seven conditions to Qatar for reaching an agreement with Washington, including lifting the US blockade of Iranian ports, according to Kyodo citing a senior Iranian official. Tehran is said to be willing to adopt a flexible position on nuclear issues if an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is reached, although significant differences remain as the US seeks simultaneous nuclear concessions.Still, time is running out and Trump is threatening to “bring the hammer” on Iran; however, there’s still no articulated end game or what a ‘misson accomplished’ moment might look like, amid fears that Washington could be settling in for another ‘forever war’ – despite ‘assurances’ from admin officials like JD Vance.Still no ‘direct’ talks on the horizon:Iran has no plans for talks with US officials, Foreign Minister Araghchi says, adding that Washington must accept Tehran’s conditions before a decision on direct or indirect negotiationshttps://t.co/tNvIQ4xV0f— TRT World (@trtworld) October 31, 2026
Crude Prices TumbleBrent crude futures fell to $108.41 a barrel, while WTI slipped below $100 this morning, after Axios reported that President Trump favored giving diplomacy with Tehran more time before launching another round of “Epic Fury.” Separately, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said Tehran could reopen the Strait of Hormuz within two days if the Trump administration accepts its demands.”Oil prices eased on Monday, with Brent down 2.8% at about $110/bbl and WTI down 3.3% at $100.67/bbl, as hopes for diplomatic progress tempered the geopolitical premium embedded in crude following October’s rally. Iranian and Qatari officials have held three consecutive days of talks aimed at ending the conflict with the US and Israel,” UBS markets analyst Nana Antiedu wrote in a brief note earlier today.Brent’s Friday gains have been erased ahead of the US session. There were other reports that Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he wanted diplomacy with Iran. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Saturday that no decision had been made on new attacks on Iran and that Trump preferred a diplomatic resolution.Tehran: Shortened Timeline to Reopen Strait if Agreement ReachedEarlier today, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei was quoted by Bloomberg as saying that Tehran was ready to reopen the Hormuz maritime chokepoint in two days if the Trump administration was willing to agree to its conditions.”The possibility of implementing this plan in two days is another indication of Iran’s good-faith approach,” Baqaei said, adding, “We have stated that, if Iran’s demands are met, it would be possible to restore security to the Strait of Hormuz and resume the negotiating process within a short period.”The spokesman said that an exchange of messages was ongoing with US counterparts via mediators and that “everything depends” on the US side accepting the Iranian demands. “Only then can we discuss the subsequent stages.”Despite the diplomatic signals, which can change at a moment’s notice, UBS’s Antiedu warned that global oil supply buffers are “wearing thin.”Antiedu added more color:The pullback comes against an increasingly fragile supply backdrop. ADNOC CEO Sultan Al Jaber said nearly 1 billion barrels have been drained from global oil inventories since the conflict disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reports. Diesel inventories in some markets are at 35-year seasonal lows, while shipping and logistics costs have risen from roughly 5% to 30% of the cost of a barrel.Separately, June Goh, a senior oil-market analyst at Sparta Commodities, said that diesel is the “most distressed” fuel product heading into the Northern Hemisphere winter. She noted that spare refining capacity is mostly concentrated in China, where authorities continue to control fuel exports.Goldman Sachs analysts earlier raised their Brent forecast to $105 a barrel for December and an average of $88 next year. They noted, “The Mideast and Russia-Ukraine conflicts, alongside broader geopolitical fragmentation, create high disruption risk.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/02/2026 – 20:18

Brandon Aiyuk wants back in the NFL, and he just hired football’s premier fixer to clean up his self-inflicted mess.The estranged 49ers wideout officially signed with Drew Rosenhaus on Monday to jump-start his stalled career at age 28.Aiyuk has not played a down since blowing out his knee against Kansas City in October 2024.From that moment on, he did everything possible to destroy whatever leverage he had left.After San Francisco voided roughly $27 million in contract guarantees in July 2025 when Aiyuk skipped mandatory team rehab sessions, he stopped showing up entirely. The team placed him on the reserve/left squad and reserve/did not report lists.RODDY WHITE QUESTIONS 49ERS’ HANDLING OF BRANDON AIYUK AS RECEIVER’S FUTURE IN SAN FRANCISCO REMAINS UNCLEAROver the summer, Aiyuk took his grievances to social media, tried to force his release, and demanded a trade. Aiyuk openly campaigned to join former Arizona State teammate Jayden Daniels in Washington.Aiyuk also faced an arrest warrant in June 2026 after posting a clip of himself hitting 104 mph in a 40 zone outside Levi’s Stadium.THE CRAIG CARTON SHOW–UNFILTERED, UNAPOLOGETIC AND UNMISSABLE. DOWNLOAD HIS DAILY PODCAST NOW!San Francisco never blinked. John Lynch and Kyle Shanahan made it clear Aiyuk is done in the Bay Area. Asked in September 2026 if wide receiver injuries might force a reunion, Shanahan needed just one word: “No.”Washington slammed the door shut too, signing Stefon Diggs and killing Aiyuk’s dream reunion with Daniels.BRANDON AIYUK SHOUTS OUT COMMANDERS IN LATEST SOCIAL MEDIA VIDEO AS 49ERS TRADE SAGA DRAGS ONBefore any transaction can materialize, Aiyuk needs formal league reinstatement before the 49ers can cut or trade him.That is where Rosenhaus comes in.NFL GREAT STEVE SMITH SR SAYS HE HAS ‘NO DAMN IDEA’ WHAT’S GOING ON WITH EMBATTLED 49ERS STAR BRANDON AIYUKWhen a player burns his bridges, he is the cleanup guy brought in to save what is left of a career. His resume includes Terrell Owens doing driveway push-ups in 2005 while Rosenhaus repeatedly told reporters, “next question.” He represented Antonio Brown through erratic exits across multiple franchises, and briefly took on Johnny Manziel before severing ties over rehab conditions.Aiyuk had elite production in 2023, posting 1,342 receiving yards. But talent only protects a player for so long when matched with prolonged drama, missed rehab, and two full seasons away from contact. San Francisco holds his rights without paying him a dime. Rosenhaus has pulled off miracles with troubled receivers before, but Aiyuk wrote the book on how to alienate front offices across the league.Send us your thoughts: alejandro.avila@outkick.com / Follow along on X: @alejandroaveela

The long-awaited John Cena Classic finally received a date and some details.John Cena himself appeared on “Monday Night Raw” in Brooklyn, New York, and unveiled some of the details behind the event. He told the crowd at the Barclays Center the John Cena Classic will be held as part of a two-part “Monday Night Raw” on Dec. 14. While some members of the WWE roster will be in Perth, Australia, those competing in the John Cena Classic will be at the ESPN Wide World of Sportrs Complex at Walt Disney World fighting for the new championship.CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK PRO WRESTLING COVERAGE”I have my heart and soul in this event. If you look at this award, there’s me,” Cena said. “My name is on this event. This event encapsulates everything I stand for – perseverance, hustle, loyalty, respect.”Cena also announced the first invitee to the event: Cody Rhodes.”The American Nightmare” and Cena were adversaries for the better part of 2025. Cena defeated Rhodes for the Undisputed WWE Championship at WrestleMania 41, which gave Cena his record-setting 17th title. Rhodes eventually won the title back later that year at SummerSlam.Cena told Rhodes he was “wrong” when he said Rhodes couldn’t handle the pressure that comes with being “QB1.” He said Rhodes was doing it better than he ever could.”This event is everything you are,” Cena said. “Everything you stand for. I love you, bud. And I’m so glad to officially invite you to the John Cena Classic.”THE CRAIG CARTON SHOW–UNFILTERED, UNAPOLOGETIC AND UNMISSABLE. DOWNLOAD HIS DAILY PODCAST NOW!Cena is expected to appear on “Monday Night Raw,” NXT, “Friday Night SmackDown” and Survivor Series: WarGames to announce more invitees.The WWE star didn’t dive into the format of the classic at this juncture. He said fans who signed up for Club WWE will have an impact on the event.Cena first made the announcement of the John Cena Classic back in May at Backlash. At that time, he said stars from each of WWE’s top brands would compete for a championship and the champion would be voted on by the fans.WWE wrestlers who lose their respective matches could still end up the overall winner of the event.More details about the event are expected to come over the next few weeks. Cena told Sports Illustrated in May that if he had to sum up his event in one sentence, he would call it, “WWE’s All-Star Game.”

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller has issued a dire warning ahead of Tuesday’s midterm election and the “astronomical” number of illegal voters.
Miller posted to X on Sunday, declaring that “Not one Democrat state — not one — has either a.) checked the citizenship status of their voter file or b.) shared their voter records with DHS to check citizenship. The total number of illegal and non-citizen voters is astronomical.”

Not one Democrat state — not one — has either a.) checked the citizenship status of their voter file or b.) shared their voter records with DHS to check citizenship. The total number of illegal and non-citizen voters is astronomical.
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) November 1, 2026

The post quickly drew tens of thousands of likes and thousands of shares.
Miller’s warning comes during a push from the Trump administration to match state voter files against federal immigration databases in order to identify non-citizens who may have registered or voted.
Democrat-led states have repeatedly declined to turn over full voter rolls for that purpose, citing privacy concerns, state authority over elections, and doubts about the accuracy of federal matching methods.
Miller has made the same point in earlier posts, noting that the administration has sought the data for two years but has met resistance from blue-state officials and court orders blocking the effort.

For two years the Trump Admin has sought federal voter rolls and welfare rolls from blue states to run against the federal non-citizen database—Democrat states refused and Democrat judges blocked DOJ/DHS. In every blue state you can vote or get welfare just by checking a box.
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) October 19, 2026

“For two years the Trump Admin has sought federal voter rolls and welfare rolls from blue states to run against the federal non-citizen database—Democrat states refused and Democrat judges blocked DOJ/DHS. In every blue state you can vote or get welfare just by checking a box,” Miller wrote on X earlier this month.
In September, Miller wrote, “Noncitizen voting is widespread, commonplace and pervasive. Also: all blue states have refused to share their voter roles and liberal judges have refused to allow DHS to scrub them.”

Noncitizen voting is widespread, commonplace and pervasive. Also: all blue states have refused to share their voter roles and liberal judges have refused to allow DHS to scrub them.
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) September 19, 2026

In California earlier this month, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security identified roughly 20,000 California registrants they described as “likely noncitizens” and asked state and local officials to segregate those voters’ mail ballots until citizenship could be verified.
When California declined, the Justice Department sued.
A Justice Department press release announcing the lawsuit stated that more than 20,000 people who are likely aliens are registered to vote in the state and that every registered voter receives a ballot by mail.

The post Stephen Miller Issues Warning Ahead of Midterms: Not One Democrat State Has Checked Its Voter Rolls for Citizenship, Non-Citizen Voting Numbers Look Astronomical appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Kazakhstan’s Copper Heist? Turkish Tycoon Readies Arbitration After Astana Gives His Mines To A Week-Old Startup

Kazakhstan has spent the past four years telling foreign investors that the Nazarbayev era of cronyism is over.A Turkish billionaire who sank roughly $200 million into two Kazakh copper mines is about to test that claim in front of the World Bank.According to Turkish business outlet Patronlar Dünyası, Robert Yüksel Yıldırım’s Turkish-Dutch CoreX Holding is preparing to file at ICSID, the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, after Kazakhstan’s government sat on its acquisition of the Koktaszhal and Kyzylshoky copper deposits in the Karaganda region for two years… and then handed the subsoil rights to a local company that had existed for about a week.

Robert Yuksel Yildirim.Source: Yildirim Holding AS

CoreX says it is preparing claims both in Kazakhstan and internationally, demanding either a reversal or compensation for what it calls, without much ambiguity, an expropriation.Two Years Of Paying Someone Else’s BillsThe backstory goes like this. In January 2024, CoreX signed an agreement to buy 100% of Altai Polymetals LLP and Terekty Ken Baiytu LLP, the operators of the two deposits. The companies were, to put it gently, not in great shape: debts near half a billion dollars, including to the EBRD, which had been an early lender to the project.The deal needed one thing to close: Kazakh government approval of the change of ownership. Which, as it turns out, never came.So CoreX did what any buyer does with an asset it doesn’t yet own: it paid for everything anyway. Over roughly two and a half years, the company says it covered miners’ wages, settled debts to third parties, paid operating costs and even paid fines imposed by the Kazakh state on the companies it was still waiting for permission to buy. The total comes to somewhere between $180 million and $200 million, depending on whose count you use (an industry memo circulating on the dispute says $180 million; Patronlar Dünyası says “nearly $200 million”).Put differently, CoreX was keeping the lights on, and the government was cashing the checks for the fines.The “Council For Attracting Investments” Attracts An InvestorThen came the end of March 2026, and a meeting of Kazakhstan’s Council for Attracting Investments, a name which, as one observer quoted in the memo dryly noted, “may prove to be ironic.”The council was chaired by then-First Deputy Prime Minister Roman Sklyar, one of the most senior ethnic Russians in Kazakh politics. It instructed the Ministry of Industry and Construction to ensure that a company called Altyndara Ltd. receives the subsoil-use rights to Koktaszhal and Kyzylshoky “on a priority basis.”And when the Investment Council takes up a project, its decisions typically also tell government agencies to fast-track environmental permits and land allocations, give priority access to the electricity grid and extend other preferences. In other words, the new owner gets the mines and the red carpet. CoreX, which signed the deal and funded the project for two years, got nothing.So who is Altyndara?Well, that is where it gets interesting:It was registered at the Astana International Financial Centre about a week before the council met.Public corporate records list a single individual as its founder, with no public record of where the money behind the company comes from.On April 14, it was publicly presented as the project’s new investor, with plans to spend more than $500 million, process the ore domestically and supply Kazakhstan’s manufacturing and automotive industries.That is a $500 million plan from a company with no visible funding, no mining track record and a corporate history measured in days. Nothing says “rules-based investment climate” like a week-old shell outbidding a company that already spent $200 million.Follow The Automotive IndustryThe memo points to Altyndara’s director, Farid Alidarov, who previously ran the Lisakovsk branch of Orken LLP, part of the Qarmet Group. Qarmet belongs to Kazakh oligarch Andrey Lavrentyev, who has emerged from relative obscurity to become a key player in Kazakhstan’s auto sector (note Altyndara’s stated plan to supply the “automotive industries”). Patronlar Dünyası goes further, reporting outright that Lavrentyev is behind Altyndara and has close ties to the administration in Astana.The connective tissue, per local commentary cited in the memo, is the “well-established understanding” that Sklyar is Lavrentyev’s administrative patron, sometimes described as his business associate. Local media have called Lavrentyev a protégé of Sklyar. Neither man, as far as we can tell, has publicly addressed the copper decision.Sklyar, for his part, has done rather well since March: on May 5, President Tokayev appointed him head of the Presidential Administration, effectively the second most powerful office in the country. And in a touch of timing nobody could script, one of his first duties in the new job was to greet Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan at Astana Airport on May 13, about six weeks after his council reassigned a Turkish company’s mines.We assume the topic did not come up on the tarmac. Or maybe it did, and that is why we are now talking about arbitration.Kazakhstan Has Been Here Before (And Lost)CoreX is hardly a tourist. It entered Kazakhstan in 2014 with the Voskhod chrome mine, followed with the roughly $500 million Qazak Soda project, and says that it and its predecessor have invested more than $1.4 billion in the country since 2013 (Patronlar Dünyası puts it at about $1.5 billion), with more than $3 billion planned over the next five years. Yıldırım, who also chairs Turkish football club Samsunspor, is reportedly the single largest investor in Kazakhstan’s mining sector. CoreX has already sent notice to its banks and investors that it will fight.And Turkish investors suing Kazakhstan is a genre with a track record, mostly in the investors’ favor:Rumeli Telekom and Telsim v. Kazakhstan (ICSID ARB/05/16): two Turkish companies lost their controlling stake in KaR-Tel, then the country’s second-largest mobile operator (today’s Beeline Kazakhstan), through Kazakh court proceedings in 2002. In 2008, an ICSID tribunal ordered Kazakhstan to pay $125 million. Astana’s attempt to annul the award failed.Aktau Petrol Ticaret v. Kazakhstan (ICSID ARB/15/8): Turkish investors in an oil transhipment terminal at the Caspian port of Aktau said court bailiffs stripped them of their assets in favor of a third party. In 2017 the tribunal held Kazakhstan responsible for the bailiffs’ conduct, which the national courts failed to correct, and awarded $22.7 million (about $30 million with interest and costs). An annulment bid was rejected in 2019.Here is the important difference. In Aktau, the claimants had to prove that courts and bailiffs acted at the government’s direction. This time, there is nothing to prove: the instruction to hand Altyndara the rights came from a government council chaired by the First Deputy Prime Minister, in writing. The government’s fingerprints are on the minutes.CoreX also has some choice of venue. Both Turkey and the Netherlands have long-standing bilateral investment treaties with Kazakhstan, and a BIT holds a government responsible for arbitrary action and illegal decisions within its jurisdiction. When the body in charge of the business environment is also the one reallocating the asset, a tribunal probably won’t need long to find the arbitrary part.”New Kazakhstan” Meets The Old PlaybookThe timing could hardly be worse for Astana. Tokayev’s “New Kazakhstan” program, rolled out in 2022 after the January unrest that ended the Nazarbayev era, was sold as a clean break from exactly this kind of insider asset allocation. About 4,000 Turkish companies operate in Kazakhstan, Turkish investment tops $6 billion, and Turkish contractors have completed some $30 billion of projects there. And with copper the metal everyone from Washington to Beijing wants to lock up, Kazakhstan has been marketing itself to Western capital as a modern, rules-based, investable source of critical minerals.That pitch is a lot harder to make when the case file reads like 1999.Arbitration would be slow and painful for both sides: ICSID cases routinely take years, and Kazakhstan has historically fought awards all the way through annulment. But CoreX is probably less interested in a 2031 award than in a settlement, and international attention is exactly the leverage that gets one. As the memo puts it, Kazakhstan is “desperate to put the past behind it and present itself as a modern, rules-based, investable country.”Our guess: Astana quietly finds a “compromise” before the tribunal is even constituted, because the alternative is a very public ruling on whether “New Kazakhstan” is new at all. Then again, the last two times a Turkish investor made this argument, Kazakhstan chose to fight… and pay.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/02/2026 – 20:10

Four states have measures on Tuesday’s ballot that could change who gets to compete in girls’ and women’s sports — and, in some cases, who gets to use their locker rooms.Arizona and Nebraska already have laws restricting biological males from competing in female sports. A “yes” vote in either state would expand or strengthen those existing restrictions.Washington and Colorado are different. Neither currently has the statewide sex-based restrictions proposed by these measures. If voters approve them, both states would establish statewide sex-based restrictions for school sports — a significant change in two traditionally Democratic states.WHERE TOP DEMOCRAT SENATE CANDIDATES AND THEIR GOP OPPONENTS STAND ON TRANS ATHLETES IN WOMEN’S SPORTSSo what’s at stake Tuesday? Here’s a state-by-state breakdown of what the measures would do, what opponents are saying, how supporters are responding and what the betting markets are predicting.What a yes vote would do: Prohibit students defined as biologically male from competing in girls’ K-12 interscholastic sports. Girls seeking to participate would have to provide documentation from a healthcare professional verifying biological sex based on “reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”As it stands, K-12 athletes in Washington can compete based on their gender identity under current eligibility rules, which allowed a boy in Camas, WA, to switch to the girls’ team mid-season earlier this year.What a no vote would do: Keep the current eligibility rules in place, without adding the initiative’s new sex-verification requirements.What opponents say: Organizations such as No Hate in Washington State argue that the initiative would discriminate against transgender students and could subject girls to invasive genital examinations.NEW POLL SHOWS WASHINGTON STATE VOTERS ARE READY TO END BOYS COMPETING IN GIRLS’ SPORTSProponents call the “invasive exam” argument fearmongering, saying that biological sex can be verified as part of a routine sports physical — something high school athletes have been undergoing for years. They also point to a simple cheek swab, which collects DNA from inside the mouth, as another possible way to verify biological sex.Polymarket prediction at the time of writing: 64% market-implied probability of I-638 passing.What a yes vote would do: Establish statewide sex-based participation requirements for school sports from K-12 through the college level. Athletes would generally compete on teams matching their biological sex, with exceptions for coed sports and girls joining boys’ teams when no equivalent girls’ team exists.The measure covers public, charter and private schools, as well as colleges and universities. It applies to interscholastic and intramural athletics, including school-sponsored club sports.Proposition 134 defines females as “a person whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of ova” and males as “a person whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of sperm.”Unlike Washington’s initiative, Colorado’s measure doesn’t specifically require a doctor’s note or medical examination to verify biological sex. Instead, schools would have to establish their own eligibility policies, with no verification method specified in the measure. The state education commissioner could take action against school districts that intentionally refuse to comply.What a no vote would do: Maintain the existing eligibility system, allowing schools, districts and athletic associations to continue setting their own participation policies, subject to state and federal law.What opponents say: Planned Parenthood and other opponents echo the concerns raised in Washington, arguing that Proposition 134 amounts to government overreach and “risks invasive gender checks for girls.”But as XX-XY Athletics founder Jennifer Sey — who chairs the campaign supporting Proposition 134 — has pointed out, 27 states already have restrictions on biological males competing in girls’ sports. Sey argues that the invasive examinations opponents warn about aren’t happening in those states.Polymarket prediction at the time of writing: 55% market-implied probability of Proposition 134 passing.What a yes vote would do: Build on Arizona’s existing public school sports rules by expanding restrictions to private schools and athletic associations, including those overseeing youth and college sports. It would also require schools and athletic associations to restrict access to restrooms, locker rooms and other private spaces connected to athletics based on biological sex as recorded on an original birth certificate.The measure would also allow athletes to sue schools and athletic associations that knowingly violate the law. It would retain protections for athletes competing on coed teams and would not categorically prohibit girls from participating on boys’ teams.What a no vote would do: Leave existing laws in place, keeping Arizona’s current public school sports restrictions without expanding them to additional institutions or adding the measure’s new requirements for private spaces.What opponents say: Civil rights groups such as the ACLU argue that Proposition 318 singles out transgender students, could subject girls to intrusive questioning about their biological sex and opens schools up to expensive lawsuits.Supporters counter that the measure closes loopholes in existing law, protects privacy and safety in locker rooms and bathrooms, and establishes consistent rules for fair athletic competition across the state.Polymarket prediction at the time of writing: 82% market-implied probability of Proposition 318 passing.SUPREME COURT MAKES RULING ON TRANS ATHLETES IN WOMEN’S SPORTSTHE CRAIG CARTON SHOW–UNFILTERED, UNAPOLOGETIC AND UNMISSABLE. DOWNLOAD HIS DAILY PODCAST NOW!What a yes vote would do: Amend Nebraska’s Constitution to prohibit biological males from competing in girls’ and women’s school sports, from K-12 through college. Schools would have to designate teams as male, female or coed, with female teams reserved for biological females.The measure would apply to public schools and colleges, as well as private institutions whose teams compete against public schools.Unlike Washington and Colorado, Nebraska already has a law restricting biological males from competing in girls’ and women’s sports. Gov. Jim Pillen signed the Stand With Women Act in June 2025. Arizona also has an existing law, but Nebraska’s ballot measure would go a step further by putting its restrictions into the state constitution, making them harder for future lawmakers to overturn.What a no vote would do: Leave Nebraska’s Constitution unchanged. The existing law restricting biological males from competing in girls’ and women’s sports would remain in effect.What opponents say: Groups such as OutNebraska and the Fairness for All campaign argue that the amendment would discriminate against transgender students and unnecessarily write restrictions into the state constitution when a law already exists. Opponents also point out that transgender athletes make up a tiny percentage of the state’s population.Supporters counter that putting the restrictions into the constitution would protect female athletes from future changes to state law. The Fairness for Girls campaign argues that allowing biological males to compete against girls creates safety concerns and can cost female athletes medals, advancement opportunities and scholarships.Polymarket prediction at the time of writing: No Polymarket prediction found.