Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

European states destroying themselves with servile US obedience

European states destroying themselves with servile US obedience

Shane Quinn

Published

on

3,383 Views

This century alone has borne witness to former Warsaw Pact members Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania not only joining the European Union, but also NATO – an imperial branch of the United States with aggressive, expansionist ideals. The Baltic States are situated on or nearby Russia’s border, and are currently home to hundreds of US and NATO troops stationed there as a “deterrence” against what is perceived as “increased Russian aggression”.

It is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry at the recklessness of such policies, as these nations’ leaders willingly endanger the safety of their own citizens. Not to mention throwing away any chance of sovereignty or independence by opening their borders to Western imperial power – welcoming American, British, German soldiers, and so on, and exposing their populations to neoliberal globalisation in the shape of the IMF.

What the Baltic leaders, and others, should be doing is engaging in constructive dialogue with Russia that would be of far greater benefit to the security and wellbeing of their people.

Instead it is one case after another of jumping aboard the gravy train as the money rolls in from the West, and into the hands of elite power while populations are cut adrift. Meanwhile, relations across the border continue sinking to dangerous lows as virulently anti-Russian messages are widely expressed.

It has reached a point in which Estonia’s Prime Minister, Juri Ratas, last month openly discussed the possibility of deploying US surface-to-air missiles in the country – directed at Russia. Ratas was enthusiastically mulling over the instalment of the Patriot missiles with US Vice President Mike Pence. The Estonian leader said the “USA is indispensable to ensuring the security of our immediate neighbourhood, aswell as all of Europe”.

Security for “all of Europe” from what one can only speculate in bewilderment. Security from the US would seem more appropriate judging by the superpower’s “indispensable” record in previous decades. Unfortunately for Ratas, Lithuania have already won the race for deployment of US Patriot missiles – with the “sophisticated missile defence system” having been erected there over a month ago.

Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite gave full backing to this clear breach of her country’s sovereignty, saying, “The speed of response to an airborne threat may be crucial. Therefore, it would be appropriate to have such weapons in the Baltic region”.

An “airborne threat” from where one can again but guess.  The insanity behind these actions shows no sign of abating. Increasing militarisation of this area is leading to a rising threat of collisions and other incidents that could escalate into something much more serious. In June for example, a US reconnaissance plane and a Russian fighter jet came within several feet of colliding over the Baltic Sea. What would the reaction have been if the aircraft had collided?

Naturally the incident was framed as an example of “Russian aggression”, with few querying why an American reconnaissance plane was operating thousands of miles from Washington, and so close to Russian territory.

Russia, and China for that matter, are acutely aware that US missile “defence” systems are in reality attack systems – a first strike weapon designed to establish strategic superiority and exemption from retaliation. What’s more, these aggressive actions are aimed at a country (Russia) that has been repeatedly invaded over the past two centuries – by Napoleon and Hitler to name two.

Judging by Western commentary, Russian President Vladimir Putin has no right to be concerned about such hostile operations. Instead the blame is put on “Russian incitement” when in reality the incitement is coming from elsewhere – a neutral observer could not help but notice the vast hypocrisy and deceitfulness at work here.

To gain some true perspective, John Mearsheimer, a professor at University of Chicago wrote that, “After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western hemisphere, much less on its borders.” Russia, if anything, have been remarkably tolerant in the face of ongoing provocations.

Mearsheimer noted, “The West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. Elites in the US and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics”. A very flawed view it seems, but not that such sensible arguments are ever relayed to the Western public by the corporate media.

One of the key reasons for NATO’s existence was outlined by its then Secretary-General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer in 2007, that “NATO troops have to guard pipelines that transport oil and gas that is directed for the West”. NATO is present to benefit elite Western power along with puppet leaders who, one can assume, are not left out in the cold [Ratas, Grybauskaite, etc].

Nor is the crisis limited to the Baltic states. Earlier this year four thousand US troops arrived in Poland, along with 250 tanks, the largest such deployment since the end of the Cold War. This has prompted outrage from Russia at such haphazard manoeuvres – which will lead to “US troops [being] permanently stationed along Russia’s western border for the first time”.

The Polish President Andrzej Duda was apparently unconcerned at yet another blow to his nation’s independence, welcoming the American soldiers by saying, “Today I am certain we will not be in danger”. Poland – another former Warsaw Pact member – joined NATO in 1999, before becoming part of the EU five years later.

Last month it was reported there are about 45,000 US and NATO troops throughout the European mainland – from Bulgaria in the south, northwards to Romania, through Slovakia and up to the Baltics. They are “staging war rehearsals for a Russian invasion”. In 1951, NATO’s then supreme commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote that “this whole project [NATO] will have failed” if US soldiers had not been withdrawn from Europe within 10 years. It has long become clear why it has failed.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
2 Comments

2
Leave a Reply

avatar
10 Comment threads
16 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
14 Comment authors
AM HantskfirVicente de la FuenteBrian De PaoloVoltaire Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tom Welsh
Guest
Tom Welsh

“It is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry at the recklessness of such policies, as these nations’ leaders willingly endanger the safety of their own citizens”. Why would the leaders care? They are gambling that there will be no outbreak of war – and, if there is, they will be safe. Whether in Florida, Hawaii, Argentina, New Zealand, or – if the worst comes to the worst – sharing the American leaders’ luxurious mineshafts. The real question is why the citizens of those countries tolerate such “leaders”, who absolutely do not care about the citizens’ interests. What has… Read more »

Tom Welsh
Guest
Tom Welsh

“Elites in the US and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics”.

Not so! They have not been “blindsided by events” at all. Everything is easy to understand as soon as you realize that they have no concern at all for their national interests, or for the interests of their citizens. They have got what they want, as individuals, and their countries can shrivel up and die for all they care.

Brian De Paolo
Guest
Brian De Paolo

If you put a missile defense (aggressive) system in your country….you become a target…its as simple as that….there is no reason for Russia to be aggressive..they own half the planet already just in there own territory…they don’t need the headaches of controlling other nations…

cortisol
Guest
cortisol

Some argue that missile defense is for defense only. This is not true. Think of it as a coin with two sides. The purpose of defending is to make attacking easier. If you increase defense, you are more likely to attack as you perceive it to be safer. So it is an offensive system, nothing less nothing more.

Anyway, conventional missile defense can’t touch the Iskanders or the new RS-26 (two stage faster, lighter, flatter, shorter version of Yars) missiles, which have been precisely created to counter it.

Brian De Paolo
Guest
Brian De Paolo

Agreed

Voltaire
Guest
Voltaire

The fabricated lie that Russia is a military threat to Europe forms part of deliberate and sordid US policy to divide and rule Europe…Even the US Joints Chiefr of Staff say that Russia does not pose a strategic threat to Europe… As a Western European, the sooner Poland and the the Baltics get over their infantile Russophobia and learn to behave like civilised people who have got over historical conflicts, the better… … In the meantime, the stream of propaganda and lies coming from the US is worthy of Goebbels and destroys any idea that the US is anything but… Read more »

thnkfryrslf
Guest
thnkfryrslf

All of America’s threats to sovereign nations start off with a lie.

Great Expectations
Guest
Great Expectations

It’s a bad habit they learned from the British elite in the late 19th Century.

thnkfryrslf
Guest
thnkfryrslf

And the British elite are still lying.

Great Expectations
Guest
Great Expectations

Indeed. And robbing and killing.

Nancyrcockerham
Guest
Nancyrcockerham

Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
On tuesday I got a Smart new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
:!ap112d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs402CashShopDesigns/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ap112l..,..

Great Expectations
Guest
Great Expectations

Agreed. When compared with Hungary’s intelligent and measured approach, the Baltics and Poland are a long way behind.

Voltaire
Guest
Voltaire

Agreed…

I recently visited Hungary and found them balanced and civilised….

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

“the sooner Poland and the the Baltics get over their infantile Russophobia and learn to behave like civilised peopl” You clearly do not know these scummy tribes. They are the Khazar Jews of Eastern Europe. They cannot be redeemed.

samo war
Guest
samo war

NATO is pssychopats mafia club ?

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Why is Serbia so important to the CIA? Links in a tangent way as no doubt the EU will roll over and support yet another regime change/colour revolution, war in poor Serbia.

BREAKING NEWS: OPERATION TARGET SERBIA, CIA WORKING WITH FASCIST MACEDONIA REGIME, SERBIA MUST FALL !!!

http://nrt24.ru/en/news/breaking-news-operation-target-serbia-cia-working-fascist-macedonia-regime-serbia-must-fall

Guy
Member
Guy

Am presently reading the book “The Lost Hegemon -Whom the Gods Would Destroy ” by F.William Engdahl and into the section on what transpired in the Yugoslavia war and destruction of this country .I never knew much about that part of geopolitics and I must say ,the author is very well informed with tons of links in the book .Very enlightening to say the least . I would highly recommend it to anyone wanting to learn more about the Middle East,Levant ,USSR and now Russia and neighboring states. As usual ,what we were told is not what happened . When… Read more »

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Thanks Guy and for recommending the book. They said the Kosovo War was to get Monica and the cigars out of the headlines, however, like you, I did not know much about the geopolitics of the time and wish to know more. I will look out for the book. Must admit, F. William Engdahl’s article on ‘Kiev and Right Sector Kristalnecht Odessa’, still stays with me. One of the best articles, with regards The Odessa Trade Union Massacres, on 2 May 2014, that I came and have come across. I have just gone to get a copy of the book,… Read more »

Great Expectations
Guest
Great Expectations

Interesting website. I haven’t come across this one before. Thanks.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

The talmudo satanist jews hate Christians. The Christians they hate most are Orthodox.

kfir
Guest
kfir

Obama did his share to support the Nazi regime in Ukraine.

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Interesting timing, reading your comment, just after reading this article. He would do anything for his mentors Brzezinsky and Soros and didn’t the US also vote with Ukraine, in 2016 again to support the N*zi Party?

In 2014, Barack Obama voted against UN anti-Nazi resolution (Video)
Obama was protecting the only nazi regime in the world… http://theduran.com/in-2014-barack-obama-voted-against-un-anti-nazi-resolution-video/

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

Those brain-dead leaders are incapable, or unwilling, to realize that by now – if Russia really had wanted, it would have marched in long time ago. Kind of amusing that Lithuania is building a fence to keep Russia out. As I said…brain-dead.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Tribal lesbo-sister of “Fuck the EU Nuland” – “Fuck Europe and Russia” Dalia Grabuskikeass. LOL Perfect. Handmaiden of Satanyahu.

Vicente de la Fuente
Guest
Vicente de la Fuente

I have nothing to think at; I all ready know the amount of late motives about. All ways provoking, is a large amount of many spend about… Vfg

kfir
Guest
kfir

Russia is once again an enemy of convenience, DC , Wall Street, etc. always need an imaginary enemy to spread fear & panic among the stupid taxpayer who gladly empty their pockets “to be protected from the ENEMY” and those fat cats rake billions of $$$$s; when the CIA is supplying the missiles to NK is another “ENEMY” just as NATO gave Jet engines and Marine Diesel Engines to the Soviets to be our ENEMIES. Now NATO is nothing but, a vulgar mercenary force, Salvadorian soldiers (a tiny country on the pacific Ocean) get paid $163.00 per month to go… Read more »

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

Latest

The consolidation of power of the global military industrial complex

Do Europeans support the notion that the countries of the EU be the nuclear war playground of the United States?

Richard Galustian

Published

on

Humanity faces two imminent existential threats: environmental catastrophe and nuclear war.

America has elected to completely ignore scientists warnings that we have 12 years to reverse an environmental disaster.

As far as nuclear obliteration, Trump announced that the US is withdrawing from the INF treaty, which eliminated short range missiles deployed in Western Europe, on Russia’s doorstep. It’s the equivalent of Russia placing nuclear missiles in Venezuela.

A provocation, which enables US supplied missiles to be launched, only a few minutes flight time to Moscow.

That, of course sharply increases the nuclear danger. Historically on both sides, attack warnings given by automated systems have often proved faulty in the past; that, if enacted upon, would have meant the end of life as we know it.

Anyone familiar with contemporary military history knows that it’s a virtual miracle that we have so far avoided nuclear war.

Politically within Europe, the attack on democracy is very clear. Unchallenged undemocratic institutions in Brussels exist that is, in the main, part of the problem of the UK BREXIT negotiations.

Why does the public readily accept wars, engineered by our morally bankrupt governments to create ‘regime change’ in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, the Ukraine and soon to be Venezuela followed by Nicaragua and Iran, with such a muted outcry?

That preemptive nuclear attacks are even thought of shows the insanity of Western leadership controlled by vested financial interests led by the Military/Security Industrial Complex and bankers. Those same interests created both ‘industrialised’ World Wars in the 20th Century.

Our governments do not listen to the people. When two million hit the streets of London before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it made not an iota of difference to Tony Blair’s government.

Today, people’s apathy is notably caused by conditioning’, maybe better described as we’ve been ‘disciplined’ by MSM propaganda and family’s economic necessity to focus on their income, have made us so, due to our governments mismanagement of our economies.

Example, our university students are saddled with impossible to repay debt for a reason; to keep future generations ‘disciplined’.

No one has time or dare show any dissent especially given the Orwellian ‘newspeak’ environment that is created by ‘political correctness’.

Back to the subject of Russia phobia. The Western narrative against Russia is, in the main, the below:

* that Russia tried to murder the Skripals. Let the British government, who seem to be holding the Skripals against their will, prove they are not, by letting them be interviewed by the World’s Press.

* Ukraine – For over four years, the governments of NATO and the MSM have been waging the new cold war against Russia. This began with the ‘Maidan’ protests in Kyiv, Ukraine in early 2014 that culminated in the overthrow, universally acknowledged to have been engineered by the CIA, of Ukraine’s elected president and Parliament in February 2014. Putting in power an ultra neo-Nazi government, that in particular voiced hatred against all things Russian…and Jewish. Which MSM, TV news or newspapers, says so?

* That almost 100% of Crimea’s population are glad and grateful to be part of Russia. US, UK and EU says that is untrue, which is nonsense.

The demonisation of Russia is central to the multinational corporate interests that control our governments; the bankers protecting the steeply declining US Dollar, the institutions of the EU that are really controlled by Washington, who are preparing world public opinion to accept what the United States are now gearing up for, the “defence” of Europe.

At this point let us reflect on history by quoting one of America’s most distinguished soldiers, maybe of its entire history, General Smedley D. Butler, from his book ‘War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America’s Most Decorated Soldier.’

“No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with US patents.”

It is recommended to read more about General Smedley Butler, as he was the man chosen by US bankers and particularly the Bush family in the 1930s, to be the new fascist leader of the USA by overthrowing, in a coup, the then President Roosevelt during the period of Hitler’s rise to power. A coincidence one wonders. Butler was a true patriot; he bided his time then revealed the plot to both Congress and President Roosevelt. If you doubt this, it is suggested you research the subject.

We can stop the consolidation of power of the global military/security industrial complex, its war party associates, and specifically the US, UK and EU deep state political and financial elite that no doubt exists. We must elect new leaders, it’s that simple.

To quote Noam Chomsky “….power is always illegitimate, unless it proves itself to be legitimate. So the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some authoritarian hierarchic government is legitimate. If they can’t prove it, then it should be dismantled.”

Implicit in this statement is change by either elections or revolutions.

The French people have shown us when enough is enough by their persistent resistance to their government.

Do Europeans support the notion that the countries of the EU be the nuclear war playground of the United States?

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