Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Will South Yemen resurface after Saleh’s slaying?

Former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s removal from the political scene creates an unprecedented chance for the former Cold War-era state of the “Democratic People’s Republic of Yemen”, commonly known as “South Yemen”, to resurface in the form of a federal unit following the possible post-war internal partition of the country, even though this populist move would play into the UAE’s geostrategic hands.  

Andrew Korybko

Published

on

8,677 Views

The Yemeni rebel movement experienced a sudden though unsurprising split late last week when former President Saleh pivoted towards the Saudi coalition and publicly announced his willingness to commence peace talks if the international parties removed the blockade, stopped the bombing, and signed a ceasefire. According to Al Jazeera’s extensive report investigating “How Did Yemen’s Houthi-Saleh Alliance Collapse?”, this move was the result of long-running secret negotiations between Saleh and the UAE, the latter of which influenced Saudi “Red Prince” Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) through his mentor Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ) to go along with this strategy as the most convincing face-saving maneuver for crafting the conditions for a coalition withdrawal from Yemen. Furthermore, the Qatari-based outlet wrote that the Houthis had begun to distance themselves from Saleh ever since August when they began openly talking about how they don’t have any type of “alliance” with him in response to what they viewed as his disparaging remarks about them being a “militia”.

That shouldn’t have been unexpected because Saleh’s forces fought the Houthis on many occasions over the years prior to their flimsy ‘marriage of convenience’ early on in the civil war stage of the now-multidimensional conflict, and tensions had already boiled over a few days before the former President’s announcement after clashes erupted between both camps over control of the capital’s largest mosque on the eve of Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. What no one could have anticipated is that the most powerful figure in Yemeni politics over the past three decades would end up unceremoniously slain at the hands of his former Houthi allies just a couple of days later as he was either fleeing from Sanaa or was captured in his home, which thus nevertheless sparked a heated and ongoing debate about whether he was a traitor to the rebel cause or a peacemaking patriot trying to save his country from its looming humanitarian catastrophe.

From South Yemen To The Republic Of Yemen

Largely absent amidst this frenzy of discussion is a serious conversation about the ramifications of Saleh’s removal from the political scene as they relate to the prospects of the former Cold War-era state of the “People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen”, commonly known as “South Yemen”, resurfacing in the form of a federal unit following the possible post-war internal partition of the country. This one-time country emerged in 1967 following the amalgamation of the British-held territories of the “Federation of South Arabia” and its eponymous “Protectorate”, the former of which came out of the “Federation of Arab Emirates of the South” and was originally a part of the larger Aden Protectorate that at one time covered the entirety of South Yemen. The short-lived South Yemen Civil War of 1986 devastated the country’s “deep state” and made it much more willing to eventually unify with the Yemen Arab Republic (commonly known as “North Yemen”) in 1990 in accordance with the long-delayed will of both parties as per the 1972 Cairo Agreement.

The “Yemeni Gaddafi” In The “African Mideast”

Saleh had already been ruling over North Yemen since 1978 and became the President of the unified Republic of Yemen (henceforth referred to simply as Yemen) in 1990, which required legendary Gaddafi-like domestic diplomacy to keep the tribally diverse state together. In many ways, the two Yemens – to say nothing of their post-Cold War unification – could be described as “African states in the Mideast”, bearing in mind the complex nature of their tribal and clan relations, further driving home the point of just how much Saleh channelled Gaddafi in the sense of becoming the indispensable political force holding the entire entity together. Try as he might, however, he was unable to execute a smooth unification, and a brief civil war in 1994 saw the former state of South Yemen unsuccessfully attempt to secede from the newly formed country. The historic differences between the North and South over nearly the past century and a half (and even prior to that, to be sure) had led to the creation of separate cultures, dialects, and overall identities that could only be temporarily overcome by force, and superficially at that.

Back To The Future

Saleh is symbolic because he represents the first-ever modern leader of unified Yemen, keeping in mind that “Yemen” used to previously refer to the broader region itself and not any historic state per se (though there have been some which stretched across most of the area), and that he was the victor in the 1994 civil war that squashed the South’s secessionist (“re-independence”) aspirations. The contemporary country of Yemen is therefore historically unique to a large degree, thus drawing its very territorial integrity into question, even though this wasn’t ever a serious topic up until the past year or two. To explain, while the big tent “Southern Movement” of neo-separatists was first created in 2007 during the last five years of Saleh’s tenure, it took the most recent Yemeni Civil War from 2014 until the present day to create the conditions whereby South Yemen could rise again in some shape or form.

The Houthis, a Zaydi Shiite National Liberation Movement, rose up in 2014 and teamed up with Saleh to oppose his successor, who was his former Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi. Unlike the Houthis and Saleh who represent the 40% or so of Yemenis that follow Zaydi Shiism (mostly concentrated in North Yemen), Hadi is a Sunni from South Yemen who was manipulating sectarianism in order to remain in power and even sought to “federalize” (internally partition) the country into six separate regions, which would have seen the Zaydi-majority areas of the Houthi and Saleh homelands cut off from the sea. On top of that, Hadi’s corruption was just too much for many in the country to bear, and that’s why shadow-broker Saleh allied with the Houthis and facilitated their rise to power by early 2015, though not without inadvertently stoking regionalist-sectarian fears among Sunni-majority South Yemen and reopening its pre-unification divisions with Shiite North Yemen.

The UAE’s Grand Strategy

That’s why the Saudi-led coalition focused on capturing Aden at the beginning of their invasion and using it as their base of operations for driving the Houthi-Saleh alliance further northland and into their Afghan-like mountainous redoubt that has yet to be controlled by outside forces, ergo the need to “flip” Saleh in order to break through the stalemate and make progress on advancing the ‘face-saving’ conditions for a multilateral downscaling of this disastrous conflict. The UAE is the dominant occupation force in South Yemen, and it’s thought to have encouraged the astronomical rise of the Southern Movement since then in order to indirectly lay claim to even more territory in the strategic Gulf of Aden near the Bab el Mandeb and Red Sea. The Emirates already has a base in Eritrea’s Assab and is building one in Berbera in the self-declared state of “Somaliland” in northwestern Somalia, and being able to exert proxy influence in South Yemen would make Abu Dhabi the unparalleled gatekeeper of the Gulf of Aden and therefore a globally significant rising power.

Eritrea is a sovereign state and “Somaliland” de-facto behaves as such, but South Yemen could never hope to attain any similar functionality because its most hopeful “independent” prospects are to become a constituent “(con)federalized” entity of a possible internally partitioned post-war Yemen that’s heavily under the UAE’s sway. No international actor is seriously backing the formal division of Yemen into its Cold War-era Northern and Southern halves once again, mostly because none of the GCC+ stakeholders (the organization and its warfighting allies in Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, and “Somaliland”, plus their “Lead From Behind” American-Israeli partners) have any idea how they would “contain” what they believe to be Iran’s Houthi “proxy army” in that event. That’s why the seemingly irreversible re-division of the country as a result of the dynamics stemming from the latest multidimensional civil-international war would have to be unofficial, though ‘stably’ institutionalized through a “(con)federation” between the two parts, one which could have seen Saleh rule over the North, Hadi over the South, and a compromise figurehead legally leading the nominally unified state.

The Emirati Model

The chances of pulling this off in North Yemen are uncertain right now because no GCC+-acceptable figure is militarily capable of succeeding Saleh after the Houthis successfully secured their control over Sanaa, though this blueprint is still very promising when it comes to South Yemen. Not only is the Southern Movement the main political organization in this region, but it also has genuine grassroots support among the populace who yearn to reverse what many of them believe to be the mistake of their 1990 unification with the North as much as possible given the international geostrategic constraints to their cause. Moreover, the UAE is in a prime position to guide this effectively (re-)independent statelet via the export of its political model to part of its territory, which could see the divide-and-rule revival of its colonial-era emirates (the 1959-1962 “Federation of Arab Emirates of the South” which then became the 1963-1967 “Federation of South Arabia”) and their alignment together along tribal-clan lines just like the seven ones along the southern coast of the Persian Gulf did before them.

The author originally proposed the idea of the UAE’s governing system being exported elsewhere in the region in his June 2017 analysis about “The Machiavellian Plot to Provoke Saudi Arabia and Qatar into a ‘Blood Border’ War” in explaining why the “Little Machiavelli” collection of Emirates tried to set its “big brother” of Saudi Arabia up for geopolitical failure against Qatar by exploiting his country’s influence over the easily misguided MBS. The concept is that the de-facto dissolution of any country in the Arabian Peninsula could lead to its local warlords coming under UAE patronage and being “legitimized” by Abu Dhabi as “emirs” over their territory, after which they’d be encouraged to join together into a “federation” just like the UAE itself earlier did in ultimately coming under their influence by proxy. Even in the event that the checkerboard of emirates doesn’t play out due to what might be a solid sense of unified regional identity as South Yemen, then the single entity itself could simply function as one “big emirate” vis-à-vis UAE grand strategy.

Like The Kurds But Different

The resurfacing of South Yemen in a “federalized” (internally partitioned) form following the end of the country’s war would to a large extent be a copy-and-paste of the same strategy underway in northeastern Syria with the Kurds and their “Rojava” project, especially seeing as how both are using referenda as a means to “legitimize” their aspirations and each of them would be equally abused by foreign powers for geopolitical purposes. The primary difference between South Yemen  and Syrian Kurdistan, however, is that the former actually has a long-running historical claim to statehood and many factors of identity separateness that differentiate it from its formerly independent northern neighbor of the same broader Yemeni region. In addition, Saleh’s assassination was a seismic event of symbolic and substantial proportions for the South Yemeni separatist cause because it represented the death of the man who both presided over a unified Yemen and had also defeated their compatriots during their failed 1994 secessionist/re-independence campaign.

Mixed Feelings About A Pragmatic Outcome

In view of the aforementioned domestic and international factors contributing to the revival of South Yemen, it’s evident that this is a mostly grassroots initiative with a strong historic basis, though one which will nevertheless work out to the advantage of the anti-Houthi coalition if it’s ever actualized and would first and foremost directly benefit the UAE more than any other actor. This complicated reality understandably makes the South Yemen movement difficult for some observers to support given how its unipolar geopolitical implications of dividing-and-ruling the Republic of Yemen outwardly contradict its multipolar internal motivations in correcting what many of its local proponents believe was a colossal neo-imperial mistake, but the fact of the matter is that this “compromise political solution” to the War on Yemen is becoming increasingly inevitable from a pragmatic standpoint.

The Houthis are militarily unable to oust the international coalition from South Yemen, and the US would likely intervene through “surgical strikes” and special operations raids to prevent what it has fear mongered to be an “Iranian proxy army” from kicking the UAE and Saudi Arabia out of the country, though on the flipside, these aforesaid forces don’t have the political will and military prowess to conclusively defeat the Houthis on their home turf in North Yemen. This state of affairs, especially in the failed aftermath of what was supposed to have been Saleh’s game-changing peacemaking move, suggests that the war will remain stalemated for the foreseeable future barring a severe outbreak of intra-regional conflict in North or South Yemen, which in any case is more than likely to work against Houthi interests because of their sudden split with Saleh’s forces than against the coalition’s, if such a scenario happens at all that is.

Concluding Thoughts

In any case, this means that the most pragmatic solution to part of the multidimensional and many-sided Yemeni conflict is shaping up to be the de-facto independence of South Yemen via a “federalized” (internally partitioned) structure after the war. It’s hard to imagine that the revived feelings of identity separateness inspired by this former country’s practical split from their one-time northern neighbors and fellow civic compatriots throughout the course of this conflict, powerfully aided and abetted as they were by the UAE for its own grand strategic purposes, could peacefully result in anything less. The Houthis have no realistic chance of capturing South Yemen because the coalition won’t withdraw from this valuable piece of global real estate, and it’s impossible to patch Yemen back together like how it was before this war, which was even at that time just a tenuously unified country that never fully overcame its lingering pre-unification and civil war-era divisions.

For all intents and purposes, when accounting for the slaying of the “Yemeni Gaddafi” in this heavily tribal and clan-influenced country in the “African Mideast”, the odds have never been more favorable to South Yemen’s geopolitical resurfacing in a “federalized” format than they are right now, even if the “will of the people” largely corresponds to the strategic designs of the aggressor states that intervened in the War on Yemen, leading to observers to have admittedly mixed feelings about one of the most practical outcomes of this conflict.

DISCLAIMER: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution. 

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

The social media ‘DEPLATFORM’ end game: Self-censorship (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 82.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Alex Jones’ account was put in “read only” mode and will be blocked from posting on Twitter for seven days because of an offending tweet. Twitter declined to comment on the content that violated its policies.

A Twitter spokesperson told CNN the content which prompted the suspension was a video published Tuesday in which Jones linked to within his tweet saying, “now is time to act on the enemy before they do a false flag”.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey last week defended Twitter’s decision to not suspend Infowars and Alex Jones from the platform, claiming they had not violated Twitter policies.

Dorsey refused to take down Alex Jones and his popular Infowars account, even as his Silicon Valley buddies over at Apple, Facebook, YouTube and Spotify were colluding to remove any sign of Jones or Infowars from their platforms…

“We’re going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories,” Dorsey said in a tweet last week. He later added that it was critical that journalists “document, validate and refute” accounts like those of Mr. Jones, which “can often sensationalize issues and spread unsubstantiated rumors.”

According to Zerohedge, still after a CNN report identifying numerous past tweets from Infowars and Jones that did violate Twitter’s rules, those posts were deleted. Tweets by Infowars and Jones deleted last week included posts attacking transgender and Muslim people; a claim that the 2012 shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax perpetrated by “crisis actors”; and a video calling David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland, Fla., high-school shooting, a Nazi.

Dorsey finally caved overnight, with a “temporary suspension”, which will likely become permanent upon Jones’ next violation.

Twitter’s crackdown came more than a week after technology companies, including Apple, YouTube and Facebook removed content from Jones and his site, Infowars. As the WSJ notes, the actions against Infowars intensified a growing debate over what role tech companies play in policing controversial content on their platforms while they simultaneously support the principle of free speech.

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou examine the aggressive purge of conservative right, libertarian, and progressive accounts from Silicon Valley social media platforms, and how Alex Jones’ was the first step towards driving so much fear into the population, that self censorship takes over and authoritarian rule over the Internet takes hold.

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

Via Zerohedge

In the latest media pit stop, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey sat down with NBC News Lester Holt, where he defended the company’s decision to put Infowars’ Alex Jones under a seven-day timeout over an offensive tweet linking to a video in which Jones encourages his audience to “act on the enemy before they do a false flag,” and to get “battle rifles” ready.

Dorsey said that despite calls to ban Jones last week amid a seemingly coordinated multi-platform blacklisting, he resisted until now.

“We can’t build a service that is subjective just to the whims of what we personally believe,” Dorsey told Holt, while saying he believes a suspension can be an effect deterrent which can change user behaviors.

“I feel any suspension, whether it be a permanent or a temporary one, makes someone think about their actions and their behaviors,” Dorsey added – though he admitted he has no idea if Jones’ timeout will result in any changes in behavior.

Dorsey stated: “Whether it works within this case to change some of those behaviors and change some of those actions, I don’t know. But this is consistent with how we enforce.”

Jones was banned or restricted from using the services of at least 10 tech companies this month, including Facebook and YouTube. Twitter had been the most high-profile holdout, until it announced on Tuesday that Jones was suspended from posting for seven days.

Dorsey later clarified on Twitter that he was “speaking broadly about our range of enforcement actions” with regards to the company’s use of timeouts.

in a follow-up question on weighing the importance of Twitter’s rules versus its moral obligation, Dorsey said the company has “to put the safety of individuals first in every single thing that we do, and we need to enforce our rules and also evolve our rules around that.” –NBC News

Jack Dorsey said on Twitter.

“I don’t assume everyone will change their actions. Enforcement gets tougher with further reported violations.”

Continue Reading

Latest

The Discarded Wisdom of America’s Founders

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

A good example of the discarded wisdom of America’s Founders is George Washington’s Farewell Address to the nation, delivered by him not orally but instead solely in printed form, published in Philadelphia by David C. Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser, on 19 September 1796, and distributed to the nation. The following extended excerpt from it is the most famous part of it, and is being blatantly raped by today’s U.S. Government, and therefore it might indicate the necessity for a second American Revolution, this one to disown and throw out not Britain’s Aristocracy, but America’s aristocracy. America’s Founders had done all they knew how to do to conquer Britain’s aristocracy, and they embodied in our Constitution all that they knew in order to prevent any aristocracy ever from arising in this nation; but the Founders clearly had failed in this their dearest hope, because a domestic U.S. aristocracy has arisen here and destroyed American democracy, as this nation’s Founders had feared, and as Washington in this document effectively affirms — and, by these words, proves — to have happened (they’ve taken over this country, in and by both of its Parties, and so we have here a profound and scathing, blistering, criticism of today’s American Government):

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Continue Reading

Latest

Bruce Ohr Texts, Emails Reveal Steele’s Deep Ties to Obama DOJ, FBI

There are indications that the FBI knew that Steele was in contact with the media before the bureau submitted the first FISA application.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Sara Carter via SaraCarter.com:


A trove of emails and handwritten notes from Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr exposes the continuous contact and communication between the DOJ attorney and anti-Trump dossier author Christopher Steele, according to notes and documents obtained by SaraACarter.com. The emails and notes were written between 2016 and 2017.

The notes and emails also reveal that Ohr was in communication with Glenn Simpson, the founder of the embattled research firm Fusion GPS, which was paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC to hire Steele.

In one of Ohr’s handwritten notes listed as “Law enforcement Sensitive” from May 10, 2017, he writes “Call with Chris,” referencing Steele. He notes that Steele is “very concerned about Comey’s firing, afraid they will be exposed.” This call occurred months after FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee and revealed for the first time that the FBI had an open counterintelligence investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign and alleged collusion with Russia.

Steele is also extremely concerned about a letter sent from the Senate Judiciary Committee asking Comey for information on his involvement with Steele. Grassley sent 12 questions to Comey regarding the bureau and Steele’s relationship and wanted all information on any agreements they had during the investigation into alleged Russia-Trump collusion. Grassley also wanted to know if the FBI ever verified any of the information in Steele’s reports.

In Ohr’s notes from May 10, 2017, he goes onto write that Steele is concerned about a letter from the Senate Intelligence Committee, writing:

“Asked them 3 questions:

  1. What info (information) did you give to the U.S. govt (government)?
  2. What was the scope of yr (your) investigation?
  3. Do you have any other info that would assist in our question?”

SaraACarter.com first reported this week text messages between Steele and Ohr, revealing that Steele was anxious about Comey’s testimony and was hoping that “important firewalls will hold” when Comey testified.

Those text messages in March 2017 were shared only two days before Comey testified to lawmakers.

The House Intelligence Committee revealed in their Russia report earlier this year that Steele–who was working for the FBI as a Confidential Human Source (CHS)–had shopped his dossier to numerous news outlets in the summer of 2016.  According to the report, the FBI terminated Steele after discovering that he was leaking to news outlets, breaking a cardinal rule by the bureau to not reveal ongoing investigations and information to the media.

However, there is growing concern that the FBI was well aware that Steele was in contact with media outlets about his dossier before the FBI applied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for its first warrant in the fall of 2016 to conduct surveillance on former Trump campaign volunteer advisor, Carter Page.

There are indications that the FBI knew that Steele was in contact with the media before the bureau submitted the first FISA application…

“There are indications that the FBI knew that Steele was in contact with the media before the bureau submitted the first FISA application and that question needs to be resolved,” said a congressional official with knowledge of the investigation.

The documents from March 2017, reveal how concerned Steele is with Grassley’s committee and the letter from the senator’s office seeking answers from Steele on the dossier.

In June 2017, Steele tells Ohr,  “We are frustrated with how long this reengagement with the Bureau and Mueller is taking.  Anything you can do to accelerate the process would be much appreciated.  There are some new, perishable, operational opportunities which we do not want to miss out on.”

In October 2017, Steele notes that he is concerned about the stories in the media about the bureau delivering information to Congress “about my work and relationship with them.  Very concerned about this.  People’s lives may be endangered.”

And in November 2017, Steele, who is trying to engage with Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel, writes to Ohr saying, “we were wondering if there was any response to the questions I raised last week.”

Ohr responds by saying, “I have passed on the questions (apparently to the special counsel) but haven’t gotten an answer yet.”

Steele then says,  “I am presuming you’ve heard nothing back from your SC (special counsel) colleagues on the issues you kindly put to them from me.  We have heard nothing from them either.  To say this is disappointing would be an understatement!  Certain people have been willing to risk everything to engage with them in an effort to help them reach the truth.  Also, we remain in the dark as to what work has been briefed to Congress about us, our assets and previous work.”

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending