Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Two Koreas–One Road: The future of cooperation between North Korea, South Korea and Russia

Vladimir Putin has proposed multilateral economic projects which would involve both Korean states and Russia.

Published

on

4,703 Views

There is a real possibility that in spite of US attempts to resolve the Korean crisis though economic warfare and the threat of renewed military action, that a totally different approach is being taken about regional powers.

While it has received little media attention, the Eastern Economic Forum in the Russian city of Vladivostok has been the first major international event outside of tense UN meetings where representatives from North and South Korea have been present in the same room in recent years.

Moreover, the meeting has seen the presence of South Korean President Moon Jae-in who held one to one talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin who is hosting the event.

President Putin proposed joint Russian–South Korean–North Korean economic initiatives as the most positive and mutually beneficial manner to bring peace, reconciliation and increased prosperity to Korea and the wider region.

The proposals were met with the following positive response from President Moon,

“We have arranged to strengthen the base for implementing trilateral projects involving both Koreas and Russia. The projects aim at consolidating the Korean Peninsula and Russia’s Far East.

Both nations realise a free trade agreement between South Korea and the EAEU will boost cooperation not only between Moscow and Seoul but also between Russia and members of the union”.

Moon further stated that his country is in talks with Russia over purchasing liquefied natural gas from Russia as well as in discussions over further joint participation in oil exploration projects on Sakhalin island.

At the same time, North Korea’s Minister of Foreign Economic Relations Kim Young-jae held discussions with Russia’s Far East Development Minister Aleksandr Galushka on the best ways to pursue economic cooperation.

Galushka stated,

“Our Korean partners seek to develop trade and economic relations. But we drew their attention to the fact that missile and nuclear activities suppress the opportunity to develop trade and economic ties, severely damage the trade and economic aspect of our relations.

We asked them to refrain from such actions in the future, as they bring to naught the efforts of the (Russia –North Korea) intergovernmental commission”.

The Russian approach to trade with North and South Korea, something which would almost certainly involve cooperation between Pyongyang and Seoul, appears to be a far more tenable approach to the present situation than America’s proposals which are based on threatening North Korea into compromise as opposed to the Russian plan which is essentially the classic carrot and stick model. Russia seeks to use the prospect of material gain to woo North Korea into a position of de-escalation.

In many ways, the most realistic first step would be the construction of a Russia-Korean Economic Corridor which would necessarily traverse both Korean states.

With Donald Trump stating his desire to pull out of the free trade agreement between the US and South Korea, a free trade agreement between South Korea and the Eurasian Economic Union, a free trading bloc founded by Russia, could be an obvious substitute. In this sense, Donald Trump has helped to push South Korea closer to Russia on the key issue of trade.

Such a reality would necessitate overland shipping routes between South Korea and Russia, in addition to existing maritime routes. Such a land route, whether rail based, truck based or both, would have to go through North Korea.

President Putin hinted at the presence of not only a transport corridor but also of trans-Korean gas pipelines emanating from Russia. He stated that Russia is currently considering projects involving Korea that would include, “piping Russian gas to Korea, and integration of the electric grids and railway systems of Russia, South and North Korea”.

He went on to say,

“Implementation of the initiatives will not only have economic benefits, but will also contribute to strengthening trust and stability in the Korean Peninsula”.

It is obvious that the Korean Peninsula’s problems cannot be solved only with sanctions and pressure. One should not give in to emotion and drive North Korea into a corner”.

While Russia continues to call on North Korea to pause its weapons tests, Vladimir Putin has conceded that trying to get North Korea to give up its weapons in total at this point in time, is an unrealistic goal due to the examples of Libya and Iraq which were destroyed by a US invasion, one that could not be defended because neither country had a WMD deterrent.

The Russian President stated,

“They (in North Korea) view the possession of atomic weapons and missile technology as their only means of protection. Do you think they’ll give it up now?

The build-up of some military atmosphere, of hysteria, is counter-productive, in my opinion. It will lead to nothing, because what is happening now, of course, is a provocation from North Korea. This is quite obvious. They are provoking the situation, but if they are doing it, they are not stupid people, believe me. So, they expect the corresponding reaction from (their) partners, and they achieve it”.

Putin then referred to the last time Pyongyang and Washington had direct talks. In 2005, both sides were on the verge of agreeing to a nuclear deal wherein North Korea would disarm if allowed to build nuclear power stations. Washington refused the offer and tensions continued to build thereafter.

Vladimir Putin clearly saw this as a lost opportunity and without naming the part responsible for the failure of the 2005 talks,clearly blamed the US for failing to capitalise on the 2005 would-be deal.

He said,

“We almost agreed on everything in 2005. Agreements were reached, according to which North Korea assumed the obligation to curtail the nuclear missile program, and all the other participants in this process promised to contribute to this process, and spoke of the need to restore normal, good relations between the North and the South, on the possibility of implementing tripartite Russia-North-South projects.

But then, unfortunately in my opinion, someone demanded from North Korea what it did not promise, and gradually this situation deteriorated to the current level”.

Russia’s plan presents the world with a genuine opportunity to bring peace to the Korean peninsula. By capitalising on Russia’s historic good will towards the Korean people and the new economic realities which will require deeper trans-Asian cooperation, there is a golden opportunity to turn a tense Korean peninsula into one where economic cooperation could alleviate decades of tension and distrust.

China would almost certainly welcome such measures, not least because of China’s close trading relationship with Russia and the stated desire of Beijing to foster peace on the Korean peninsula.

As for the United States, if the United States was truly concerned with de-escalating Korean tensions, Washington too would support the initiatives. In reality Washington may have an interest in prolonging the situation for two reasons.

First of all, tensions in the region allow the US to promote and justify the sale of further weapons to South Korea and Japan.

Secondly, the crisis allows America to attempt and justify a perpetual military presence in a region near to China which helps complete America’s long-term strategic goal of disrupting China’s One Belt–One Road on all sides. Even Steve Bannon admitted that this was the real reason for America’s ‘concerns’ over North Korea.

READ MORE: America uses North Korea as a transparent excuse for meddling in South Korea and provoking China

In spite of America’s peculiar and somewhat open economic/logistical war with China, there is little the US could do could prohibit a tripartite economic/trading/infrastructure partnership between Russia and the two Korean states.

Such a reality is not only preferable to a state where nuclear war constantly looms, but it is a genuinely postie opportunity for all parties involved.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

An excellent move by Putin. Will South Korean puppet masters permit it? Unlikely.

BobValdez
Guest
BobValdez

Well, if it IS possible, Russia just might make it happen.

Steve
Guest
Steve

An act of cowardice…. Trying to pet that little pig heard is tantamount to the proverbial saying…. Spare the rod and spoil the child.

Aussie battler
Guest
Aussie battler

Basic common sense, a commodity in short supply
These days,a win win but not for the warmongers!.

GeorgeG
Guest
GeorgeG

Things are moving fast, very fast. — The US has called for a new UNSC meeting Monday next week where they want a vote on a new reslolution against NK and new sanctions. Lavrov in conversation with Tillerson promised to “consider” the US resolution “under certain (publicly unspecified) conditions”. Putin is against new sanctions. Putin’s meeting with Moon and he presence of NK representatives at the EFF not only indicate that Russia and china — of course — will not go along, but there will no simply block the US. Instead, they will be sidestepping the US, navigating around it… Read more »

GlennaMDelp
Guest
GlennaMDelp

until I looked at the bank draft which was of $6661 , I be certain that my brother could truley taking home money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunts neighbour has been doing this 4 only 13 months and recently paid the mortgage on their cottage and got a great new Mini Cooper . view it now
http://www.GoogleFinancial523CashJobsFinderLoad/Home/Wage….

LeslieWShaw
Guest
LeslieWShaw

Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
On tuesday I got a great 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
!sr54d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash434MarketBoard/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!sr144l..,…

Putin's baby
Guest
Putin's baby

Chess Master Putin smiles as his yank “partners” play pick-up-sticks.

aorpheous
Guest
aorpheous

I disagree with Putin stating that DPRK is provoking the US. To the contrary DPRK responds to the US’s provocations, and militaristic aggression conducting joint military drills with the Sout Koran puppet. It is absurd when there are more than fourty US Military bases in South Korea, and where the Defense budjet of North Korea is only a fraction of that of South, to go berserk about North Korea’s buildup of its nuclear and missile technology, when the US, Russia, and China, that’s all they do: building their nuclear strike capabilities. It is really asinine to demand from a nation… Read more »

Walter Dublanica
Member
Walter Dublanica

Putin does not want war in his neighborhood so he will work both Korea to come to a sensible settlement. Putin is a diplomat.

S.M. De Kuyper
Guest
S.M. De Kuyper

What Russia is proposing is an excellent solution that by-passes the USA demands for atomic WW111, iron control of China. THAAD will have to be removed!

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