Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Here’s how ABC’s slip exposes how Deep State sabotaged President elect Trump’s policy of rapprochement with Russia

Flynn’s attempt to carry out Trump’s instructions after the election to achieve rapprochement with Russia were what caused his downfall

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

11,746 Views

Around the time of the announcement of Michael Flynn’s indictment and guilty plea for lying to the FBI, the US television network ABC carried a sensational story that it had been told by an insider that Flynn had disclosed to Special Counsel Mueller’s inquiry that he had received instructions from Presidential candidate Donald Trump to establish contact with Russia.

The story caused a furore and a brief crash on the US Stock Market.  However within hours ABC had ‘clarified‘ it.

ABC now says that the insider is no longer saying that Michael Flynn told Special Counsel Mueller’s inquiry that he had received instructions from Presidential candidate Donald Trump to establish contact with Russia during the election.

What Flynn has actually told Special Counsel Mueller’s inquiry is that he received instructions from Presidential elect Donald Trump to establish contact with Russia after the election during the transition period.

In other words – assuming that the story is true, which it almost certainly is – Trump’s instructions to Flynn were given after the election and not before or during it.

This is absolutely crucial since the whole Russiagate case rests on the claim that there was illegal collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election.  By definition instructions to open contacts with Russia after the election can have no bearing on it.

The fact that ABC ran with this story for several hours is very revealing, and shows the way the true believers in the Russiagate conspiracy theory – unable to find any evidence of illegal collusion during the election – are now conflating the election period with the entirely different transition period.

ABC is far from being alone in this.  Here for example is how the Guardian – one of the most fervid supporters of the Russiagate conspiracy theory, whose former Russia correspondent Luke Harding has just published a lurid book about it – reports the story

Those conversations [between Kislyak and Flynn – AM] not only give the lie to repeated statements by the president that his team had no contact with the Russians, but they also raise the possibility of serious criminal exposure among members of Trump’s inner circle for breaking laws banning communications with foreign entities that undercut US policy…..

But if Trump and his family’s past denials of campaign contacts with Russians fell short of the truth – or if similar denials by Sessions fell short of the truth – Flynn could be in a position to highlight that. He might also be able to describe when the Trump campaign first became aware that Russians had what they called “dirt” on Hillary Clinton – and what the campaign did or did not do with that knowledge.

(bold italics added)

To my knowledge what Donald Trump has denied is that there was collusion between his campaign and Russia during the election.  He has not denied that his transition team had contacts with Russia after the election, and realistically it would make no sense for him to do so given that news of Flynn’s telephone conversations with Kislyak became public knowledge in January.

The Guardian is however conflating the election period and the transition period in order to say that Trump has lied about contacts with the Russians when he has not.  Moreover the rest of the article shows that the Guardian is fully aware of the difference between the Trump campaign and the Trump transition team, which casts a further strange light on its assertion that Trump lied when he quite plainly did not.

As it happens contact between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the election would not have been inappropriate or wrong, and it did take place though on a very small scale.

What would have been wrong would have been the Trump campaign engaging in a conspiracy with the Russians to swing the election to Donald Trump by engaging in wrong or illegal activity to discredit Hillary Clinton eg. by getting the Russians to steal and publish the DNC’s and John Podesta’s emails.

That is the allegation which has been made in the Russiagate case, of which no evidence in support has so far been found.

The ABC story is interesting because it actually confirms that Flynn is not providing Mueller’s team with that evidence.  Instead what Flynn is saying is that he received instructions from Trump to open communications with the Russians only after the election had taken place.

In other words Flynn’s information to Mueller’s team not only does not support the Russiagate collusion allegations; it actually refutes them.

This of course is consistent with Flynn’s statement released yesterday (discussed by me here) in which Flynn specifically denies the accusations of “treason” and “outrageous behaviour” which have been made against him.

Needless to say – since Flynn’s information to Mueller’s inquiry has failed to substantiate the collusion allegations – there are already attempts to claim instead that Trump’s instructions to Flynn and Flynn’s and Kushner’s dealings with the Russians were somehow inappropriate and illegal because they allegedly violate the Logan Act.

This is desperate.

There is as I understand it some uncertainty about whether the Logan Act – which has resulted in no convictions and only two prosecutions in the two hundred years of its existence – is even any longer applicable law.

However putting that aside, the overwhelming problem with prosecutions under the Logan Act is that the moment the American people elected Donald Trump their President he became the President elect, entitled to full secret service protection, and therefore ceased to be a private citizen.

His team at that point also ceased to be a group of private persons forming the team of a Presidential candidate but became instead the Trump administration  – ie. the government of the United States – in waiting.

To suppose that members of the President elect’s transition team are therefore somehow prohibited from having contacts or engaging in discussions with the envoys of foreign powers during the transition period is therefore ridiculous, and is wholly contrary to the historical practice of previous transition teams during previous transition periods ever since the US became a world power at the end of the Second World War.

What of the argument that Trump, Kushner and Flynn were somehow undermining existing US policy through their contacts with Kislyak?

This argument seems to me frankly also ridiculous, and even rather sinister.

Donald Trump from almost the first moment that he declared himself a candidate made known that if elected he would seek a rapprochement with Russia.  When the American people elected him constitutionally their President they did so on the basis of that policy.

I would add that there is no doubt that most American voters by the time of the election were fully aware that it was Donald Trump’s policy to seek a rapprochement with Russia because Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, the US media, and the US intelligence community never missed an opportunity to remind them of it.

To say therefore that the President elect was acting illegally or wrongly because following his election he gave his most senior foreign policy advisers instructions to put into effect the policy he was elected to carry out is not merely absurd; it is frankly undemocratic.

Here it is worth setting out ABC’s ‘clarification’ of its story in full

A clarification tonight on something one of Flynn’s confidants told us and we reported earlier today. He said the President had asked Flynn to contact Russia during the campaign. He’s now clarifying that, saying according to Flynn, candidate Trump asked him during the campaign to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other hot spots, and then after the election, the President-elect asked him, told him to contact Russia on issues, including working together to fight ISIS

(bold italics added)

The proposal that the US and Russia fight ISIS together is one which has been made repeatedly and which Donald Trump is known to have been attracted to.

The Obama administration itself made a very similar proposal to the Russians in July last year, floating the possibility of the US and Russia fighting Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria together, though it came to nothing because the Obama administration demanded that the Russians agree to regime change in Syria in return (see my discussions of this proposal here and here).

Why was it therefore wrong for President elect Trump to instruct Michael Flynn, his soon-to-be National Security Adviser, to explore with the Russians the possibility of re-floating this proposal?

As it happens the ABC story reveals something else.

One of the puzzles about Russiagate is that the US intelligence agencies’ surveillance of members of the Trump campaign, which to be clear began during the election, appears to have actually escalated after it.

The reason for this is now clear: instead of helping the President elect to prepare himself and his team to carry out his policies – which is what the transition period between administrations is supposed to be about – the outgoing Obama administration and the US’s national security bureaucracy actively sabotaged them, stepping up surveillance of the members of the new incoming administration and orchestrating a media campaign against them in order to sabotage the President elect’s policies.

That almost certainly explains the secrecy with which Trump, Flynn and Kushner went about their actions.

Whereas what the situation actually called for was a trip by Flynn to Moscow to hold talks with the Russian leaders, he and Kushner instead felt obliged to communicate with the Russians in a hole-in-the-corner way, with Kushner even feeling obliged to ask that communications between Flynn and the Russian military about Syria should take place through a Russian channel.

It was doubtless this oppressive feeling of being watched, and the culture of secrecy which came with it, which caused Flynn to lie about what he had been doing to the FBI.

The depressing reality revealed by the Flynn affair is of a well-meaning but bungled attempt to re-establish a civil relationship with Russia, which was actively sabotaged by the outgoing Obama administration and by elements of the US national security bureaucracy in alliance with the media and the Democratic Party.

In the process the policy upon which the US President was constitutionally elected by the American people has been set aside.

It turns out that not only does the US most definitely have a Deep State, but that it is willing to use its power to sabotage the policy of the President who the people have elected.

Truly democracy in America is in peril and the great American Republic is going through dark times.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Is the Violent Dismemberment of Russia Official US Policy?

Neocons make the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Erik D’Amato via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


If there’s one thing everyone in today’s Washington can agree on, it’s that whenever an official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous, there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury.

With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth.

Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn’t. Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title “Managing Russia’s dissolution,” author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution.

Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia’s might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional fragmentation.But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an “imperial construct.”

The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly ungovernable…

To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.

Even more alarming is Bugajski’s argument that the goal should not be self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries. “Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past.”

It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear warheads.

So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?

The author bio on the Hill’s piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop: Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to NATO, the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable who’s who of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.

To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly talk of a “Calexit,” and many more in Mexico of a reconquista.)

Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski’s coming out in favor of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn’t appear to have noticed or been ruffled by Bugajski’s immodest proposal.

Indeed, just as the real scandal in Washington is what’s legal rather than illegal, the real outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski’s virtual declaration of war notable.

But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of the month.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Vladimir Putin visits Serbia, as NATO encircles the country it attacked in 1999 (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 171.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official visit to Serbia.

Putin met with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to further develop bilateral trade and economic relations, as well as discuss pressing regional issues including the possibility of extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline into Serbia, and the dangerous situation around Kosovo.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


Russian President Vladimir Putin got a hero’s welcome in Belgrade. The one-day visit to the last holdout against NATO’s ambitions in the Balkans may have been somewhat short on substance, but was certainly loaded with symbolism.

Even before he landed, the Russian leader was given an honor guard by Serbian air force MiGs, a 2017 gift from Moscow to replace those destroyed by NATO during the 1999 air campaign that ended with the occupation of Serbia’s province of Kosovo. Russia has refused to recognize Kosovo’s US-backed declaration of independence, while the US and EU have insisted on it.

Upon landing, Putin began his first official trip of 2019 by paying respects to the Soviet soldiers who died liberating Belgrade from Nazi occupation in 1944. While most Serbians haven’t forgotten their historical brotherhood in arms with Russia, it did not hurt to remind the West just who did the bulk of the fighting against Nazi Germany back in World War II.

After official talks with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, Putin visited the Church of St. Sava, the grand Orthodox basilica set on the spot where the Ottoman Turks torched the remains of the first Serbian archbishop back in 1594, in an effort to maintain power.

Sava, whose brother Stefan became the “first-crowned” king of medieval Serbia, was responsible for setting up the autocephalous Serbian Orthodox Church exactly eight centuries ago this year. For all its own troubles, the Serbian Church has sided with Moscow in the current Orthodox schism over Ukraine.

Russian artisans have been working on the grand mosaic inside the basilica, and asked Putin to complete the design by placing the last three pieces, in the colors of the Russian flag.

Whether by sheer coincidence or by design, Putin also weighed in on Serbia’s culture war, giving interviews ahead of his visit to two daily newspapers that still publish in Serbian Cyrillic – while the majority of the press, whether controlled by the West or by Vucic, prefers the Latin variant imported from Croatia.

Western media usually refer to Serbia as a “Russian ally.” While this is true in a historical and cultural sense, there is no formal military alliance between Moscow and Belgrade. Serbia officially follows the policy of military neutrality, with its armed forces taking part in exercises alongside both Russian and NATO troops.

This is a major source of irritation for NATO, which seeks dominion over the entire Balkans region. Most recently, the alliance extended membership to Montenegro in 2017 without putting the question to a referendum. It is widely expected that “Northern Macedonia” would get an invitation to NATO as soon as its name change process is complete – and that was arranged by a deal both Macedonia and Greece seem to have been pressured into by Washington.

That would leave only Serbia outside the alliance – partly, anyway, since NATO has a massive military base in the disputed province of Kosovo, and basically enjoys special status in that quasi-state. Yet despite Belgrade’s repeated declarations of Serbia wanting to join the EU, Brussels and Washington have set recognition of Kosovo as the key precondition – and no Serbian leader has been able to deliver on that just yet, though Vucic has certainly tried.

Putin’s repeated condemnations of NATO’s 1999 attack, and Russian support for Serbia’s territorial integrity guaranteed by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, have made him genuinely popular among the Serbs, more so than Vucic himself. Tens of thousands of people showed up in Belgrade to greet the Russian president.

While Vucic’s critics have alleged that many of them were bused in by the government – which may well be true, complete with signs showing both Vucic and Putin – there is no denying the strong pro-Russian sentiment in Serbia, no matter how hard Integrity Initiative operatives have tried.

One of the signs spotted in Belgrade reportedly said “one of 300 million,” referring to the old Serbian joke about there being “300 million of us – and Russians.” However, it is also a send-up of the slogan used by current street protesters against Vucic. For the past six weeks, every Saturday, thousands of people have marched through Belgrade, declaring themselves “1 of 5 million” after Vucic said he wouldn’t give in to their demands even if “five million showed up.”

The opposition Democrats accuse him of corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, cronyism – all the sins they themselves have plenty of experience with during their 12-year reign following Serbia’s color revolution. Yet they’ve had to struggle for control of the marches with the nationalists, who accuse Vucic of preparing to betray Kosovo and want “him to go away, but [Democrats] not come back.”

There is plenty of genuine discontent in Serbia with Vucic, who first came to power in 2012 on a nationalist-populist platform but quickly began to rule as a pro-NATO liberal. It later emerged that western PR firms had a key role in his party’s “makeover” from Radicals to Progressives. Yet his subsequent balancing act between NATO and Russia has infuriated both the NGOs and politicians in Serbia beholden to Western interests, and US diplomats charged with keeping the Balkans conquered.

Washington is busy with its own troubles these days, so there was no official comment to Putin’s visit from the State Department – only a somewhat pitiful and tone-deaf tweet by Ambassador Kyle Scott, bemoaning the lack of punishment for $1 million in damages to the US Embassy during a 2008 protest against Kosovo “independence.” Yet as far as Western media outlets are concerned, why Moscow seems to be vastly more popular than Washington on the streets of Belgrade nonetheless remains a mystery.

By Nebojsa Malic

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Curious Bedfellows: The Neocon And Progressive Alliance To Destroy Donald Trump

The neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint.

Published

on

Authored by Philip Giraldi via OffGuardian.com:


The Roman poet Ovid’s masterful epic The Metamorphoses includes the memorable opening line regarding the poem’s central theme of transformation. He wrote In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora, which has been translated as “Of shapes transformed to bodies strange, I purpose to entreat…”

Ovid framed his narrative around gods, heroes and quasi-historical events but if he were around today, he would no doubt be fascinated by the many transformations of the group that has defined itself as neoconservative.The movement began in a cafeteria in City College of New York in the 1930s, where a group of radical Jewish students would meet to discuss politics and developments in Europe. Many of the founders were from the far left, communists of the Trotskyite persuasion, which meant that they believed in permanent global revolution led by a vanguard party. The transformation into conservatives of a neo-persuasion took place when they were reportedly “mugged by reality” into accepting that the standard leftist formulae were not working to transform the world rapidly enough. As liberal hawks, they then hitched their wagon to the power of the United States to bring about transformation by force if necessary and began to infiltrate institutions like the Pentagon to give themselves the tools to achieve their objectives, which included promotion of regime change wars, full spectrum global dominance and unconditional support for Israel.

The neocons initially found a home with Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, but they moved on in the 1970s and 1980s to prosper under Ronald Reagan as well as under Democrat Bill Clinton. Their ability to shape policy peaked under George W. Bush, when they virtually ran the Pentagon and were heavily represented in both the national security apparatus and in the White House. They became adept at selling their mantra of “strong national defense” to whomever was buying, including to President Obama, even while simultaneously complaining about his administration’s “weakness.”

The neoconservatives lined up behind Hillary Clinton in 2016, appalled by Donald Trump’s condemnation of their centerpiece war in Iraq and even more so by his pledge to end the wars in Asia and nation-building projects while also improving relations with the Russians. They worked actively against the Republican candidate both before he was nominated and elected and did everything they could to stop him, including libeling him as a Russian agent.

When Trump was elected, it, therefore, seemed that the reign of the neocons had ended, but chameleonlike, they have changed shape and are now ensconced both in some conservative as well as in an increasing number of progressive circles in Washington and in the media. Against all odds, they have even captured key posts in the White House itself with the naming of John Bolton as National Security Adviser and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Bolton’s Chief of Staff is Fred Fleitz, a leading neocon and Islamophobe while last week Trump added Iran hawk Richard Goldberg to the National Security Council as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Goldberg is an alumnus of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is the leading neocon think tank calling incessantly for war with Iran.

Meanwhile, the neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint. Glenn Greenwald reports that, based on polling of party supporters, the Democrats have gone full-Hillary and are now by far more hawkish than the Republicans, unwilling to leave either Syria or Afghanistan.

The neocon survival and rejuvenation is particularly astonishing in that they have been wrong about virtually everything, most notably the catastrophic Iraq War. They have never been held accountable for anything, though one should note that accountability is not a prominent American trait, at least since Vietnam. What is important is that neocon views have been perceived by the media and punditry as being part of the Establishment consensus, which provides them with access to programming all across the political spectrum. That is why neocon standard-bearers like Bill Kristol and Max Boot have been able to move effortlessly from Fox News to MSNBC where they are fêted by the likes of Rachel Maddow. They applauded the Iraq War when the Establishment was firmly behind it and are now trying to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency because America’s elite is behind that effort.

Indeed, the largely successful swing by the neocons from right to left has in some ways become more surreal, as an increasing number of progressive spokesmen and institutions have lined up behind their perpetual warfare banner. The ease with which the transformation took place reveals, interestingly, that the neocons have no real political constituency apart from voters who feel threatened and respond by supporting perpetual war, but they do share many common interests with the so-called liberal interventionists. Neocons see a global crisis for the United States defined in terms of power while the liberals see the struggle as a moral imperative, but the end result is the same: intervention by the United States. This fusion is clearly visible in Washington, where the Clintons’ Center for American Progress (CAP) is now working on position papers with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

One of the most active groups attacking President Trump is “Republicans for the Rule of Law,” founded by Bill Kristol in January 2018, as a component of Defending Democracy Together(DDT), a 501(c)4 lobbying group that also incorporates projects called The Russia Tweets and Republicans Against Putin. Republicans Against Putin promotes the view that President Trump is not “stand[ing] up to [Vladimir] Putin” and calls for more aggressive investigation of the Russian role in the 2016 election.

DDT is a prime example of how the neoconservatives and traditional liberal interventionists have come together as it is in part funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of eBay who has provided DDT with $600,000 in two grants through his Democracy Fund Voice, also a 501(c)4. Omidyar is a political liberal who has given millions of dollars to progressive organizations and individuals since 1999. Indeed, he is regarded as a top funder of liberal causesin the United States and even globally together with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. His Democracy Fund awarded $9 million in grants in 2015 alone.

Last week, the Omidyar-Kristol connection may have deepened with an announcement regarding the launch of the launch of a new webzine The Bulwark, which would clearly be at least somewhat intended to take the place of the recently deceased Weekly Standard. It is promoting itself as the center of the “Never Trump Resistance” and it is being assumed that at least some of the Omidyar money is behind it.

Iranian-born Omidyar’s relationship with Kristol is clearly based on the hatred that the two share regarding Donald Trump.

Omidyar has stated that Trump is a “dangerous authoritarian demagogue… endorsing Donald Trump immediately disqualifies you from any position of public trust.”

He has tweeted that Trump suffers from “failing mental capacity” and is both “corrupt and incapacitated.”

Omidyar is what he is – a hardcore social justice warrior who supports traditional big government and globalist liberal causes, most of which are antithetical to genuine conservatives. But what is interesting about the relationship with Kristol is that it also reveals what the neoconservatives are all about. Kristol and company have never been actual conservatives on social issues, a topic that they studiously avoid, and their foreign policy is based on two principles: creating a state of perpetual war based on fearmongering about foreign enemies while also providing unlimited support for Israel. Kristol hates Trump because he threatens the war agenda while Omidyar despises the president for traditional progressive reasons. That hatred is the tie that binds and it is why Bill Kristol, a man possessing no character and values whatsoever, is willing to take Pierre Omidyar’s money while Pierre is quite happy to provide it to destroy a common enemy, the President of the United States of America.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending