Connect with us

Latest

Video

News

NATO stands behind Trump and his Afghanistan “new strategy” (Video)

NATO agrees with Trump’s ‘Conditions-Based’ Afghanistan strategy.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

567 Views

NATO welcomes POTUS Donald Trump’s “conditions-based” strategy in Afghanistan.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Tuesday, in a statement on the organization’s website…

“I welcome President Trump’s new, conditions-based approach to Afghanistan and the region.”

During an Afghanistan “new strategy” speech delivered yesterday, US President Trump said that the United States will cooperate with Afghanistan as long as Kabul seeks to progress, however, the US help will not be endless.

During his speech, Trump was crystal clear in expressing his confidence that NATO will do exactly what it is told to do, with regards to Afghanistan military support and funding…

We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will.

Since taking office, I have made clear that our allies and partners must contribute much more money to our collective defense, and they have done so.

Sputnik News reports

Trump’s strategic guidance for South Asia unveiled on Monday states that US support in Afghanistan is not unlimited and will not serve as a “blank check.” The guidance repudiates nation-building and instead expands the US troops’ authority to target terrorists in Afghanistan.

“Our aim remains to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists who would attack our own countries,” Stoltenberg said.

Contrary to previous reports, Trump said the US would not reveal the number of troops or any future military action plans in Afghanistan.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

“NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg” … or Woof-Woof, the US’s Favorite Poodle.

JPH
Guest
JPH

More like a coyote. No insult intended to the honest coyotes in the wild, who have to kill for a living.

Mariaaburr
Guest
Mariaaburr

Clear98i

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
!ai38:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs328CashMediaClear/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ai38l..,..

Anniesdunbar
Guest
Anniesdunbar

Sky90a

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
!ai110d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs400CashTopSky/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ai110l..,….

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Exactly, NATO is nothing but Washington’s house pet.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

Europeans have no obligation to send their sons , brothers or husbands to fight and die in American endless war in Afghanistan. Maybe Trump will send one of his sons there. Hello?

seby
Guest
seby

his sons only know how to point guns at defenceless wildlife.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

It doesn’t matter. If Trump wants to prolong the war in Afghanistan, that’s the US business, not Europe’s. Europe has no beef there.

Shahna
Guest

Then it’s a pity “NATO” got suckered into going there 16 years ago when they went to kill a country because their Saudi Arabian Al Qaeda asset had gone rogue (or so they say).

Now to get out – is another kettle of fish.
But as long as European nations allow America-Only to call the shots – Europe’s sons and daughters will die for the American economy.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

It’s even direr than that, US is waging wars, and Europe collects the refugees.
Before the war in Bosnia, there were NO Bosniac refugees in Europe.
Before the war in Serbia, there were NO Kosovar refugees in Europe.
Before the war in Afghanistan, there were NO Afghani refugees in Europe.
Before the war in Iraq, there were NO Iraqi refugees in Europe.
Before the war in Syria, there were NO Syrian refugees in Europe.
Now they are counted in millions.

Shahna
Guest

Europe did it to themselves.
They implemented “Austerity” without a future projection of where it would lead. They supported “America’s Wars” with an eye on present profit but a complete lack of regard for what wars do to the country that’s the target. (An unforgivable omission for Europe and esp Germany – they LOST World War2.)

Now they weep because they deliberately made like ostriches and stuck their heads in the sand and all their profit-now, pay-later ‘policies’ have come due. It’s time to pay the bill.

The damn bill ALWAYS comes in.

Shahna
Guest

The tragedy isn’t that the US screwed the EU for it’s own interests – the tragedy is that EU eagerly helped the US do it – with a will.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

“The tragedy isn’t that the US screwed the EU for it’s own interests…”

You reminded me of the words of John Fowles, an Irish writer, in his book “The Magus”:
“The tragedy was not that one man (Hitler) chose to be evil, but that millions of German people chose to not be good”.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Not so much ‘tragedy’ as a high crime – treason. It was entirely avoidable, tragedy usually is not.

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

comment image comment image comment image comment image

seby
Guest
seby

Wow. What a surprise. Who would have guessed? Is it really necessary to even report that the board agrees with the ceo?

Shahna
Guest

Here’s what I don’t hear…….
UK, France, Germany saying “We stand behind the US/NATO in Afghanistan.”

Perhaps they should limit their obligatory NATO support to the logistics of supplying chocolate to the Taliban’s American targets? … They do so love their chocolate – for the kids you know.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

Here’s what I don’t hear…….
UK, France, Germany saying “We stand behind the US/NATO in Afghanistan.”

It’s Stoltenberg, the US home poodle, who said that, not UK, France or Germany. Encore un petit effort and US will find itself on its own, without any allies.

Shahna
Guest

“US will find itself on its own, without any allies”
—————
Then the chances would be good that the Americans could be forced home – she doesn’t like to go to war without the moral support of her “allies.” Might make the folks back home think they’re invaders instead of the good guys defending against the evil doers (simplicity is an educationed requirement)

…. LOOK! Britain, France, Germany, even Denmark and 70 other nations – the “rest of the world is in our coalition” – all agree : “We’re in the right!”

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

US doesn’t need allies, it only wants vassals, the “Beni oui-oui”, who answer Yes to all US diktats. As soon as one dares say “No”, he becomes a foe or worse, a “hitler”.

Shahna
Guest

“US doesn’t need allies, it only wants vassals”
——————-
Yes. But Europe is happy with the Liege/Serf relationship and as long as they prefer it – they will have it.

We aren’t going to get the US to behave like a decent nation by asking and we aren’t going to get the EU to acquire a spine by telling. We have an expression here for naughty children: “Wil nie hoor moet voel.”

It means – if you won’t listen, you will feel.
…And it’s the prelude to a walloping.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

I am not sure that Hitler ever said ‘no’ to his Anglo-Zionist masters. Are you?

Keith Smith
Guest
Keith Smith

US created AL queada

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

That was Brzezinski’s “doctrine” adopted by all the US administrations after Carter, to use Islamic terrorists for the US purpose. US supported Al-Qaeda not only in Afghanistan in the 1980ies, but also in Chechnya, Libya, Egypt and Syria.

Keith Smith
Guest
Keith Smith

nebraske university usa printing jhadi textbooks and installing them in national curriculum for little kids start of the eighties was one of the most disgusting things the US did

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Originally spelled: CIADA

Volker
Guest
Volker

NATO means Pentagon! The so called “NATO-Members” are just their servants and/or slaves.

Terry Ross
Guest
Terry Ross

Such an announcement by NATO is about as surprising as the statement that night follows day.

Kentus
Guest
Kentus

Former premier Minister of Denmark got his reward appointed secretary General of Nato.
Remember “Fog of War” Rasmussen?
Then former premier minister of Norway Jens Stoltenberg got his reward (after being scared shitless at the events at Utøya(Bering Breivik)).

The Fog: http://telemarksporten.no/Tegneserier/Anders_Fogh_Rasmussen_Exit_Faces_of_Evil.jpg

The Stoltenberg: http://telemarksporten.no/Tegneserier/Jens_Stoltenberg_Nato_Intro_Faces_of_Evil.jpg

Take Care
Kent

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

You know Kent, you really get the ‘worms beneath the skin.’ It makes mine crawl to see the secret Dorian Gray portraits of these monsters.

stevek9
Guest
stevek9

If NATO is behind it, then you know it’s bad.

Trump: “must seek an honorable and enduring outcome”

Sound anything like ‘Peace with honor’? For those too young to remember … that was Vietnam.

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

US Department of Defense’s estimates have put Afghanistan’s untapped wealth of gold, copper, uranium and other rare-earth minerals at well around $1 trillion to $3 trillion,plus the largest resource of lithium in the world,as well as heroin. That can probably explain Washington’s willingness to continue the war in Afghanistan, which has dragged on for 16 years and has cost the US economy more than $714 billion dollars for the Rothschilds,Goldman Sachs ……Judea Inc If there was any remaining doubt that the infamous Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is back in charge of “foreign policy” TM, Donald Chump dispelled it once… Read more »

Debbie Beane
Guest
Debbie Beane

Yes, and the first time I saw the estimate of Afghan mineral wealth was in the year 2010. What’ve they been doing 7 years hence, if not mining and otherwise stealing the stuff?

bluewater
Guest
bluewater

The TRILLION DOLLAR DRUG TRADE is big business…also we test THE NEW TOYS as also in IRAQ. Lasers that kill a HUMAN and leaves only DUST
NEW DRONES THAT USE A I …….. TO KILL Humans
Also Organs are needed in hospitals for surgery…NOTHING GOES TO WASTE…FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Listening to the Channel 5 News Headlines, what was interesting was the way that President Trump was demanding other nations join the US in their Afghanistan quest.

No sign UK will join US Afghan troop surge in wake of Donald Trump u-turn… http://news.sky.com/story/uk-unlikely-to-beef-up-afghanistan-presence-in-wake-of-trump-decision-11000418

I wonder how long it will take him to change his mind and send out the Forces to look after the Poppy Harvest?

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

Of course NATO would agree to anything remotely resembling possibility of war.

Debbie Beane
Guest
Debbie Beane

Yeah, I’ll bet NATO adores the extended arrangement. Speaking of US only, Sputnik reports “Over Half the $76 Billion Military Aid to Afghanistan Since 2002 Stolen.”
https://sputniknews.com/military/201708141056453160-military-aid-afghanistan-missing/

I must add that an estimated $40 Trillion has “disappeared” since the late 90s. People are working on this — citizens, not currently employed by govt. to my knowledge. US cannot be the only NATO member who enjoys extraordinary Treasury access, while performing NATO stuff.

A few years ago, I read that someone tried to audit NATO. Like US, the task was impossible to perform.

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