Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

Joint Investigation Team on MH-17: Why the case is still open

A disregard of Russian technical evidence, a failure to produce US evidence, and a heavy reliance on social media, video, radio intercept, and eye-witness evidence originating from Ukraine, leaves the case open.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

4,637 Views

As widely anticipated the so-called Joint Investigation Team (JIT) investigating the circumstances of the shooting down of MH17 delivered a preliminary report on Wednesday 28th September 2016 which said that MH17 was shot down by the east Ukrainian militia from a location near the town of Snezhnoe with a BUK missile supposedly smuggled to them from Russia.

This theory has been in circulation since almost immediately after MH17 was shot down.  It relies heavily on social media reports and videos of a BUK missile launcher supposedly being moved around eastern Ukraine.  Some of this evidence is also backed by claims by eye-witnesses, and radio intercepts.

The first point to make about the investigation that published these findings on Wednesday is that its instigator is Ukraine.

Ukraine as the country in whose airspace MH17 was shot down has the right to set up an inquiry to look into the facts of the tragedy, and that is what it did.  It also invited a selected group of other countries to join its inquiry, and that is what happened. 

That Ukraine is the instigator of this investigation is confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 2166 of 21st July 2016, whose paragraph 4 reads as follows:

“(The Security Council) recognises the efforts under way by Ukraine, working in coordination with ICAO and other international experts and organisations, including representatives of States of Occurrence, Registry, Operator, Design and Manufacture, as well as States who have lost nationals on MH17, to institute an international investigation of the incident, and calls on all States to provide any requested assistance to civil and criminal investigations related to this incident.”

(bold italics added)

In other words this is a Ukrainian investigation which certain other countries, namely the  Netherlands, Australia and Malaysia – all allies of the US and of Ukraine – were invited to join, and which they agreed to join. 

Contrary to some claims, this is not an investigation set up by the Security Council, which merely “recognised” Ukraine’s intention to set it up. 

Russia was not invited to join the investigation, and has played no role in it. 

Reports say it was the Ukrainians who carried out most of the field work, and who produced most of the evidence.  The nature of the evidence presented on Wednesday confirms that this is so.  It is the sort of evidence that could only have come from Ukrainian sources.

The countries which agreed to join the investigation were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement which gave Ukraine the right to veto publication any findings of the investigation.  The fact Dutch officials have taken the lead in presenting the findings of the investigation and appear to have played a significant role in it, should not obscure the fact that it was Ukraine that set up the investigation, and which mainly conducted it.

At the time the investigation was set up Ukraine was or ought to have been a suspect in the case.  MH17 was shot down in its airspace at a time of armed conflict. Its military possess the means to shoot aircraft such as MH17 down, and there was at the very least a possibility that they might have shot it down.

Any investigation set up by a suspect in a case in which the suspect continues to play a major role by definition cannot be impartial or independent. This investigation therefore is not impartial or independent.  The fact certain countries agreed to join an investigation set up by Ukraine in such circumstances amounts to a presumption on the part of those countries of Ukraine’s innocence and of others’ guilt.  The fact the report adopts Ukrainian political language (for example the east Ukrainian militia are called “separatists”) is a sign of this.

The report is therefore best understood as what it actually is: a presentation of the prosecution case in the case Ukraine wants to bring against the people it accuses of shooting down MH17.  What has happened is that Ukraine has brought in the help of outside countries – first and foremost the Netherlands but to a certain extent also the US – to lend its case credibility and to strengthen some of its technical aspects.

A  separate investigation into the tragedy was also carried out by the Dutch Safety Board, which reported last year.  This investigation was conducted under the aegis of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. 

This investigation also receives mention in Resolution 2166, whose preamble reads in part as follows

“Stressing the need for a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the incident in accordance with international civil aviation guidelines, noting in this regard the crucial role played by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in aircraft accident and incident investigations, and welcoming the decision by ICAO to send a team to work in coordination with the Ukrainian National Bureau of Incidents and Accidents Investigation of Civil Aircraft in this investigation, following a request for assistance by Ukraine to ICAO and others”.

The Dutch Safety Board investigation said that MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile but failed to identify the precise launch point, and did not name those responsible for launching the missile. 

It is often claimed that the Dutch Safety Board was prevented by paragraph 3.1 of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (which says that “it is not the purpose of this (investigation) to apportion blame or liability”) from identifying the launch point and from saying who was responsible for the launch of the missile.  This is to confuse the question of “blame and liability” – which depends on circumstance and intention – with the wholly separate question of cause.

The Dutch Safety Board decanted the question of the location of the launch point and the identity of those responsible to the team that reported on Wednesday.  It is difficult to avoid the feeling that this was done because as the Dutch Safety Board investigation was carried out under ICAO rules the Russians were parties to it and had a right to submit evidence and receive and comment on the findings.  By contrast since the Russians have no role in the investigation which reported on Wednesday, they were frozen out of its work. 

I have discussed the Dutch Safety Board report at length.  Briefly in my opinion it suffered from two fundamental flaws. 

The first was the failure to discuss the verified presence of Ukrainian BUK missile launchers in the area where MH17 was shot down.  Here is what I had to say about that

“The elephant in the room that the report refuses to see is however the Ukrainian BUK missile launchers we know from Russian satellite imagery were present in the area at the time of the tragedy.

Attempts to discredit the Russian images of these launchers have been made by the Ukrainian authorities and by Bellingcat. They have ended in abject failure. The presence in the area at the time of the tragedy of these launchers is incontrovertible.

The report in fact admits that the Ukrainians were known before the tragedy to have had anti-aircraft systems capable of shooting down MH17 in the area. The report does not however say that some of these were BUK missile launchers.

The report makes no reference to these launchers though their relevance to the question of how MH17 was shot down is all too obvious.

The silence about the Ukrainian BUK missile launchers contrasts oddly with the report’s lengthy discussion of the anti-aircraft systems the militia was believed to possess before the tragedy took place. Inconclusive speculations about militia anti-aircraft systems were apparently considered more worthy of inclusion in the report than incontrovertible evidence of the presence of Ukrainian BUK missile systems, despite the fact that it was a BUK missile that shot MH17 down, and despite the fact the Ukrainians have a previous history of shooting down civilian airliners with such missiles.

As it happens the report confirms that neither the Dutch nor it seems the intelligence agency of any other Western power believed before the tragedy that the militia possessed anti-aircraft systems capable of shooting MH17 down, even though other Ukrainian aircraft had been shot down in the previous days over the same area, and even though the area was under the close observation of Western intelligence agencies.

The silence in the report about the Ukrainian BUK missile launchers continues the pattern of Western silence about these launchers that has been evident ever since the Russians first revealed them in their intelligence presentation of 21st July 2014. It is doubtful that more than a tiny fraction of the Western public knows about them. If it did it would radically alter the Western public’s view of the tragedy.”

The second arguably even more fundamental flaw was the way the evidence of Almaz-Antey, the Russian company which manufactures the BUK missile system, was misrepresented

“The single greatest flaw of the report is its failure to take heed of the Russian technical advice – specifically that of Almaz-Antey – even though it is the properties of a Russian weapons system – the BUK missile of which Almaz-Antey is the manufacturer – which is being discussed.

In the case of Almaz-Antey insult is added to injury by the way its advice is misrepresented in the report so as to make it seem that Almaz-Antey has corroborated the Dutch Safety Board’s view that the missile was launched from within the 320 square kilometre area the Dutch Safety Board identifies as the probable launch area. Almaz-Antey actually pinpoints the launch point as being outside this area, but the report makes no mention of the fact.

Even if Almaz-Antey’s objectivity as a Russian state company is doubted, its expertise as the BUK missile’s manufacturer ought to grant its opinion a measure of attention and respect. It should at the very least be the subject of comment and discussion, even if it is in the end rejected.”

Almaz-Antey has pinpointed the launch site not in the 320 square kilometre area from where the Dutch Safety Board says the missile was launched, but from a different area near the village of Zaroshchenskoe near Shakthorsk where Russian military satellite imagery has shown a Ukrainian BUK missile launcher present at roughly the time of the tragedy.

The investigation team which reported on Wednesday has repeated and compounded these flaws. 

It has nothing to say about the Ukrainian BUK missile launchers, whose presence is not acknowledged.  As for Almaz-Antey’s evidence about the launch point being Zaroshchenskoe, that was summarily dismissed by Wilbert Paulissen, the Dutch chief investigator, with these words

“From the wealth and diversity of the other evidence gathered by the JIT, we have no doubt whatsoever the conclusions that we’re presenting today are accurate and that conclusion is that on 17 July flight [2014] MH17 was shot down by a Buk missile, shot from farmland in Pervomaiskiy and the system was brought in from the Russian Federation territory and then returned to the Russian Federation afterwards.”

This fails to address the scientific basis of Almaz-Antey’s evidence.  Instead what Paulissen is in effect saying is that because his team has a “wealth and diversity of other evidence” they feel they can just ignore it.

As to what that “wealth and diversity of other evidence” is, that became all too clear during the presentation on Wednesday: a mixture of social media reports, intercepted radio communications, videos, and eye-witness testimony, all of which must ultimately come from Ukrainian sources, and most of which has been in the public domain for a long time.  Scientific evidence is discussed in the report but barely featured in the press conference and goes unmentioned in most Western media reports.  As Almaz-Antey somewhat acidly commented

“In today’s event the JIT presented the conclusions it has arrived at so far. In the course of the presentation the technical aspects of the investigation were not touched upon. Practically none of them was mentioned.”

Almaz-Antey continues to complain that its expert advice – unparalleled in this field – is going unheeded

“As early as in May, when the documents were turned over to Dutch experts, we understood that they were unlikely to be used for certain reasons. That is why the Russian side sent classified documents to the International Technical Commission on July 29, 2015 and submitted the main characteristics, which correspond to a model used by Almaz-Antei. The commission did not take account of that document.”

Almaz-Antey also says that because its evidence is being ignored the entire model of the tragedy upon which the team is working is wrong

“the entire model was from the outset built for only one version that the missile flew towards the airliner [i.e. from the Snezhnoye settlement].  The full-scale experiment as well as all the previous and subsequent experiments made the Almaz-Antey experts to conclude that the Dutch version of a missile exploding on a head-on course was unreliable. There is a whole number of factors, the unreliable damages in the first place, which prove that.”

This has been the consistent pattern from the earliest days of the tragedy.  The Russians have made public and have provided both teams of investigators – the Dutch Safety Board and the investigators who reported on Wednesday – with reams of technical evidence including scientific tests, satellite imagery and radar pictures.  The fate of this evidence is however to be either misrepresented or ignored.

Meanwhile the US, which immediately after the tragedy claimed to have evidence that pinpointed the location of the missile launch, and which said it was in “militia controlled territory”, refuses to make public the evidence upon which it made that assertion. 

The team on Wednesday claimed the US concurs with its finding the missile was launched from militia controlled Snezhnoe and has provided a statement that supposedly explains the reasons why it on the basis of the evidence in its possession it came to this conclusion.  However since the US has not disclosed the evidence upon which this reasoning is based there is no way to corroborate this.   Instead we are asked to accept that the fact the US has shown its evidence to Dutch intelligence (which agrees with its analysis) is corroboration enough.

In a bizarre twist the US is now actually saying that it is the findings of the team which are corroborating its assertions

“The Team’s interim findings corroborate Secretary Kerry’s statement in the days following the tragedy that MH17 was shot down by a BUK surface-to-air missile fired from Russian-backed, separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine.”

(bold italics added)

Whilst it is difficult to know quite what to make of this, on the face of it it suggests that the claims the US made in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy about the launch point were not as conclusive or as factually based as the US led everyone to think they might be.  Why if they were would they need the team’s “corroboration”?

Regardless of that, the current position is that whilst the Russians provide a deluge of technical evidence, and the US publishes none, the team which reported on Wednesday bases its conclusions principally on information originating from Ukrainian sources.  This of course includes the eye-witness, radio intercept, video, and social media evidence etc.

Most of this evidence has already been in the public domain for some time, where it has been vigorously contested.  There is for example much argument about the interpretation of some of the radio intercept evidence, much of which does not seem to be very conclusive, and which is capable of being interpreted in different ways.

Some more nuggets of evidence were produced on Wednesday, but I have no doubt they will be quickly contested as well. 

To get a flavour of what is coming, consider the dispute over which party was in control of Zaroshchenskoe, the village near Shakhtorsk from where Almaz-Antey says the missile that shot down MH17 was launched. 

The team on Wednesday supported longstanding Ukrainian claims that on the day of the tragedy Zaroshchenskoe was under militia control.  Since they base their findings on information the Ukrainians give them they could hardly do otherwise.  The claim incidentally appears to be largely based on a radio intercept from June 2015, which would be almost a year after MH17 was shot down.  One might have expected more weight on such a subject to be placed on Ukrainian military records.  Regardless, this claim has been strongly disputed by others who have produced a mountain of evidence which they say proves that Zaroshchenskoe was in fact under Ukrainian control. 

Realistically there was no possibility that a team set up by Ukraine would implicate Ukraine, and no possibility Western leaders and the Western media, with their credibility on the line, would ever press for a truly independent inquiry that might have come to that conclusion.

At this point it is worth reiterating that the presentation on Wednesday does not have the status of a court judgment or a board of inquiry report.  Instead it is a presentation by prosecutors of parts of the case they intend to bring in the (unlikely) event of a criminal case being brought against those they accuse of shooting MH17 down.  That by definition makes the presentation provisional and open to challenge, and especially given Ukraine’s involvement accounts for its structural bias.

If the claim by the team the militia was responsible for shooting down MH17 was a foregone conclusion, have we nonetheless learnt anything new from the evidence they have provided?

Until this evidence is thoroughly and independently examined I cannot say.  However I have to say I doubt it.  None of the new evidence presented on Wednesday looked to me especially compelling.  Radio intercept evidence is always subject to interpretation, eye-witness evidence is rarely reliable, and despite the team’s earnest protestations that the video evidence is reliable, there have been too many cases in the past where that has turned out to be not so.  As for the technical evidence, that is being fiercely challenged by Almaz-Antey, whose expertise in this field is unmatched. 

The fact that the Western media’s reporting of the presentation on Wednesday was so understated – none of the British newspapers made it anything close to a headline story – suggests that they too found the case they heard less than compelling. 

I suspect part of the problem was that so much of this evidence was already known – and was already known to be hotly contested – that in the end it could not be completely persuasive.

The key problem however is that the most important evidence of all simply wasn’t there. 

This is the evidence the US says it has which supposedly pinpoints the launch point, and which in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy the US claimed proved it was the militia which launched the missile that shot down MH17.

Not only does the US continue to refuse to publish this evidence, but it has never given a really satisfactory reason why it refuses to do so. 

If the evidence is so highly classified that it cannot be released – as is often said (though not to my knowledge on the record by US officials) – then the US should never have spoken of it at all.  By doing so the US foreclosed the possibility of a truly open-minded inquiry whilst denying the militia the possibility to refute what is said to be the strongest evidence against them.

There is also the problem that the US has in the past published evidence when it suits it.  The US for example did so in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war. That evidence turned out to be wrong, a fact which means that few today are prepared to take US claims about its evidence on trust, something the US seems to struggle to understand. Certainly relying on another NATO intelligence agency – in this case Dutch intelligence – to give the US’s evidence its support will convince few people.

Regardless, given that the US has a previous history of releasing this sort of evidence, it needs at the very least to provide a satisfactory explanation of why it is not doing so now if it is going to persuade the doubters.  This is especially so given that the very high stakes in this case make it difficult for many people to believe the US would not have found some way to publish at least some of its evidence if it really wanted to.

In the absence of this evidence the sort of evidence that came from the team on Wednesday looks too much like an attempt to piece together a case that was supposed to have been already proved in the days immediately after the tragedy to convince the skeptics and still the doubts.  The selective way in which some of the facts were presented in what ultimately was the prosecution’s presentation of its case, and the State Department’s rush to claim the team’s findings corroborate its original assertions (rather than the other way round) is only going to reinforce those doubts. 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
1 Comment

1
Leave a Reply

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
Rhoro Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rhoro
Guest
Rhoro

“The countries which agreed to join the investigation were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement which gave Ukraine the right to veto publication any findings of the investigation.”
Do we have a copy of this agreement? I think it’s important to see that Ukraine has, in fact, a veto over any content in this report.

Latest

Russia Gives US Red Line On Venezuela

Political force is out. Military force is out. Respect international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty. That’s Russia’s eminently reasonable ultimatum to Washington.

Published

on

Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


At a high-level meeting in Rome this week, it seems that Russia reiterated a grave warning to the US – Moscow will not tolerate American military intervention to topple the Venezuelan government with whom it is allied.

Meanwhile, back in Washington DC, President Donald Trump was again bragging that the military option was still on the table, in his press conference with Brazilian counterpart Jair Bolsonaro. Trump is bluffing or not yet up to speed with being apprised of Russia’s red line.

The meeting in the Italian capital between US “special envoy” on Venezuelan affairs Elliot Abrams and Russia’s deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov had an air of urgency in its arrangement. The US State Department announced the tête-à-tête only three days beforehand. The two officials also reportedly held their two-hour discussions in a Rome hotel, a venue indicating ad hoc arrangement.

Abrams is no ordinary diplomat. He is a regime-change specialist with a criminal record for sponsoring terrorist operations, specifically the infamous Iran-Contra affair to destabilize Nicaragua during the 1980s. His appointment by President Trump to the “Venezuela file” only underscores the serious intent in Washington for regime change in Caracas. Whether it gets away with that intent is another matter.

Moscow’s interlocutor, Sergei Ryabkov, is known to not mince his words, having earlier castigated Washington for seeking global military domination. He calls a spade a spade, and presumably a criminal a criminal.

The encounter in Rome this week was described as “frank” and “serious” – which is diplomatic code for a blazing exchange. The timing comes at a high-stakes moment, after Venezuela having been thrown into chaos last week from civilian power blackouts that many observers, including the Kremlin, blame on American cyber sabotage. The power grid outage followed a failed attempt by Washington to stage a provocation with the Venezuelan military over humanitarian aid deliveries last month from neighboring Colombia.

The fact that Washington’s efforts to overthrow the elected President Nicolas Maduro have so far floundered, might suggest that the Americans are intensifying their campaign to destabilize the country, with the objective of installing US-backed opposition figure Juan Guaido. He declared himself “acting president” in January with Washington’s imprimatur.

Given that the nationwide power blackouts seem to have failed in fomenting a revolt by the civilian population or the military against Maduro, the next option tempting Washington could be the military one.

It seems significant that Washington has recently evacuated its last remaining diplomats from the South American country. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo commented on the evacuation by saying that having US personnel on the ground “was limiting” Washington’s scope for action. Also, American Airlines reportedly cancelled all its services to Venezuela in the past week. Again, suggesting that the US was considering a military intervention, either directly with its troops or covertly by weaponizing local proxies. The latter certainly falls under Abrams’ purview.

After the Rome meeting, Ryabkov said bluntly: “We assume that Washington treats our priorities seriously, our approach and warnings.”

One of those warnings delivered by Ryabkov is understood to have been that no American military intervention in Venezuela will be tolerated by Moscow.

For his part, Abrams sounded as if he had emerged from the meeting after having been given a severe reprimand. “No, we did not come to a meeting of minds, but I think the talks were positive in the sense that both sides emerged with a better understanding of the other’s views,” he told reporters.

“A better understanding of the other’s views,” means that the American side was given a red line to back off.

The arrogance of the Americans is staggering. Abrams seems, according to US reporting, to have flown to Rome with the expectation of working out with Ryabkov a “transition” or “compromise” on who gets the “title of president” of Venezuela.

That’s what he no doubt meant when he said after the meeting “there was not a meeting of minds”, but rather he got “a better understanding” of Russia’s position.

Washington’s gambit is a replay of Syria. During the eight-year war in that country, the US continually proffered the demand of a “political transition” which at the end would see President Bashar al Assad standing down. By contrast, Russia’s unflinching position on Syria has always been that it’s not up to any external power to decide Syria’s politics. It is a sovereign matter for the Syrian people to determine independently.

Nearly three years after Russia intervened militarily in Syria to salvage the Arab country from a US-backed covert war for regime change, the American side has manifestly given up on its erstwhile imperious demands for “political transition”. The principle of Syrian sovereignty has prevailed, in large part because of Russia’s trenchant defense of its Arab ally.

Likewise, Washington, in its incorrigible arrogance, is getting another lesson from Russia – this time in its own presumed “back yard” of Latin America.

It’s not a question of Russia being inveigled by Washington’s regime-change schemers about who should be president of Venezuela and “how we can manage a transition”. Moscow has reiterated countless times that the legitimate president of Venezuela is Nicolas Maduro whom the people voted for last year by an overwhelming majority in a free and fair election – albeit boycotted by the US-orchestrated opposition.

The framework Washington is attempting to set up of choosing between their desired “interim president” and incumbent Maduro is an entirely spurious one. It is not even worthy to be discussed because it is a gross violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty. Who is Washington to even dare try to impose its false choice?

On Venezuela, Russia is having to remind the criminal American rulers – again – about international law and respect for national sovereignty, as Moscow earlier did with regard to Syria.

And in case Washington gets into a huff and tries the military option, Moscow this week told regime-change henchman Abrams that that’s a red line. If Washington has any sense of rationale left, it will know from its Syria fiasco that Russia has Venezuela’s back covered.

Political force is out. Military force is out. Respect international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty. That’s Russia’s eminently reasonable ultimatum to Washington.

Now, the desperate Americans could still try more sabotage, cyber or financial. But their options are limited, contrary to what Trump thinks.

How the days of American imperialist swagger are numbered. There was a time when it could rampage all over Latin America. Not any more, evidently. Thanks in part to Russia’s global standing and military power.

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

Latest

With RussiaGate Over Where’s Hillary?

Hillary is the epitome of envy. Envy is the destructive sin of coveting someone else’s life so much they are obsessed with destroying it. It’s the sin of Cain. She envies what Trump has, the Presidency.

Published

on

Authored by Tom Luongo:


During most of the RussiaGate investigation against Donald Trump I kept saying that all roads lead to Hillary Clinton.

Anyone with three working brain cells knew this, including ‘Miss’ Maddow, whose tears of disappointment are particularly delicious.

Robert Mueller’s investigation was designed from the beginning to create something out of nothing. It did this admirably.

It was so effective it paralyzed the country for more than two years, just like Europe has been held hostage by Brexit. And all of this because, in the end, the elites I call The Davos Crowd refused to accept that the people no longer believed their lies about the benefits of their neoliberal, globalist agenda.

Hillary Clinton’s ascension to the Presidency was to be their apotheosis along with the Brexit vote. These were meant to lay to rest, once and for all time, the vaguely libertarian notion that people should rule themselves and not be ruled by philosopher kings in some distant land.

Hillary’s failure was enormous. And the RussiaGate gambit to destroy Trump served a laundry list of purposes to cover it:

  1. Undermine his legitimacy before he even takes office.
  2. Accuse him of what Hillary actually did: collude with Russians and Ukrainians to effect the outcome of the election
  3. Paralyze Trump on his foreign policy desires to scale back the Empire
  4. Give aid and comfort to hurting progressives and radicalize them further undermining our political system
  5. Polarize the electorate over the false choice of Trump’s guilt.
  6. Paralyze the Dept. of Justice and Congress so that they would not uncover the massive corruption in the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and the U.K.
  7. Isolate Trump and take away every ally or potential ally he could have by turning them against him through prosecutor overreach.

Hillary should have been thrown to the wolves after she failed. When you fail the people she failed and cost them the money she cost them, you lose more than just your funding. What this tells you is that she has so much dirt on everyone involved, once this thing started everyone went along with it lest she burn them down as well.

Burnin’ Down da House

Hillary is the epitome of envy. Envy is the destructive sin of coveting someone else’s life so much they are obsessed with destroying it. It’s the sin of Cain

She envies what Trump has, the Presidency.

And she was willing to tear it down to keep him from having it no matter how much damage it would do. She’s worse than the Joker from The Dark Knight.

Because while the Joker is unfathomable to someone with a conscience there’s little stopping us from excising him from the community completely., even though Batman refuses.

Hillary hates us for who we are and what we won’t give her. And that animus drove her to blackmail the world while putting on the face of its savior.

And that’s what makes what comes next so obvious to me. RussiaGate was never a sustainable narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there.

Mueller thought all he had to do was lean on corrupt people and threaten them with everything. They would turn on Trump. He would resign in disgrace from the public outcry.

It didn’t work. In the end Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone all held their ground or perjured themselves into the whole thing falling apart.

Andrew Weissman’s resignation last month was your tell there was nothing. Mueller would pursue this to the limit of his personal reputation and no further.

Just like so many other politicians.

Vote Your Pocketbook

With respect to Brexit I’ve been convinced that it would come down to reputations.

Would the British MP’s vote against their own personal best interests to do the bidding of the EU?

Would Theresa May eventually realize her historical reputation would be destroyed if she caves to Brussels and betrays Brexit in the end?

Always bet on the fecklessness of politicians. They will always act selfishly when put to the test. While leading RussiaGate, Mueller was always headed here if he couldn’t get someone to betray Trump.

And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that HIllary’s blackmail is now worthless.

They don’t fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power.

The progressives that were convinced of Trump’s treason are bereft; their false hope stripped away like standing in front of a sandblaster. They will be raw, angry and looking for blood after they get over their denial.

Everyone else who was blackmailed into going along with this lunacy will begin cutting deals to save their skins. The outrage over this will not end. Trump will be President when he stands for re-election.

The Wolves Beckon

The Democrats do not have a chance against him as of right now. When he was caving on everything back in December it looked like he was done. That there was enough meat on the RussiaGate bones to make Nancy Pelosi brave.

Then she backed off on impeachment talk. Oops.

But the Democrats have a sincere problem. Their candidates have no solutions other than to embrace the crazy and go full Bolshevik. That is not a winning position.

Trump will kill them on ‘socialism.’

The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled.

If they don’t do something dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time. Justice is not done simply by saying, “No evidence of collusion.”

It’s clear that RussiaGate is a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall on their sword at this point?

Comey? No. McCabe? No.

There is only one answer. And Obama’s people are still in place to protect him. I said last fall that “Hillary would indict herself.” And I meant it. Eventually her blackmail and drive to burn it all down led to this moment.

The circumstances are different than I expected back then, Trump didn’t win the mid-terms. But the end result was always the same. If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb.

Because the bigger project, the erection of a transnational superstate, is bigger than any one person. Hillary is expendable.

Lies are expensive to maintain. The truth is cheap to defend. Think of the billions in opportunity costs associated with this. Once the costs rise above the benefits, change happens fast.

If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate.

We all know it’s the truth. So, the cheapest way out of this mess for them is to give the MAGApedes what they want, Hillary.

And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us.

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

Latest

Trump’s CIA Now Unbound And Back To Its Traditional Hijinks

There is further evidence that suggests the neo-cons, in cahoots with Haspel at the CIA, set out to disrupt the Hanoi summit.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Under the directorship of torture and black site maven Gina Haspel, Donald Trump’s Central Intelligence Agency has returned to its traditional roots of conducting “black bag” operations and disrupting electrical grids through cyber-attacks.

The Venezuelan government has accused the Trump administration of giving the green light for a series of crippling power failures in Venezuela, which affected 22 of Venezuela’s 23 states, including the capital of Caracas. The long-duration power failures were cited by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as a reason for the US withdrawing its diplomats from Caracas. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced that an international commission assisted by specialists from Russia, China, Iran, and the United Nations would help his country analyze the sources of the Venezuelan electrical grid cyber-attack. Initial cyber-forensics by Venezuela traced some of the cyber warfare being waged against Venezuela to nodes in Houston and Chicago.

In addition to electricity, water service was disrupted in Venezuela. From Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas, Maduro tweeted on March 12: “From the Presidential Command Post, we monitored minute-by-minute the progress of the recovery of the National Electric System.”

Cyber-attacks on a country that puts its civilian population in jeopardy might, at first glance, appear to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions on warfare. However, without a Digital Geneva Convention, civilian populations are not covered by the current Geneva Conventions. However, in 2015, the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (UN GGE), which included experts from the United States, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and other nations, agreed that current international law does apply to cyberspace. Most international legal experts agree that the Geneva Conventions require a digital annex to cover the type of cyber-disruption of the Venezuelan electrical grid carried out by the US intelligence services.

Hybrid warfare against Venezuela, which includes economic, diplomatic, and cyber, has the backing of the neo-conservatives who now call the shots for the Trump White House. They include, in addition to Pompeo, national security adviser John Bolton; Iran-Contra felon Elliott Abrams, Trump’s special envoy to the US-backed opposition-led rump Venezuelan government of Juan Guaido; Cuban-American Mauricio Claver-Carone, the senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council; and Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American, who represents the interests of South Florida’s right-wing oligarch exiles from Venezuela and other Latin American countries.

While Trump was preparing for his Hanoi summit meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump’s second summit with Kim, Haspel’s CIA dug into its old bag of black operations, while also engaging in the more modern form of cyber-attack in targeting North Korea.

On February 22, 2019, ten males, all wearing masks, broke into the North Korean embassy, which is located in the residential suburb of Aravaca, north of Madrid, Spain, and subjected eight embassy staff members to brutal interrogation tactics, including tying up the diplomats, throwing black bags over their heads (a specialty of Ms. Haspel), and subjecting them to beatings. One female diplomat managed to escape through a second-floor window and her screams alerted a neighbor, who promptly called the police. Two embassy employees required medical attention from their injuries.

The Spanish police and National Intelligence Center (CNI) linked two of the embassy invaders to the CIA. “El Pais,” a Spanish national newspaper, reported that the CIA issued one of its standard “denials,” however, the paper stated that Spanish authorities found the denial from Langley, Virginia to be “unconvincing.” “El Pais” reported that the invasion of the North Korean embassy by the CIA had severely harmed relations between Madrid and Washington.

The National Police Corps’ General Commissariat of Information (CGI) and CNI concluded that the attack and occupation of the North Korean embassy was not carried out by common criminals but was the work of a “military cell” that stole mobile phones and computers. Two of the embassy invaders were identified as Koreans and, based on CGI’s and CNI’s analysis of security camera video footage, they were further recognized as Koreans linked to the CIA. Spanish authorities did not rule out the possibility that South Korea’s National Intelligence Service assisted the CIA in the embassy invasion. The embassy invaders escaped from the embassy using two North Korean luxury sedans bearing diplomatic plates. The cars were later found abandoned.

The criminal inquiry into the incident is now before the Spanish High Court, the Audiencia Nacional, which could order the arrests of the embassy attackers and, if they are in the United States or South Korea, have Spain’s INTERPOL national bureau put out a Red Notice for their arrest and extradition to Spain to stand trial.

Spanish authorities believe the CIA’s embassy attackers were looking for information on Kim Hyok Chol, the former North Korean ambassador to Spain, who was declared “persona non grata” by the Spanish government in 2017. Kim Hyok Chol, a career diplomat from one of North Korea’s elite families who studied French at the Pyongyang University of Foreign Studies and speaks fluent English, is now one of Kim Jong Un’s trusted diplomatic advisers on nuclear talks with the Trump administration and he traveled with Chairman Kim to the failed Hanoi summit with Trump.

With certainty, Kim Hyok Chol thoroughly briefed Kim Jong Un on the CIA’s storming of his old diplomatic post in Spain. When Trump and Chairman Kim met in Hanoi on February 27 and if the issue of the CIA’s siege of the North Korean embassy was brought up, that could have been enough to derail the summit. Considering the fact that war hawks like Bolton, Abrams, and Pompeo are now calling the foreign policy shots for the Trump administration, the attack on the North Korean embassy in Madrid, just five days prior to the Hanoi summit, may have been ordered by Washington’s neo-con cell with the intention of scuttling the second meeting between Trump and Kim and put on ice any future meetings.

There is further evidence that suggests the neo-cons, in cahoots with Haspel at the CIA, set out to disrupt the Hanoi summit. While Trump was meeting with Kim in Vietnam, the CIA is believed to have launched a cyber-attack on the Korean American National Coordinating Council (KANCC) in New York, an organization with ties to the Pyongyang government. KANCC is a non-governmental organization with offices in the Interchurch Center building, near Columbia University in Manhattan. It champions the dropping of US sanctions against North Korea, a sore point in Hanoi between Trump and Kim.

The Trump-Kim Hanoi summit was reported to have hit a roadblock over North Korea’s request for a partial lifting of US sanctions on North Korea, in return for the continued North Korean moratorium on nuclear testing and a partial freeze on production of fissile material. With the CIA’s attack on the North Korean embassy in Spain still fresh in the minds of the North Korean side and the neo-cons’ insistence, pushed by Bolton and Pompeo, for complete North Korean nuclear disarmament, the Hanoi summit was destined for failure. And, with Bolton, Abrams, Pompeo, and other dangerous neo-cons in charge at the White House and the State Department — and Haspel dancing to their tune at the CIA – North Korea and Venezuela are not the only countries currently in the gunsights of the Trump administration.

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