After investing a sizable fortune into building a political machine that now rivals the size and budgets of both major political parties, the conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch are seeing some of their top operatives take jobs with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.
The fact that many of Trump’s political positions are at odds with those of the Koch brothers does not seem to be a factor.
Take Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager, who spent many years of his career working for the Koch political network, first as an assistant at the Koch-led group Citizens for a Sound Economy in 1997 and from 2008 through earlier this year as a senior staff member to the Koch’s primary grassroots group, Americans for Prosperity. Over the last seven years, Lewandowski helped the Koch network organize Tea Party events and get-out-the-vote efforts for Republican candidates for office.
Alan Cobb, a strategic consultant for Trump, is the former director of Kansas public affairs for Koch Industries and also worked for years as a vice president at Americans for Prosperity.
Trump is being counseled by lawyer Donald F. McGahn, the former Federal Election Commission chair who just months ago represented the Koch political network during hearings with the FEC. McGahn is listed as affiliated with Freedom Partners Action Fund, the Super PAC set up by the Koch brothers and their lobbyists.
In New Hampshire, Trump’s state director is Matt Ciepielowski, the former New Hampshire state field director for Americans for Prosperity. As National Journal reported, as Trump works to develop a team to win the New Hampshire primary, he has hired multiple AFP staff, and even leased a campaign headquarters in the same office building as AFP’s office in Manchester.
Some have suggested that Koch operatives have abandoned the industrialist billionaires simply for a higher paycheck. As the director of voter registration with Americans for Prosperity, Lewandowski made $153,162, according to the last available nonprofit disclosure made public, for 2013. Now as a Trump staffer, Lewandowski is making $20,000 a month — or $240,000 a year. As the Wall Street Journal reported, that is “about 45% more than 2012 GOP nominee and multimillionaire Mitt Romney paid his senior staffers.”
Not long ago, Trump maintained friendly relations with the Koch network. He was an invited speaker at the Americans for Prosperity “Freedom Summit” in April 2014. But as Trump began outpolling his Republican rivals, many of whom enjoy support from the Koch brothers, the real estate mogul appears to have fallen out of favor with the Koch brothers.
Trump was not invited to the private fundraiser hosted by the Koch brothers last month at a retreat in Southern California, nor was he invited to the Americans for Prosperity “Defending the Dream” summit last weekend in Ohio. As many of Trump’s rivals headed to the California fundraiser, Trump tweeted: “I wish good luck to all of the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc. from the Koch Brothers. Puppets?”
The post Political Operatives Abandon Koch Network For Donald Trump appeared first on The Intercept.
[HH] Enttarnung der ehemaligen verdeckten Ermittlerin Maria „Block“ / Böhmichen in Hamburgs linker Szene
The Republican presidential candidate leading every poll, Donald Trump, recently unveiled his plan to forcibly deport all 11 million human beings residing in the U.S. without proper documentation, roughly half of whom have children born in the U.S. (and who are thus American citizens). As George Will noted last week, “Trump’s roundup would be about 94 times larger than the wartime internment of 117,000 persons of Japanese descent.” It would require a massive expansion of the most tyrannical police state powers far beyond their already immense post-9/11 explosion. And that’s to say nothing of the incomparably ugly sentiments which Trump’s advocacy of this plan, far before its implementation, is predictably unleashing.
Jorge Ramos, the influential anchor of Univision and an American immigrant from Mexico, has been denouncing Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. Yesterday at a Trump press conference in Iowa, Ramos stood and questioned Trump on his immigration views. Trump at first ignored him, then scolded him for speaking without being called on and repeatedly ordered him to “sit down,” then told him: “Go back to Univision.” When Ramos refused to sit down and shut up as ordered, a Trump bodyguard physically removed him from the room. After the press conference concluded, Ramos returned and again questioned Trump about immigration, with the two mostly talking over each other as Ramos asked Trump about the fundamental flaws in his policy. Afterward, Ramos said: “This is personal . . . he’s talking about our parents, our friends, our kids and our babies.”
One might think that in a conflict between a journalist removed from a press conference for asking questions and the politician who had him removed, journalists would side with their fellow journalist. Some are. But many American journalists have seized on the incident to denounce Ramos for the crime of having opinions and even suggesting that he’s not really acting as a journalist at all.
Politico‘s political reporter Marc Caputo unleashed a Twitter rant this morning against Ramos. “This is bias: taking the news personally, explicitly advocating an agenda,” he began. Then: “Trump can and should be pressed on this. Reporters can do this without being activists” and “some reporters still try to approach their stories fairly & decently. & doing so does not prevent good reporting.” Not only didn’t Ramos do journalism, Caputo argued, but he actually ruins journalism: “My issue is his reporting is imbued with take-it-personally bias. . . . we fend off phony bias allegations & Ramos only helps to wrongly justify them. . . .One can ask and report without the bias. I’ve done it for years & will continue 2 do so.”
A Washington Post article about the incident actually equated the two figures, beginning with the headline: “Jorge Ramos is a conflict junkie, just like his latest target: Donald Trump.” The article twice suggested that Ramos’ behavior was something other than journalism, claiming that his advocacy of immigration reform “blurred the line between journalist and activist” and that “by owning the issue of immigration, Ramos has also blurred the line between journalist and activist.” That Ramos was acting more as an “activist” than a “journalist” was a commonly expressed criticism among media elites this morning.
Here we find, yet again, the enforcement of unwritten, very recent, distinctively corporatized rules of supposed “neutrality” and faux objectivity which all Real Journalists must obey, upon pain of being expelled from the profession. A Good Journalist must pretend they have no opinions, feign utter indifference to the outcome of political debates, never take any sides, be utterly devoid of any human connection to or passion for the issues they cover, and most of all, have no role to play whatsoever in opposing even the most extreme injustices.
Thus: you do not call torture “torture” if the U.S. Government falsely denies that it is; you do not say that the chronic shooting of unarmed black citizens by the police is a major problem since not everyone agrees that it is; and you do not object when a major presidential candidate stokes dangerous nativist resentments while demanding mass deportation of millions of people. These are the strictures that have utterly neutered American journalism, drained it of its vitality and core purpose, and ensured that it does little other than serve those who wield the greatest power and have the highest interest in preserving the status quo.
What is more noble for a journalist to do: confront a dangerous, powerful billionaire-demagogue spouting hatemongering nonsense about mass deportation, or sitting by quietly and pretending to have no opinions on any of it and that “both sides” are equally deserving of respect and have equal claims to validity? As Ramos put it simply, in what should not even need to be said: “I’m a reporter. My job is to ask questions. What’s ‘totally out of line’ is to eject a reporter from a press conference for asking questions.”
Indeed, some of the most important and valuable moments in American journalism have come from the nation’s most influential journalists rejecting this cowardly demand that they take no position, from Edward R. Murrow’s brave 1954 denunciation of McCarthyism to Walter Cronkite’s 1968 refusal to treat the U.S. Government’s lies about the Vietnam War as anything other than what they were. Does anyone doubt that today’s neutrality-über-alles journalists would denounce them as “activists” for inappropriately “taking a side”?
As Jack Shafer documented two years ago, crusading and “activist” journalism is centuries old and has a very noble heritage. The notion that journalists must be beacons of opinion-free, passion-devoid, staid, impotent neutrality is an extremely new one, the by-product of the increasing corporatization of American journalism. That’s not hard to understand: one of the supreme values of large corporations is fear of offending anyone, particularly those in power, since that’s bad for business. The way that conflict-avoiding value is infused into the media outlets which these corporations own is to inculcate their journalists that their primary duty is to avoid offending anyone, especially those who wield power, which above all means never taking a clear position about anything, instead just serving as a mindless, uncritical vessel for “both sides,” what NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen has dubbed “the view from nowhere.” Whatever else that is, it is most certainly not a universal or long-standing principle of how journalism should be conducted.
The worst aspect of these journalists’ demands for “neutrality” is the conceit that they are actually neutral, that they are themselves not activists. To be lectured about the need for journalistic neutrality by Politico of all places – the ultimate and most loyal servant of the DC political and corporate class – by itself illustrates what a rotten sham this claim is. I set out my argument about this at length in my 2013 exchange with Bill Keller and won’t repeat it all here; suffice to say, all journalism is deeply subjective and serves some group’s interests. All journalists constantly express opinions and present the world in accordance with their deeply subjective biases – and thus constantly serve one agenda or another – whether they honestly admit doing so or dishonestly pretend they don’t.
Ultimately, demands for “neutrality” and “objectivity” are little more than rules designed to shield those with the greatest power from meaningful challenge. As BuzzFeed’s Adam Serwer insightfully put it this morning “‘Objective’ reporters were openly mocking Trump not that long ago, but Ramos has not reacted to Trump’s poll numbers with appropriate deference . . . . Just a reminder that what is considered objective reporting is intimately tied to power or the perception of power.” Expressing opinions that are in accord with, and which serve the interests of, those who wield the greatest political and economic power is always acceptable for the journalists who most tightly embrace the pretense of “neutrality”; it’s only when an opinion constitutes dissent or when it’s expressed with too little reverence for the most powerful does it cross the line into “activism” and “bias.”
(Ramos’ supposed sin of being what the Post called a “conflict junkie” – something that sounds to be nothing more than a derogatory way of characterizing “adversary journalism” – is even more ridiculous. Please spare me the tripe about how Ramos’ real sin was one of rudeness, that he failed to wait for explicit permission from the Trumpian Strongman to speak. Aside from the absurdity of viewing Victorian-era etiquette as some sort of journalistic virtue, Trump’s vindictive war with Univision made it unlikely he’d call on Ramos, and journalists don’t always need to be “polite” to do their jobs.
Beyond that, whether a reporter must be deferential to a politicians is one of those questions on which people shamelessly switch sides based on which politician is being treated rudely at the moment, as the past liberal protests over the “rudeness” displayed to Obama by conservative journalists demonstrate. That Ramos is not One of Them – Joe Scarborough appeared not even to know who Ramos is and suggested he was just seeking “15 minutes of fame,” despite Ramos’ having far greater influence and fame than Scarborough could dream of having – clearly fueled the journalistic resentment that Ramos’ behavior was out of line).
What Ramos did here was pure journalism in its classic and most noble expression: he aggressively confronted a politician wielding a significant amount of power over some pretty horrible things that the politician is doing and saying. As usual when someone commits a real act of journalism aimed at the most powerful in the U.S., those leading the charge against him are other journalists, who so tellingly regard actual journalism as a gauche and irreverent crime against those who wield the greatest power and thus merit the greatest deference.
UPDATE: Caputo, while noting that he disagrees with many of the views in this article, objects to one phrase in particular and sets forth his objection here. I quoted and/or linked to all of his referenced statements and am happy to allow readers to decide if that one phrase was accurate. I am quite convinced it was and stand by it.
The post Jorge Ramos Commits Journalism, Gets Immediately Attacked by Journalists appeared first on The Intercept.
Die Datenschutzbeauftragten des Bundes und der Länder haben dringende Nachbesserungen bei der geplanten europäischen Datenschutz-Grundverordnung verlangt. Es gebe konkrete Forderungen, die aus Sicht des Datenschutzes unumgänglich seien, sagte die Bundesbeauftragte Andrea Voßhoff am Mittwoch in Berlin. Das gelte auch für die gebotene Sparsamkeit bei der Sammlung von Daten. „Die Datensparsamkeit muss notwendiges Gestaltungsprinzip bleiben“, sagte Voßhoff. Sie sei im digitalen Zeitalter „Grundlage für ein datenschutzfreundliches Verhalten“. Diese Basis sei in den Verhandlungen zu der Verordnung aufgeweicht worden.
Künftig soll die Datenschutz-Grundverordnung in Europa einheitlich den Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten regeln. Im Juni hatten sich die EU-Justizminister auf einen Entwurf geeinigt. Die
Frühere europäische Spitzenpolitiker fordern ein neues Sicherheitsabkommen zwischen der NATO und Russland. Die derzeitige Situation sei „voller Potenzial für gefährliche Fehleinschätzungen oder Unfälle, die sogar eine direkte militärische Konfrontation zwischen Russland und dem Westen auslösen könnten“, schreibt eine Gruppe um ehemalige Außen- und Verteidigungsminister wie Volker Rühe (Deutschland), Igor Iwanow (Russland) und Desmond Browne (Großbritannien) in einem am Mittwoch verbreiteten Positionspapier. Um folgenschwere Zwischenfälle zu verhindern, brauche es dringend verbindliche Verhaltensregeln für Luft- und Seemanöver.
Konkret schlagen die Politiker die unverzügliche Aufnahme von Gesprächen über ein neues Abkommen im NATO-Russland-Rat vor. Dieser tagte auf Diplomatenebene zuletzt im Juni 2014, bevor
In July 2013, GCHQ, Britain’s equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency, forced journalists at the London headquarters of The Guardian to completely obliterate the memory of the computers on which they kept copies of top-secret documents provided to them by former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden.
However, in its attempt to destroy information, GCHQ also revealed intriguing details about what it did and why.
Two technologists, Mustafa Al-Bassam and Richard Tynan, visited Guardian headquarters last year to examine the remnants of the devices. Al-Bassam is an ex-hacker who two years ago pleaded guilty to joining attacks on Sony, Nintendo, and other companies, and now studies computer science at King’s College; Tynan is a technologist at Privacy International with a PhD in computer science. The pair concluded, first, that GCHQ wanted The Guardian to completely destroy every possible bit of information the news outlet might retain; and second, that GCHQ’s instructions may have inadvertently revealed all the locations in your computer where information may be covertly stored.
Editors of The Guardian chose to destroy the files and the devices they lived on after the British government threatened to sue them and halt further reporting on the issue, including stories on how GCHQ utilized data collected by the NSA on communications from many major Internet companies.
Footage of Guardian editors physically destroying their MacBooks and USB drives, taken by Guardian executive Sheila Fitzsimons, wasn’t released until months later, in January 2014. The GCHQ agents who supervised the destruction of the devices also insisted on recording it all on their own iPhones.
The Guardian’s video reveals editors using angle-grinders, revolving drills, masks that GCHQ ordered them to buy, and a “degausser,” an expensive piece of equipment provided by GCHQ, which destroys magnetic fields and thereby erases data. The procedure eliminated practically every chip in the device, leaving almost no recognizable piece of machinery behind. The whole process lasted over three hours.
But while Paul Johnson, The Guardian’s deputy editor, chalked the exercise up to “purely a symbolic act” of power on the part of the British government — given that copies of the Snowden files still existed in New York — there may be more to it.
At a speech given at the Chaos Communication Camp technology conference a few weeks ago in Germany, Al-Bassam and Tynan explored the details surrounding GCHQ’s decisions about how to destroy the devices, and hypothesized about what the government’s intentions might have been beyond intimidation.
“Normally people just destroy the hard drive,” said Al-Bassam. But GCHQ took it several steps further. The spy agency instructed Guardian editors to destroy parts of multiple MacBook Airs’ track pad controllers, power controllers, keyboards, CPUs, inverting converters, USB drives, and more.
According to “Joint Services Publication 440,” a 2001 British government document released by WikiLeaks, the U.K. Ministry of Defense mandates total destruction of top-secret information in order to protect it from “FISs [foreign intelligence services], extremist groups, investigative journalists, and criminals.”
However, when Al-Bassam and Tynan sent an email asking the British government for the “HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) Information Assurance Note 5,” the government-wide document that contains the U.K.’s “sanitization” policies — i.e., the specific steps necessary to destroy top-secret data — the government denied their request. The sanitization policies of the other members of the so-called “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance — the U.S., New Zealand, Canada and Australia — are public, and appeared to have very similar requirements to the techniques used to destroy The Guardian’s computers.
But in allowing The Guardian’s editors to destroy the devices themselves, and hold onto the remaining shards of computer dust, the British government essentially revealed those policies — by making it possible for people like Al-Bassam and Tynan to analyze just why they might have destroyed each part in such a specific way.
What Al-Bassam and Tynan theorized was that the government may have targeted parts of the Apple devices that it “doesn’t trust”: pieces that can retain bits of electronic information even after the hard drive is obliterated.
The track pad controller, they said, can hold up to 2 megabits of memory. All the different “chips” in your computer — from the part that controls the device’s power to the chips in the keyboard — also have the capacity to store information, like passwords and keys to other data, which can be uploaded through firmware updates. According to the public documents from other members of Five Eyes, it is incredibly difficult to completely sanitize a device of all its content. New Zealand’s data deletion policies state that USB memory is only destroyed when the dust is just a few millimeters in length. “This wasn’t a random thing,” said Tynan, pointing to a slide displaying a photo of a completely destroyed pile of USB chip shards.
These hidden memory storage locations could theoretically be taken advantage of, Tynan and Al-Bassam said, by a computer’s owner, hackers, or even the government itself, either during its design phase or after the computer is purchased. The Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab has presented evidence that an organization it calls “Equation Group,” which it suspects is connected to the NSA, has developed ways to “create an invisible, persistent area hidden inside [a computer’s] hard drive” that would be virtually undetectable by the computer’s owner. This area could be used “to save exfiltrated information which can be later retrieved by the attackers.”
Other technologists and computer experts agreed with Al-Bassam and Tynan that significant data could theoretically be stored on a computer’s various chips. “It’s actually possible to store quite a bit of data in a small space — look at Micro SD cards!” wrote Dan Kaminsky, a computer security specialist, in an e-mail to The Intercept. “But generally these other data stores are small. [They] can certainly store cryptographic keys pretty much anywhere though; those things are minuscule.”
Steve Burgess, a computer forensics and data recovery expert, echoed Kaminsky’s technical points: “Certainly data could be stored on any kind of flash memory or SSD (if there was one), or on the computer’s BIOS, and of course on the hard disk’s rotating media — and its own on-board flash storage.”
But in terms of GCHQ’s intentions, Kaminsky thinks the answer lies somewhere between a power play and protocol based on real concern on the part of the agency. “I think GCHQ was doing half theater and half genuine threat response here. The likelihood that The Guardian had anything hidden in the trackpad was low, but from GCHQ’s perspective they’d hide something in the trackpad so why wouldn’t anyone else?”
To Tynan and Al-Bassam, the methods GCHQ used revealed just how little control we have over our data, and how difficult it is to permanently delete it when necessary. When the pair asked various companies, including Dell and HP, how different parts of the devices are designed to store information and which chips “could potentially betray us,” none were willing to reveal any specifics publicly, they said. When a member of the audience asked Tynan what laptop he’d recommend for journalists and activists who rely on privacy and control of their data, he didn’t have an answer.
“From a privacy perspective, we need to empower users with knowledge about what their devices do,” Tynan concluded.
The post The Way GCHQ Obliterated The Guardian’s Laptops May Have Revealed More Than It Intended appeared first on The Intercept.
Progressives Demand Answers From Clinton on Golden Parachutes for Wall Streeters-Turned-Government Officials
A coalition of eight progressive organizations, using material previously published at The Intercept, have challenged Hillary Clinton to disavow the use of “golden parachute” bonuses for former Wall Street executives who enter government service.
In a letter to the Clinton campaign delivered today, the organizations, including Rootstrikers, Democracy for America, CREDO and MoveOn.org Political Action, refer to two top aides to Clinton when she served as secretary of state, Thomas Nides and Robert Hormats. As The Intercept reported in July, Nides and Hormats received millions of dollars in golden parachute payments from their respective ex-employers, investment banks Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, after becoming Clinton’s deputies.
Goldman Sachs paid out Hormats’ unvested restricted stock units, valued between $250,000 and $500,000. Morgan Stanley’s accelerated payout for Nides of restricted stock units was worth between $5 million and $25 million. Deferred compensation awards like these would have been forfeited, had the executives left their jobs for somewhere other than the government.
Bonuses are typically granted to executives who stay with a company rather than leave it. “Awarding outsized bonuses and gifts of equity to Wall Street executives who temporarily leave to go into public service is either a breach of a public corporation’s fiduciary duty to its stockholders, or a down payment on future services rendered,” the progressive groups write to Clinton. They describe the practice as “a barely legal, backdoor form of bribery.”
In the letter, the groups ask Clinton if she supports the practice of golden parachute bonuses from the financial sector, and if she would allow officials in her administration to receive them.
The “Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act,” introduced by Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., would ban Wall Street golden parachute payments. The bill would also extend the lobbying “cooling-off” period for officials rotating out of government from one to two years, and force policymakers to recuse themselves from decisions that would benefit their former employers.
“Golden parachutes have become so common and corrosive to the public trust that it has become clear the next president should prohibit executive branch employees from receiving them altogether,” the letter concludes. It was also signed by American Family Voices, the Center for Popular Democracy, Friends of the Earth and The Other 98%.
Last month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., publicly challenged presidential candidates to support the Baldwin/Cummings legislation. Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, two Democratic hopefuls, have already endorsed it; Sanders is a co-sponsor of the bill. But the Clinton campaign has yet to make their position clear, prompting the escalation by these progressive groups.
“Americans are sick and tired of the Wall-Street-to-Washington revolving door, and are looking for a presidential candidate who will take concrete steps to fight it,” said Kurt Walters, campaign manager for Rootstrikers, in a statement. He added that hundreds of thousands of members of the undersigned organizations have signed petitions in support of the Baldwin/Cummings bill.
Nides, a six-figure bundler in Clinton’s former and current presidential campaigns, returned right back to Morgan Stanley after Clinton left the State Department. He has been touted for a potential chief of staff position in a Clinton White House. Hormats has been part of a small group of economic advisers to Clinton during her 2016 presidential run.
“It’s hard to imagine Democrats’ 2016 nominee will be truly tough on Wall Street banks that break the law,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, “if they won’t commit to banning their advisers from receiving legalized bribes from those same banks.”
Nach den rechtsextremen Krawallen in Sachsen vergießen Politiker aus SPD und CDU Krokodilstränen. Doch inhaltlich sind sie nicht so weit entfernt vom rassistischen Mob, wie sie meinen -
Von HANS BERGER, 26. August 2015 -
Elf Minuten lang dauert das Video. Es zeigt einen randalierenden Lynchmob, der mit Steinen, Pyrotechnik und zuvor leergetrunkenen Bierflaschen Polizisten angreift und dabei rechte Parolen grölt. Die Beamten wirken unorganisiert, stark überfordert, zahlenmäßig zu gering aufgestellt. Gedreht wurde der Clip am 22. August in dem Dresdner Vorort Heidenau. Zwei Nächte lang tobten sich dort Rassisten, Neonazis und Hooligans aus. Ihr Ziel: Die Verhinderung einer Unterkunft für Flüchtlinge
Die Bundeswehr unterstützt in den kommenden vier Monaten die NATO-Luftraumüberwachung über Estland, Lettland und Litauen. Ein Geschwader der Luftwaffe übernahm am Dienstag das Kommando auf der estnischen Luftwaffenbasis Ämari von Großbritannien. Zusammen mit vier in Litauen stationierten ungarischen Maschinen sollen sie bis Anfang Januar den Luftraum über den baltischen Staaten kontrollieren, die keine eigene Luftverteidigung haben.
Für den Einsatz sind vier „Eurofighter“ vom nordrhein-westfälischen Nörvenich und ein Kontingent von rund 150 Soldaten nach Estland verlegt worden. Jeweils ein weiterer Kampfjet wird als Reserve vor Ort und in Deutschland vorgehalten.
„Für uns zeigt dies die Entschlossenheit Deutschlands zur Solidarität der NATO, zu unserer
Ein Bündnis von Gewerkschaften, Entwicklungs-, Umwelt- und Kulturorganisationen hat sich gegen die Handelsabkommen TTIP und CETA gewandt. Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutzstandards gerieten unter die Räder, sagte der Vorsitzende des Bundes für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND), Hubert Weiger, am Dienstag in Berlin. Der Deutsche Kulturrat sieht etwa die Buchpreisbindung oder die Finanzierung von Kultureinrichtungen mit öffentlichen Mitteln bedroht. Der Deutsche Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB) warnte vor einer Verwässerung von Arbeitnehmer- und Sozialstandards, wenn Verstöße gegen Arbeitnehmerrechte nicht sanktioniert würden. Die Organisationen riefen zu einer Großdemonstration am 10. Oktober in Berlin auf. Gefordert werden soll dabei der Stopp der Verhandlungen zum Freihandelsabkommen TTIP zwischen