Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

EXPOSED: Pro regime-change USAid worker disguised as EU delegate helps organise anti-Duterte “protest”

The US continues to meddle in the sovereign affairs of the democracy in Philippines.

Published

on

12,666 Views

Yesterday, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte made headlines for slamming an alleged group of EU representatives holding a protest in favour of returning to the old lax drug laws in the country. The EU, both at an official and unofficial level, has threatened to withdraw funds from Philippines over President Duterte’s push to eliminate the drug and associated crime problem from his country. Duterte remains highly popular in Philippines as a result of his campaign.

Duterte blasted the so-called EU delegation saying,

“You think that we are a bunch of morons here. Because we can have the diplomatic channel cut tomorrow. You leave my country in 24 hours. All. All of you!”

He continued,

“We are past colonisation stage. We will be excluded in the UN? You son of a bitch. Go ahead. You are interfering in our affairs because we are poor. You give money and then you start to orchestrate what things should be done”.

While the EU was quick to distance itself from the group of rogue delegates who did not represent the Brussels body in anything approaching an official capacity, veteran Philippine diplomat Rigoberto Tiglao has exposed something even more dangerous about the delegation.

While the delegation purported to all be compromised of EU officials, there was one man among the crowd who represented the notorious American organisation USAid, a state-run body which typically falsely characterises itself as an NGO. USAId earned an infamous reputation in Russia during the 1990s, when the group helped funnel millions of Dollars into political and business interests that took a pro-US line. The group was further accused of aiding the CIA in the open meddling conducted by Washington in the 1996 Russian Presidential election.

Since 2012, USAid has been banned in Russia, but the organisation continues to agitate for regime change against anti-colonial, sovereignty minded governments around the world.

Tiglao writes the following about the delegation,

“What is worrying though—over which our government should file a diplomatic protest—is that one of the seven supposedly “European” parliamentarians protesting the alleged killings by the Duterte administration, is actually an American government official, Thomas O. Melia, assistant administrator for Europe and Asia of the US government’s Agency for International Development. Is it now US official policy to destabilize this government through allegations of human rights violations?

We have lost all sense of nationalism and integrity as an independent people if we are not angry at the PDI’s front page. It insults our country on three levels.

Firstly, we should be mad at such a brazen interference in our domestic affairs. We are a sovereign country with our own Constitution, our own body of laws. What right do these Europeans have to meddle in our affairs, when we obviously still have the rule of law.

Have they meddled over the US invasion of Iraq; over the hundreds of Muslims kidnapped by the US and tortured in their Guantanamo fortress, many kept nearly a decade without charges; over alleged genocide of the Rohingya in Burma; or even over the ruthless police brutality in their continent, in Catalonia?”

He went on to describe many of these NGOs as “mostly small-time but noisy NGO activists in their countries”.

Below is a photograph of the “protest” with the USAId official Thomas O. Melia, circled in red.

A further photo of the disingenuous delegation shows the “protesters” standing behind a banner of the Akbayan organisation. Akbayan is widely understood as little more than an arm of the Liberal Party of Philippines, which has been working to oust President Duterte from office, ever since his election.

This hammers home the grim reality that an American organisation with known ties to the CIA and other ‘deep state’ bodies in Washington, is actively working with agitation minded groups in Philippines, to meddle in the domestic political affairs of Manila’s democracy. While the US continues to accuse Russia of meddling in the 2016 American Presidential election, in spite of uncovering no evidence, in Philippines the US itself has been continually attempting to undermine, destabilise and delegitimise the administration of Rodrigo Duterte.

One of the reasons the US continues to meddle in Philippine democracy is due to President Duterte’s geo-political pivot away from a post-colonial United States and towards both China and Russia, in a policy which looks to assert the independence of Manila in all foreign policy making matters.

During a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, the Chinese leadership hailed the Duterte era as a “golden period” in relations between the two countries.

DUTERTE’S TRIUMPH: China hails “golden period” of relations with Philippines

Duterte has also spoken with President Putin in Moscow about creating new security and economic avenues between Manila and a Russian government which continues to seek business opportunities among the ASEAN countries.

Philippines President Duterte slams America on eve of Putin meeting

Now that Russia and Syria have both shown that ISIS colluding with US special forces and the US proxy militia SDF in the Middle East, many statements linking ISIS activity on the southern Philippine island of Mindanao (Duterte’s birthplace) to an attempt by dark forces within the Washington regime to further destabilise Philppines by funding radical terrorist groups, takes on a newly worrying character. Indeed, Duterte had pledged to bring peace to the Moro (Philippine Muslim) communities of the south who for decades have been engage in a struggle against Manila. It is clear that some foreign force has funded ISIS linked terrorists in Philippines in order to attempt and throw Duterte’s peace process into disarray.

5 reasons ISIS targeted Duterte’s Philippines

Because Duterte’s domestic opposition is so wildly unpopular in Philippines and is seen as exacerbating a poor economic situation as well as either ignoring the drug problem or otherwise taking bribes from drug lords, there is little that Washington can do in Philippines other than inject foreign money into the country in order to foment a would-be “colour revolution” against the legitimate leader of Philippines. The opposition communists once spoke of direct knowledge of CIA meddling in Philippines, a claim which can only be viewed as more serious in light of the unwelcome presence of USAid in Manila.

Here’s what Rodrigo Duterte can do to avoid a CIA coup against his Presidency

Far from being a “dictator” as the US and EU often alleges, Duterte has championed popular democracy and frequently speaks directly with many Philippine citizens including members of various small but vocal opposition groups. Furthermore, Duterte is committed to the existing Constitutional order which only allows for a single 6 year presidential term.

However, in light of the fact that Duterte is facing an uphill battle to implement his program, due to foreign meddling, he should perhaps consider the options I discussed in a previous Duran piece.

“In 1986, the new President of Philippines, Corazon “Cory” Aquino abolished the 1973 Constitution of Ferdinand Marcos and proclaimed a Revolutionary Government. This allowed Aquino time to re-draft a new set of national laws and a new constitution while also removing certain members of the previous regime from power.

According to what Aquino called ‘Proclamation No. 3’, she acquired both executive and legislative powers during the period of Revolutionary Government.

Recently, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has touted the idea of pursuing a similar form of revolutionary government, although he stopped short of saying that he intends to implement such reforms at this time….

Duterte later described Cory Aquino’s failure to fully purge government posts of former officials as a “golden opportunity missed”.

While Duterte stated that he “isn’t into” such things, the fact that Duterte mentioned that he has considered a Revolutionary Government, is indicative of the reality that many of Duterte’s supporters who stand at around 90% of the Philippines population, would be inclined to want Duterte to lead such a revolutionary government.

It is not difficult to see why. Duterte’s policies and his style of government are indeed revolutionary. Duterte has presented Philippines with a political program which calls for vast changes to the way the country is run.

 The President has proposed federalism as a peaceful means to quill local discontents, he has pledged a more equitable distribution of the country’s wealth and resources and he has pledged to tackle the problems of high crime and terrorism that are inexorably linked to the dangerous drug problems in Philippines. 

Philippines is in need of the kind of economic boom that Vietnam experienced in the 1990s and into the 2000s as well as that which China experienced during the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. The central location of Philippines in Asia, its good climate, its young workforce and English literacy are all things that economists have pointed to which would indicate that Philippines should be a booming economy.

The biggest factors holding Philippines back are the crime problems related to drug trafficking and drug use. By cleansing Philippines of this problem, serious investment would more readily flow in and the country could get back to work in a crime free, healthy and productive environment.

In order for Duterte to execute his revolutionary aims for justice, prosperity and a more healthy society, he cannot afford to be held back by legislators who refuse to cooperate with the will of the people that has been expressed by the large support that President Duterte still enjoys. This is especially true since Presidents of Philippines are limited to a single six year term.

If Duterte wants to fully implement his revolutionary policies, it is only fitting that he should at least temporarily lead a revolutionary government. The precedent set by Cory Aquino is there. Proclamation No. 3 was put into place as recently as 1986. What has transpired in the subsequent decades in Philippines has not been such a sacred success story that such a provision cannot be exercised again.

The changes that Rodrigo Duterte seeks to make in Philippines are no less revolutionary than that which transpired in 1986 at the end of the Marcos era. Duterte owes it to his supporters and to his nation to lead a Revolutionary Government that can truly set Philippines on course to be a safe, prosperous and healthy Asian economic power that it has always had the potential to be.

If Duterte succumbs to the power of his opponents, future generations will look at the Duterte Presidency as another “golden opportunity lost”. Duterte has the chance to seize the opportunity and win even more support for doing so. The only other viable option which exists before the nation is for Duterte’s opponents to stop trying to strangle the country’s political system with legal deadlock and accept that the people have spoken in favour of Duterte and that the popular will should not be hindered due to the egotism of the old political guard.

A brighter future for Philippines is at President Duterte’s fingertips. In the opposite direction stands a permanent political deadlock that does nothing but undermine Duterte’s mandate from the people”.

PHILIPPINES: Duterte needs a Revolutionary Government in order to implement his revolutionary policies

If a nuclear superpower like Russia took the step to ban USAid, one can extrapolate how much more dangerous such a group is to a smaller country like Philippines. Cuba has also been frequently harassed by USAid, thus demonstrating a specific penchant of the group the invoke a neo-colonial attitude among free countries that were once controlled by Washington.

It is imperative that President Duterte secures his position so that he can do what Filipinos elected him to do. Desperate times certainly call for unique measures. This is all the more reason that Duterte’s revolutionary policies mandate the presence of a revolutionary government in order to allow the President to maintain the peace, safety, prosperity and security of the people of Philippines as well as the sovereignty of the state.

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
Viczter C. Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Viczter C.
Guest
Viczter C.

Thanks Adam, sharing this to my kababayans, kabansa

Latest

Parliament Seizes Control Of Brexit From Theresa May

Zerohedge

Published

on

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

Latest

Schaeuble, Greece and the lessons learned from a failed GREXIT (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 117.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine a recent interview with the Financial Times given by Wolfgang Schäuble, where the former German Finance Minister, who was charged with finding a workable and sustainable solution to the Greek debt crisis, reveals that his plan for Greece to take a 10-year “timeout” from the eurozone (in order to devalue its currency and save its economy) was met with fierce resistance from Brussels hard liners, and Angela Merkel herself.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via FT

“Look where we’re sitting!” says Wolfgang Schäuble, gesturing at the Berlin panorama stretching out beneath us. It is his crisp retort to those who say that Europe is a failure, condemned to a slow demise by its own internal contradictions. “Walk through the Reichstag, the graffiti left by the Red Army soldiers, the images of a destroyed Berlin. Until 1990 the Berlin Wall ran just below where we are now!”

We are in Käfer, a restaurant on the rooftop of the Reichstag. The views are indeed stupendous: Berlin Cathedral and the TV Tower on Alexanderplatz loom through the mist. Both were once in communist East Berlin, cut off from where we are now by the wall. Now they’re landmarks of a single, undivided city. “Without European integration, without this incredible story, we wouldn’t have come close to this point,” he says. “That’s the crazy thing.”

As Angela Merkel’s finance minister from 2009 to 2017, Schäuble was at the heart of efforts to steer the eurozone through a period of unprecedented turbulence. But at home he is most associated with Germany’s postwar political journey, having not only negotiated the 1990 treaty unifying East and West Germany but also campaigned successfully for the capital to move from Bonn.

For a man who has done so much to put Berlin — and the Reichstag — back on the world-historical map, it is hard to imagine a more fitting lunch venue. With its open-plan kitchen and grey formica tables edged in chrome, Käfer has a cool, functional aesthetic that is typical of the city. On the wall hangs a sketch by artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, who famously wrapped the Reichstag in silver fabric in 1995.

The restaurant has one other big advantage: it is easy to reach from Schäuble’s office. Now 76, he has been confined to a wheelchair since he was shot in an assassination attempt in 1990, and mobility is an issue. Aides say he tends to avoid restaurants if he can, especially at lunchtime.

As we take our places, we talk about Schäuble’s old dream — that German reunification would be a harbinger of European unity, a step on the road to a United States of Europe. That seems hopelessly out of reach in these days of Brexit, the gilets jaunes in France, Lega and the Five Star Movement in Italy.

Some blame Schäuble himself for that. He was, after all, the architect of austerity, a fiscal hawk whose policy prescriptions during the euro crisis caused untold hardship for millions of ordinary people, or so his critics say. He became a hate figure, especially in Greece. Posters in Athens in 2015 depicted him with a Hitler moustache below the words: “Wanted — for mass poverty and devastation”.

Schäuble rejects the criticism that austerity caused the rise of populism. “Higher spending doesn’t lead to greater contentment,” he says. The root cause lies in mass immigration, and the insecurities it has unleashed. “What European country doesn’t have this problem?” he asks. “Even Sweden. The poster child of openness and the willingness to help.”

But what of the accusation that he didn’t care enough about the suffering of the southern Europeans? Austerity divided the EU and spawned a real animus against Schäuble. I ask him how that makes him feel now. “Well I’m sad, because I played a part in all of that,” he says, wistfully. “And I think about how we could have done it differently.”

I glance at the menu — simple German classics with a contemporary twist. I’m drawn to the starters, such as Oldenburg duck pâté and the Müritz smoked trout. But true to his somewhat abstemious reputation, Schäuble has no interest in these and zeroes in on the entrées. He chooses Käfer’s signature veal meatballs, a Berlin classic. I go for the Arctic char and pumpkin.

Schäuble switches seamlessly back to the eurozone crisis. The original mistake was in trying to create a common currency without a “common economic, employment and social policy” for all eurozone member states. The fathers of the euro had decided that if they waited for political union to happen first they’d wait forever, he says.

Yet the prospects for greater political union are now worse than they have been in years. “The construction of the EU has proven to be questionable,” he says. “We should have taken the bigger steps towards integration earlier on, and now, because we can’t convince the member states to take them, they are unachievable.”

Greece was a particularly thorny problem. It should never have been admitted to the euro club in the first place, Schäuble says. But when its debt crisis first blew up, it should have taken a 10-year “timeout” from the eurozone — an idea he first floated with Giorgos Papakonstantinou, his Greek counterpart between 2009 and 2011. “I told him you need to be able to devalue your currency, you’re not competitive,” he says. The reforms required to repair the Greek economy were going to be “hard to achieve in a democracy”. “That’s why you need to leave the euro for a certain period. But everyone said there was no chance of that.”

The idea didn’t go away, though. Schäuble pushed for a temporary “Grexit” in 2015, during another round of the debt crisis. But Merkel and the other EU heads of government nixed the idea. He now reveals he thought about resigning over the issue. “On the morning the decision was made, [Merkel] said to me: ‘You’ll carry on?’ . . . But that was one of the instances where we were very close [to my stepping down].”

It is an extraordinary revelation, one that highlights just how rocky his relationship with Merkel has been over the years. Schäuble has been at her side from the start, an éminence grise who has helped to resolve many of the periodic crises of her 13 years as chancellor. But it was never plain sailing.

“There were a few really bad conflicts where she knew too that we were on the edge and I would have gone,” he says. “I always had to weigh up whether to go along with things, even though I knew it was the wrong thing to do, as was the case with Greece, or whether I should go.” But his sense of duty prevailed. “We didn’t always agree — but I was always loyal.”

That might have been the case when he was a serving minister, but since becoming speaker of parliament in late 2017 he has increasingly distanced himself from Merkel. Last year, when she announced she would not seek re-election as leader of the Christian Democratic Union, the party that has governed Germany for 50 of the past 70 years, Schäuble openly backed a candidate described by the Berlin press as the “anti-Merkel”. Friedrich Merz, a millionaire corporate lawyer who is the chairman of BlackRock Germany, had once led the CDU’s parliamentary group but lost out to Merkel in a power struggle in 2002, quitting politics a few years later. He has long been seen as one of the chancellor’s fiercest conservative critics — and is a good friend of Schäuble’s.

Ultimately, in a nail-biting election last December, Merkel’s favoured candidate, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, narrowly beat Merz. The woman universally known as “AKK” is in pole position to succeed Merkel as chancellor when her fourth and final term ends in 2021.

I ask Schäuble if it’s true that he had once again waged a battle against Merkel and once again lost. “I never went to war against Ms Merkel,” he says. “Everybody says that if I’m for Merz then I’m against Merkel. Why is that so? That’s nonsense.”

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

Latest

The conclusion of Russiagate, Part I – cold, hard reality

The full text of Attorney General William P Barr’s summary is here offered, with emphases on points for further analysis.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The conclusion of the Russiagate investigation, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was a pivotal media watershed moment. Even at the time of this writing there is a great deal of what might be called “journalistic froth” as opinion makers and analysts jostle to make their takes on this known to the world. Passions are running very high in both the Democrat / anti-Trump camps, where the reactions range from despondency to determined rage to not swallow the gigantic red pill that the “no collusion with Russia” determination offers. In the pro-Trump camp, the mood is deserved relief, but many who support the President are also realists, and they know this conflict is not over.

Where the pivot will go and what all this means is something that will unfold, probably relatively quickly, over the next week or two. But we want to offer a starting point here from which to base further analysis. At this time, of course, there are few hard facts other than the fact that Robert Mueller III submitted his report to the US Attorney General, William Barr, who then wrote and released his own report to the public Sunday evening. We reproduce that report here in full, with some emphases added to points that we think will be relevant to forthcoming pieces on this topic.

The end of the Mueller investigation brings concerns, hopes and fears to many people, on topics such as:

  • Will President Trump now begin to normalize relations with President Putin at full speed?
  • In what direction will the Democrats pivot to continue their attacks against the President?
  • What does this finding to to the 2020 race?
  • What does this finding do to the credibility of the United States’ leadership establishment, both at home and abroad?
  • What can we learn about our nation and culture from this investigation?
  • How does a false narrative get maintained so easily for so long, and
  • What do we do, or what CAN we do to prevent this being repeated?

These questions and more will be addressed in forthcoming pieces. But for now, here is the full text of the letter written by Attorney General William Barr concerning the Russia collusion investigation.

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:
As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.
The Special Counsel’s Report
On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.
The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.
Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.
The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans including individuals associated with the Trump campaign joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.
The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
Obstruction of Justice.
The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President most of which have been the subject of public reporting that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Status of the Department’s Review
The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B) Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g. 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
* * *
As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.
Sincerely,
William P. Barr
Attorney General

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