theduran--2020-01-20--One phone call from Trump to Sisi could’ve prevented Mustafa Kassem’s hunger strike death

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Sarah Abed , independent journalist and analyst… After spending 77 months in an Egyptian prison while on pre-trial detention and serving part of his fifteen year sentence , Mustafa Kassem , a 54 year old cancer-survivor and father of two living in New York with dual American-Egyptian citizenship died last Monday in Egypt ’ s Tora prison .
On August 14th , 2013 the day before he was due to return to New York , while visiting family in Egypt Kassem was arrested along with his cousin by soldiers outside of a shopping center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where supporters of the ousted former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi were engaged in a sit-in .
His cousin was set free but after Kassem presented his US passport he was detained and beaten .
In 2018 , Kassem was tried alongside over 700 co-defendants and charged with protesting the government in a mass trial and sentenced to 15 years in maximum security prison .
In objection to the unjust sentence Kassem began an open-ended hunger strike .
Kassem ’ s is an unfortunate case of being in the wrong place at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the dispersal of the sit-in and got swept up with political protestors .
Tens of thousands of Egyptians that have been unjustly imprisoned since an unprecedented and harsh crackdown on dissent began in 2013 when Abdel Fatah al-Sisi took office following a coup .
There are an estimated 60,000 political prisons living in inhumane conditions , 677 have been reported dead due to medical negligence .
Kassem was the fourth detainee to die in Egyptian custody this month , but unlike others his case was the subject of high-level negotiations between Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pence appealed directly to President Sisi on Kassem ’ s behalf to no avail .
In letters written to President Donald Trump , Kassem pleaded for his release and begged that Trump intervene and save his life , he didn ’ t want to go on a hunger strike but felt that there was no other way to get his attention .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed his outrage to Sisi on Sunday but empty words won ’ t bring Kassem back to his wife and kids .
With one phone call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Kassem and other US citizens unjustly detained in Egypt , Trump could have withheld a portion of the $ 1.4 billion aid Egypt receives annually , which is second only to Israel .
President Trump could have used an assortment of leverages to demand human rights compliances but as we all know this isn ’ t a concern for him .
With close friends such as Israel and Saudi Arabia both known for being world leaders when it comes to human rights violations and abuse , it ’ s no surprise that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to give Sisi a slap on the wrist .
Purchasing fighter jets from Russia warrants possible sanctions but the imprisonment and unjust detainment of American citizens doesn ’ t seem to be much of a concern for Trump .
Democratic Senators Chris Van Hollen and Patrick Leahy are calling on President Trump to “ immediately ” sanction Egypt over Kassem ’ s death and for immediate visa restrictions against government officials involved in his detention .
The Senators are also requesting that President Trump make a statement declaring Egypt ’ s treatment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognized human rights ” and to impose Global Magnitsky Act sanctions on those responsible for his death .
In the letter that the Senators wrote to President Trump they said that Egyptian officials never presented any evidence implicating Kassem because it didn ’ t exist .
Senator Van Hollen even met with President Sisi over the summer to discuss his release , to no avail .
I spoke with Meriam Girgis an Egyptian-American Political Activist in New Jersey about Kassem ’ s case and how conditions have changed under President Sisi .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Egyptian dictator of all time .
He is ruthless and has crossed every single red line possible , he doesn ’ t care if other world leaders are privy to the atrocities being committed under his rule ” .
I asked how she felt about President Trump calling him his “ favorite dictator ” , she said it makes her feel sick , Trump essentially gave Sisi the green light to commit more human rights violations and atrocities towards his opponents and silence dissidents with impunity .
Girgis hopes that by raising awareness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many others in his position the American public will understand that our tax dollars are being spent on killing and torturing fellow humans on the other side of the world .
Girgis mentioned that Ramy Kamel , a fellow Christian Coptic activist living in Egypt was ironically arrested and charged with being part of a terrorist group , all while he was raising awareness about crimes being committed against the Christian Coptic community in Egypt .
He is still in jail and his detainment has been extended yet again , his fate like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands of the corrupt Egyptian government .
Girgis like other political activists closely following cases of unjustly imprisoned Americans and political prisoners in Egypt urges Americans to contact their Senators and voice their concern about what is currently going on under Sisi ’ s regime .
She said that there are 7 more US citizens held in Egyptian prisons right now , more needs to be done so that they do not meet the same fate at Kassem , the regime needs to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity .
President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use his leverage to immediately demand that all unjustly detained Americans in Egypt be released , sanction those responsible for human rights violations , withhold billions of dollars of US military aid , hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes against humanity and demand that the International Red Cross be granted access and insight into Egyptian prisons .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Sarah Abed, independent journalist and analyst…
After spending 77 months in an Egyptian prison while on pre-trial detention and serving part of his fifteen year sentence, Mustafa Kassem, a 54 year old cancer-survivor and father of two living in New York with dual American-Egyptian citizenship died last Monday in Egypt’s Tora prison.
On August 14th, 2013 the day before he was due to return to New York, while visiting family in Egypt Kassem was arrested along with his cousin by soldiers outside of a shopping center near Cairo’s Rabaa al-Adawiya square, where supporters of the ousted former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi were engaged in a sit-in. His cousin was set free but after Kassem presented his US passport he was detained and beaten.
In 2018, Kassem was tried alongside over 700 co-defendants and charged with protesting the government in a mass trial and sentenced to 15 years in maximum security prison. In objection to the unjust sentence Kassem began an open-ended hunger strike.
Kassem’s is an unfortunate case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was a bystander during the dispersal of the sit-in and got swept up with political protestors. Tens of thousands of Egyptians that have been unjustly imprisoned since an unprecedented and harsh crackdown on dissent began in 2013 when Abdel Fatah al-Sisi took office following a coup.
There are an estimated 60,000 political prisons living in inhumane conditions, 677 have been reported dead due to medical negligence. Kassem was the fourth detainee to die in Egyptian custody this month, but unlike others his case was the subject of high-level negotiations between Washington and Cairo. Even Vice President Mike Pence appealed directly to President Sisi on Kassem’s behalf to no avail.
In letters written to President Donald Trump, Kassem pleaded for his release and begged that Trump intervene and save his life, he didn’t want to go on a hunger strike but felt that there was no other way to get his attention.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed his outrage to Sisi on Sunday but empty words won’t bring Kassem back to his wife and kids.
With one phone call President Trump could have demanded the release of Kassem and other US citizens unjustly detained in Egypt, Trump could have withheld a portion of the $1.4 billion aid Egypt receives annually, which is second only to Israel. President Trump could have used an assortment of leverages to demand human rights compliances but as we all know this isn’t a concern for him.
With close friends such as Israel and Saudi Arabia both known for being world leaders when it comes to human rights violations and abuse, it’s no surprise that Trump hasn’t made any efforts to give Sisi a slap on the wrist. Purchasing fighter jets from Russia warrants possible sanctions but the imprisonment and unjust detainment of American citizens doesn’t seem to be much of a concern for Trump.
Democratic Senators Chris Van Hollen and Patrick Leahy are calling on President Trump to “immediately” sanction Egypt over Kassem’s death and for immediate visa restrictions against government officials involved in his detention. The Senators are also requesting that President Trump make a statement declaring Egypt’s treatment of Kassem “a gross violation of internationally recognized human rights” and to impose Global Magnitsky Act sanctions on those responsible for his death. In the letter that the Senators wrote to President Trump they said that Egyptian officials never presented any evidence implicating Kassem because it didn’t exist. Senator Van Hollen even met with President Sisi over the summer to discuss his release, to no avail.
I spoke with Meriam Girgis an Egyptian-American Political Activist in New Jersey about Kassem’s case and how conditions have changed under President Sisi. She said, “Sisi is the worst Egyptian dictator of all time. He is ruthless and has crossed every single red line possible, he doesn’t care if other world leaders are privy to the atrocities being committed under his rule”. I asked how she felt about President Trump calling him his “favorite dictator”, she said it makes her feel sick, Trump essentially gave Sisi the green light to commit more human rights violations and atrocities towards his opponents and silence dissidents with impunity.
Girgis hopes that by raising awareness about Kassem’s case and so many others in his position the American public will understand that our tax dollars are being spent on killing and torturing fellow humans on the other side of the world. Girgis mentioned that Ramy Kamel, a fellow Christian Coptic activist living in Egypt was ironically arrested and charged with being part of a terrorist group, all while he was raising awareness about crimes being committed against the Christian Coptic community in Egypt. He is still in jail and his detainment has been extended yet again, his fate like so many others is entirely in the hands of the corrupt Egyptian government.
Girgis like other political activists closely following cases of unjustly imprisoned Americans and political prisoners in Egypt urges Americans to contact their Senators and voice their concern about what is currently going on under Sisi’s regime. She said that there are 7 more US citizens held in Egyptian prisons right now, more needs to be done so that they do not meet the same fate at Kassem, the regime needs to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity.
President Trump not only could but really should use his leverage to immediately demand that all unjustly detained Americans in Egypt be released, sanction those responsible for human rights violations, withhold billions of dollars of US military aid, hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes against humanity and demand that the International Red Cross be granted access and insight into Egyptian prisons.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-21--Parsing the So-Called Negotiations in Doha

1/20/20 – If , after reading this article in the NY Times , you find that you don ’ t understand what they are talking about .
Don ’ t worry .
There ’ s nothing wrong with you .
If you don ’ t understand what the authors are saying , it ’ s because neither do they .
Sit back , have a cup of your favorite beverage , it ’ s just the NY Times blowing bubbles about Afghanistan again .
It is the same NY Times that behaves as if it is a revelation that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the corruption and incompetence that characterizes its ’ operations in Afghanistan .
They no doubt don ’ t yet know the same is true about Iraq , Syria and Libya .
But don ’ t fret , your investments in Raytheon , General Dynamics and all of the rest if the military industrial complex are safe .
Nothing is going to change .
One year from now , America will still be in all of these wars .
Jezail.org guarantees it .
What the article does not say is this : Afghanistan is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are about carving it up and devouring it .
“ Reduction of violence ” or “ stopping violence ” is not the main meal of the “ negotiations ” .
At best , it is a garnish .
America is NOT getting out of Afghanistan .
America is reducing its ’ visible presence in Afghanistan by hiring mercenaries , conducting a more vigorous air war and buying off the Pakistani military and anybody else they can buy off .
America ’ s role may be shifting but that only means that the nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underlying US “ interests ” are shifting .
The only thing that is changing are the appearances .
That is being accomplished by the use of rhetoric in the media and “ public diplomacy ” , now a fancy word for propaganda typically aimed at Americans to consume .
So jezail.org has decided to examine some of the statements made in this NY Times article .
We will not do it line by line however .
That would be abusive of the reader and we are not sadists .
However , the level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be pointed out so more people can begin to understand where America has come to in 2020 .
Then we will lay out the practical realities of what is very likely really going on .
Let ’ s start with the headline : “ Taliban Offer to Reduce Violence in Afghanistan Ahead of Deal with the US ” .
“ Reduce violence ?
” What does that mean ?
How does one measure that ?
Isn ’ t this more of an indication of what jezail.org has been saying all along ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually “ control ” forces in the field .
They never really did .
Since the discovery of the death of Omar and the fact that his death was hidden for some years from Taliban rank and file , jezail.org has been emphatically vocal about the lack of a firm hand on the rudder for Taliban leadership and their Pakistani masters .
Reduce violence ?
What a dismal carrot !
They can not even define a time period for this weak offer .
They don ’ t actually know .
The fact is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of what happens in the field .
The Pakistani ISI may be to some extent .
They can provide weapons , money , sanctuary and even some officers .
They ca , to some extent , steer things through selective supply .
But they are clearly not in control and that control was badly damaged after the revelation of Omar ’ s death .
Events have borne this fact out with the repeated bombings in Kabul at the most delicate points of these so-called negotiations .
Then , there is this from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shaheen , said the two negotiating teams had talked about details of ‘ the signing of the agreement and the ceremony for it ’ .
” A ceremony ?
There is no deal yet and already they are talking about a ceremony ?
Isn ’ t that putting the cart before the horse ?
Who would actually attend such an event ?
How would they celebrate this , blow up a ceremonial truck bomb ?
Should one have their flak vest cleaned and pressed for such an event ?
Oh , but there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether to agree to a cease-fire before the departure of the roughly 13,000 American forces and thousands more NATO troops has been an existential one for the Taliban , who see violence as their most important leverage .
The insurgents spent more than a month deliberating Washington ’ s demand.
” Existential ?
These two sentences are mind benders .
( Don ’ t read them again .
It might cause dizzyness . )
We see 2 possible meanings here .
The first is that the Taliban can ’ t live without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some truth to this in that the Taliban openly claim that they get about half of their “ budget ” from the US supply line across Pakistan .
The US has always been a Taliban gravy train .
Without the US , would the Taliban starve ?
Perhaps , these strange sentences may be a reference to the fact that the Taliban was originally propagated by a US diplomat who was also moonlighting as a lobbyist for the UNOCAL/TAPI pipeline .
It was her vigorous advocacy that launched the Taliban from being nobodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taliban officials still make public statements proclaiming their continued commitment to the TAPI deal .
So they still foresee a useful American role in Afghanistan .
The other possible meaning is somewhat opposite .
It could be that the statements mean that if the Taliban don ’ t get the US out of Afghanistan , the organization will die .
Not bloody likely .
On the whole , this jem from the NY Times elicits the image of some Talib sitting on a rock somewhere and thinking : “ Americans , can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t live without them.
” If all of this seems like rubbish , that ’ s because we are trying to parse the NY Times .
If you do this on a regular basis , you are at risk of becoming an alcoholic .
We don ’ t want this .
So we will stop .
Instead we will shift gears and go into what we think is happening in the so-called negotiations .
Ok , time to put the drink down .
It is often claimed by Zalmay Khalilzad that the negotiations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As previously pointed out , It was Zalmay Khalilzad who has been the architect of the NUG government , and who chose its ’ leaders and who has been the one major policy maker spanning the entire American Afghan war .
One might fairly ask , why , after two decades of war , does “ stopping violence ” become a priority for this man ?
The answer is : because it isn ’ t .
The “ negotiations ” are about what the war is about , power and money .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the thinly disguised Taliban delegation that , in fact , are more an instrument of Pakistani foreign policy .
The power issue largely has to do with the extent of control Pakistan will have over Afghanistan .
That effects the money issues .
How much will Pakistan be able too loot or extract from Afghanistan ?
this has been openly discussed by senior Pakistani military officials on Pakistani TV .
How much will Pakistan be able to continue to extract from America ?
If the US were to completely leave the region , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plummet .
In fact getting the US out of Afghanistan was never an objective of any party to the negotiation .
For their part , the Taliban have said publicly that they still want the US to continue to develop the TAPI pipeline .
That ’ s a winner and a money maker for a Taliban government in Kabul as it is for the present Kabul regime .
This virtually guarantees a continual logistical train which will continue to be a bloated source of revenue for all parties to the agreement .
Were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not be surprising to find Khalilzad working for it .
NGO ’ s would blossom .
You can bet the US taxpayer will end up footing the bill through USAID among other government sources of unregulated cash .
A continual sticking point is that the US still insists on having a continued military presence in Afghanistan .
The stated claim is to provide a way to battle “ terrorist ” camps they predict will appear as soon as a peace agreement is signed .
However most observers believe that the real reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ project power ” at Iran from its ’ eastern border and keep it out of world trade utilizing US bases in Afghanistan .
The Taliban , understandably aren ’ t having any of this and will not back down on this point .
Another sticking point for the negotiation is the demand that the Taliban sit down and talk with the Kabul regime .
In the past , the Taliban have balked .
Now , it appears that “ progress ” has been made by delinking this issue from the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently gotten the Taliban to agree to subsequent talks .
Jezail.org thinks that this is a ruse .
It is a way to pretend to care about the Kabul regime when the real concern is the US “ interests ” previously described .
If the US negotiators can get what they want from the Taliban , who needs Ghani and co. ?
After three consecutive US rigged elections , and the present electoral stalemate , which Kabul negotiators would actually show up in Doha ?
Ghani ’ s ?
Abdullah ’ s ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the present Kabul regime across Afghanistan wanes , what legitimacy would a NUG delegation actually have ?
When one stops to consider that it was Zalmay Khalilzad who is the founding architect of the NUG constitution as well as the man who personally selected their leadership , aren ’ t the Taliban already talking to the NUG regime in Kabul ?
Khalilzad , by himself , is in no way capable of sorting these issues out .
If there is any serious considerations to any of the major themes jezail.org has identified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the delegations .
They are being quietly discussed in corporate suites and board rooms from Pakistan to Doha to London , Washington DC and Dallas Texas .
A few very select Americans will be involved and they will never put out a press release or public statement about what is decided .
One thing can be said about those decisions however , they have nothing to do with “ reducing violence ” .
There is no money in peace for these people .
There is in war .
So keep those flak vests @ @

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-agreement.html
1/20/20 – If, after reading this article in the NY Times, you find that you don’t understand what they are talking about. Don’t worry. There’s nothing wrong with you. If you don’t understand what the authors are saying, it’s because neither do they. Sit back, have a cup of your favorite beverage, it’s just the NY Times blowing bubbles about Afghanistan again. It is the same NY Times that behaves as if it is a revelation that the US Government has been fully aware of the corruption and incompetence that characterizes its’ operations in Afghanistan. They no doubt don’t yet know the same is true about Iraq, Syria and Libya. But don’t fret, your investments in Raytheon, General Dynamics and all of the rest if the military industrial complex are safe. Nothing is going to change. One year from now, America will still be in all of these wars. Jezail.org guarantees it. What the article does not say is this: Afghanistan is basically a dead carcass and the negotiations are about carving it up and devouring it. “Reduction of violence” or “stopping violence” is not the main meal of the “negotiations”. At best, it is a garnish.
America is NOT getting out of Afghanistan. America is reducing its’ visible presence in Afghanistan by hiring mercenaries, conducting a more vigorous air war and buying off the Pakistani military and anybody else they can buy off. America’s role may be shifting but that only means that the nature of the rackets that have been the underlying US “interests” are shifting. The only thing that is changing are the appearances. That is being accomplished by the use of rhetoric in the media and “public diplomacy”, now a fancy word for propaganda typically aimed at Americans to consume. So jezail.org has decided to examine some of the statements made in this NY Times article. We will not do it line by line however. That would be abusive of the reader and we are not sadists. However, the level of mistruth in this article needs to be pointed out so more people can begin to understand where America has come to in 2020. Then we will lay out the practical realities of what is very likely really going on.
Let’s start with the headline: “Taliban Offer to Reduce Violence in Afghanistan Ahead of Deal with the US”.
“Reduce violence?” What does that mean? How does one measure that? Isn’t this more of an indication of what jezail.org has been saying all along? The so called Taliban negotiators don’t actually “control” forces in the field. They never really did. Since the discovery of the death of Omar and the fact that his death was hidden for some years from Taliban rank and file, jezail.org has been emphatically vocal about the lack of a firm hand on the rudder for Taliban leadership and their Pakistani masters. Reduce violence? What a dismal carrot! They cannot even define a time period for this weak offer. They don’t actually know. The fact is that the Taliban negotiators are not in control of what happens in the field. The Pakistani ISI may be to some extent. They can provide weapons, money, sanctuary and even some officers. They ca, to some extent, steer things through selective supply. But they are clearly not in control and that control was badly damaged after the revelation of Omar’s death. Events have borne this fact out with the repeated bombings in Kabul at the most delicate points of these so-called negotiations.
Then, there is this from the NY Times article:
“Suhail Shaheen, said the two negotiating teams had talked about details of ‘the signing of the agreement and the ceremony for it’.” A ceremony? There is no deal yet and already they are talking about a ceremony? Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse? Who would actually attend such an event? How would they celebrate this, blow up a ceremonial truck bomb? Should one have their flak vest cleaned and pressed for such an event?
Oh, but there is more:
“The issue of whether to agree to a cease-fire before the departure of the roughly 13,000 American forces and thousands more NATO troops has been an existential one for the Taliban, who see violence as their most important leverage. The insurgents spent more than a month deliberating Washington’s demand.”
Existential? These two sentences are mind benders. (Don’t read them again. It might cause dizzyness.) We see 2 possible meanings here. The first is that the Taliban can’t live without a US presence in Afghanistan. There is some truth to this in that the Taliban openly claim that they get about half of their “budget” from the US supply line across Pakistan. The US has always been a Taliban gravy train. Without the US, would the Taliban starve? Perhaps, these strange sentences may be a reference to the fact that the Taliban was originally propagated by a US diplomat who was also moonlighting as a lobbyist for the UNOCAL/TAPI pipeline. It was her vigorous advocacy that launched the Taliban from being nobodies to the monsters they are today. Taliban officials still make public statements proclaiming their continued commitment to the TAPI deal. So they still foresee a useful American role in Afghanistan. The other possible meaning is somewhat opposite. It could be that the statements mean that if the Taliban don’t get the US out of Afghanistan, the organization will die. Not bloody likely. On the whole, this jem from the NY Times elicits the image of some Talib sitting on a rock somewhere and thinking: “Americans, can’t live with them, can’t live without them.”
If all of this seems like rubbish, that’s because we are trying to parse the NY Times. If you do this on a regular basis, you are at risk of becoming an alcoholic. We don’t want this. So we will stop. Instead we will shift gears and go into what we think is happening in the so-called negotiations. Ok, time to put the drink down.
It is often claimed by Zalmay Khalilzad that the negotiations are about “stopping the violence”. As previously pointed out, It was Zalmay Khalilzad who has been the architect of the NUG government, and who chose its’ leaders and who has been the one major policy maker spanning the entire American Afghan war. One might fairly ask, why, after two decades of war, does “stopping violence” become a priority for this man? The answer is: because it isn’t.
The “negotiations” are about what the war is about, power and money. Much of it is theater such as the thinly disguised Taliban delegation that, in fact, are more an instrument of Pakistani foreign policy. The power issue largely has to do with the extent of control Pakistan will have over Afghanistan. That effects the money issues. How much will Pakistan be able too loot or extract from Afghanistan? this has been openly discussed by senior Pakistani military officials on Pakistani TV. How much will Pakistan be able to continue to extract from America? If the US were to completely leave the region, the standard of living in Pakistan would plummet.
In fact getting the US out of Afghanistan was never an objective of any party to the negotiation. For their part, the Taliban have said publicly that they still want the US to continue to develop the TAPI pipeline. That’s a winner and a money maker for a Taliban government in Kabul as it is for the present Kabul regime. This virtually guarantees a continual logistical train which will continue to be a bloated source of revenue for all parties to the agreement. Were events to follow that path, it would not be surprising to find Khalilzad working for it. NGO’s would blossom. You can bet the US taxpayer will end up footing the bill through USAID among other government sources of unregulated cash.
A continual sticking point is that the US still insists on having a continued military presence in Afghanistan. The stated claim is to provide a way to battle “terrorist” camps they predict will appear as soon as a peace agreement is signed. However most observers believe that the real reason for a continued US military presence is to “project power” at Iran from its’ eastern border and keep it out of world trade utilizing US bases in Afghanistan. The Taliban, understandably aren’t having any of this and will not back down on this point.
Another sticking point for the negotiation is the demand that the Taliban sit down and talk with the Kabul regime. In the past, the Taliban have balked. Now, it appears that “progress” has been made by delinking this issue from the first part of the negotiation. Khalilzad has apparently gotten the Taliban to agree to subsequent talks. Jezail.org thinks that this is a ruse. It is a way to pretend to care about the Kabul regime when the real concern is the US “interests” previously described. If the US negotiators can get what they want from the Taliban, who needs Ghani and co.? After three consecutive US rigged elections, and the present electoral stalemate, which Kabul negotiators would actually show up in Doha? Ghani’s? Abdullah’s? Heckmatyer’s?
As popular acceptance of the present Kabul regime across Afghanistan wanes, what legitimacy would a NUG delegation actually have? When one stops to consider that it was Zalmay Khalilzad who is the founding architect of the NUG constitution as well as the man who personally selected their leadership, aren’t the Taliban already talking to the NUG regime in Kabul?
Khalilzad, by himself, is in no way capable of sorting these issues out. If there is any serious considerations to any of the major themes jezail.org has identified, they are not being discussed between the delegations. They are being quietly discussed in corporate suites and board rooms from Pakistan to Doha to London, Washington DC and Dallas Texas. A few very select Americans will be involved and they will never put out a press release or public statement about what is decided. One thing can be said about those decisions however, they have nothing to do with “reducing violence”. There is no money in peace for these people. There is in war. So keep those flak vests handy.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-21--A post-Brexit Britain will necessarily be aggressive

On January 19th , following his brief meeting with Vladimir Putin at the Libyan peace conference in Berlin , British Prime Minister Boris Johnson ’ s press office released the following statement : “ The Prime Minister said there will be no normalization of our bilateral relationship until Russia ends the destabilizing activity that threatens the UK and our allies and undermines the safety of our citizens and our collective security.
” Russian officials expressed surprise at this statement , considering that Johnson himself had sought a one-on-one with Putin in Berlin .
A government source in Moscow later added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conciliatory , there were no harsh statements whatsoever… the main message of the British prime minister was a bid to improve relations with Russia.
” This is a classic case of a government official attempting unsuccessfully to appear naïve .
Both sides understand perfectly well that there is no contradiction whatsoever between the absence of hostility in Johnson ’ s demeanour toward Putin in Berlin and the wording of the subsequent statement released by his press-office .
In interpreting the machinations of international relations , it is almost always best to assume that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amoral game .
Behind closed doors , neither side will take the least offence if the other side publicly condemns them using the harshest moral language .
Everybody understands that moralizing is just another cynical stratagem in the game .
It has a strategic value .
Use what you ’ ve got .
Let ’ s imagine , hypothetically , that Johnson and Putin were to have an entirely private , off the record , one-on-one conversation , allowing them both to speak with total candour .
Of course , protocols make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but if it did , it might sound something like this : JOHNSON : Okay , Vladimir , you already know our game-plan .
You know we ’ re going to press the Skripal button ad nauseam .
You know we ’ re going to moan about human rights and international law .
You know we ’ re going to use the collocation “ Russian aggression ” at every available opportunity .
You know that we ’ re going to back US sanctions to try to freeze you out of markets .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
We ’ ve got business to protect .
No hard feelings .
It ’ s just business… .
PUTIN : Don ’ t worry , Boris .
Of course there are no hard feelings .
I get it .
This will especially be the case in the post-Brexit era .
Britain will once again have to be aggressive on multiple levels in order to protect its remaining markets and penetrate new ones .
The inaugural UK-Africa Investment Summit on January 20th quickly followed the inaugural Russia-Africa Summit and Economic Forum held in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developments provide yet 2 more thematically resonant illustrations of the idea that “ the nineteenth century will never end.
” Firstly , with the global power-vacuum created by the steady contraction of American hegemony , there is a new economic scramble for Africa , just as there was in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic wars .
Secondly , Russia and Britain have decided to resume playing “ the Great Game , ” except this time on a different continent .
Furthermore , Johnson has to , at all costs , protect Britain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With the deindustrialization and financialization which has taken place in the British economy over the past half century , Britain ’ s global archipelago of tax-havens becomes even more important .
In fact , it is highly arguable that protecting these channels for the washing of black money through the City of London was the main impetus behind Brexit in the first place .
In economic terms , Brexit essentially hinged on the decision to switch to an almost totally financialized economy , based almost exclusively on offshorization ( made easier through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a normal economy based upon the production , import and export of goods .
Now more than ever , economically , Britain is one giant , post-industrial laundromat .
It just so happens that some of the laundromat ’ s most voluminous clients are former Russian oligarchs .
Boris has to keep his clients happy .
However , with this in mind , it immediately becomes clear how Britain ’ s economic interests would most concretely be served by the economic re-colonization of Russia , the re-oligarchization of Russia , or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these developments would require a massive shadow-infrastructure for clandestine financial transactions .
Whereas American interests would benefit from Russia ’ s balkanization principally through renewed direct access to cheap natural resources , Britain ’ s primary interest would consist in mediating the flows of illicit capital through a global labyrinth of financial entities .
Nobody dreams of the balkanization of Russia more than fund-managers in Jersey , the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands .
Can you imagine the quantities of “ chorny-nal ” ( “ black cash ” ) that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its dependencies have about 60 % of the entire global financial clandestine infrastructure which would handle that kind of traffic .
So don ’ t blame Boris .
What do you expect him to do ?
He ’ s got business to protect .
In many ways , the role of a prime minister can be thought of as analogous to the professional role of a criminal defence attorney .
The criminal defence attorney ’ s job is to act in his client ’ s interests .
The criminal defence attorney usually knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should go to prison .
But it ’ s not his place to make such judgments , because he is not acting in his capacity as a private moral agent .
In his professional capacity as an attorney , he has a professional duty to try to get the client off .
He has a professional duty to park his private moral impulses .
Analogously , the prime minister ’ s perspective must be “ My country , right or wrong.
” It ’ s simply not his job to render an impartial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his nation ’ s conduct or its internal culture .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Padraig McGrath, political analyst…
On January 19th, following his brief meeting with Vladimir Putin at the Libyan peace conference in Berlin, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s press office released the following statement:
“The Prime Minister said there will be no normalization of our bilateral relationship until Russia ends the destabilizing activity that threatens the UK and our allies and undermines the safety of our citizens and our collective security.”
Russian officials expressed surprise at this statement, considering that Johnson himself had sought a one-on-one with Putin in Berlin. A government source in Moscow later added that “his tone was closer to conciliatory, there were no harsh statements whatsoever… the main message of the British prime minister was a bid to improve relations with Russia.”
This is a classic case of a government official attempting unsuccessfully to appear naïve.
Both sides understand perfectly well that there is no contradiction whatsoever between the absence of hostility in Johnson’s demeanour toward Putin in Berlin and the wording of the subsequent statement released by his press-office.
In interpreting the machinations of international relations, it is almost always best to assume that all sides are rational actors in an amoral game. Behind closed doors, neither side will take the least offence if the other side publicly condemns them using the harshest moral language. Everybody understands that moralizing is just another cynical stratagem in the game. It has a strategic value. Use what you’ve got.
Let’s imagine, hypothetically, that Johnson and Putin were to have an entirely private, off the record, one-on-one conversation, allowing them both to speak with total candour. Of course, protocols make it impossible that this could ever happen, but if it did, it might sound something like this:
JOHNSON: Okay, Vladimir, you already know our game-plan. You know we’re going to press the Skripal button ad nauseam. You know we’re going to moan about human rights and international law. You know we’re going to use the collocation “Russian aggression” at every available opportunity. You know that we’re going to back US sanctions to try to freeze you out of markets. What else do you expect us to do? We’ve got business to protect. No hard feelings. It’s just business….
PUTIN: Don’t worry, Boris. Of course there are no hard feelings. I get it.
This will especially be the case in the post-Brexit era. Britain will once again have to be aggressive on multiple levels in order to protect its remaining markets and penetrate new ones. The inaugural UK-Africa Investment Summit on January 20th quickly followed the inaugural Russia-Africa Summit and Economic Forum held in Sochi in October last year. These developments provide yet 2 more thematically resonant illustrations of the idea that “the nineteenth century will never end.”
Firstly, with the global power-vacuum created by the steady contraction of American hegemony, there is a new economic scramble for Africa, just as there was in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic wars.
Secondly, Russia and Britain have decided to resume playing “the Great Game,” except this time on a different continent.
Furthermore, Johnson has to, at all costs, protect Britain’s core-business, which is offshorization. With the deindustrialization and financialization which has taken place in the British economy over the past half century, Britain’s global archipelago of tax-havens becomes even more important. In fact, it is highly arguable that protecting these channels for the washing of black money through the City of London was the main impetus behind Brexit in the first place. In economic terms, Brexit essentially hinged on the decision to switch to an almost totally financialized economy, based almost exclusively on offshorization (made easier through the dissolution of treaty-arrangements), rather than a normal economy based upon the production, import and export of goods. Now more than ever, economically, Britain is one giant, post-industrial laundromat.
It just so happens that some of the laundromat’s most voluminous clients are former Russian oligarchs. Boris has to keep his clients happy.
However, with this in mind, it immediately becomes clear how Britain’s economic interests would most concretely be served by the economic re-colonization of Russia, the re-oligarchization of Russia, or the balkanization of Russia. All and any of these developments would require a massive shadow-infrastructure for clandestine financial transactions. Whereas American interests would benefit from Russia’s balkanization principally through renewed direct access to cheap natural resources, Britain’s primary interest would consist in mediating the flows of illicit capital through a global labyrinth of financial entities. Nobody dreams of the balkanization of Russia more than fund-managers in Jersey, the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands. Can you imagine the quantities of “chorny-nal” (“black cash”) that would generate?
Well, Britain and its dependencies have about 60% of the entire global financial clandestine infrastructure which would handle that kind of traffic.
So don’t blame Boris. What do you expect him to do? He’s got business to protect.
In many ways, the role of a prime minister can be thought of as analogous to the professional role of a criminal defence attorney. The criminal defence attorney’s job is to act in his client’s interests. The criminal defence attorney usually knows that his client is guilty, and should go to prison. But it’s not his place to make such judgments, because he is not acting in his capacity as a private moral agent. In his professional capacity as an attorney, he has a professional duty to try to get the client off. He has a professional duty to park his private moral impulses.
Analogously, the prime minister’s perspective must be “My country, right or wrong.”
It’s simply not his job to render an impartial moral assessment of the justifiability or otherwise of his nation’s conduct or its internal culture.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


Endgame in Syria

Perhaps Syria ’ s nine years of agony is finally drawing to a close .
After almost a decade of bloodshed hundreds of thousands have been slain .
Hundreds of thousands more are maimed for life .
At least 10 % of the population has fled the country .
Many of these will not choose to return .
Those who have emigrated are often the youngest and the most educated .
The brain drain has been particularly acute .
ISIS is on the backfoot .
The Al Nusra Front , the Syrian Democratic Forces ( SDF ) , the Free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also been pushed back .
The battle is far from finished .
But there is inexorable impetus behind the Syrian Army .
This war has been won by Iranian ground forces and the Russian Air Force .
Do not expect to hear NATO countries paying tribute to Iran or Russia for rescuing Europe from ISIS hordes .
Iran is now rightly preoccupied about the serious possibility that the United States and its allies may launch an unprovoked attack on Iran .
If the Iranian Revolutionary Guard pulls back from Syria to defend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where it had once been stamped down .
Turkey is occupying a small section of northern Syria .
This is against the wishes of Damascus .
It is hard to remember that 10 years ago relations between Ankara and Damascus were very warm .
In 2015 Turkey was accused by Russia of abetting ISIS .
The Turks shot down a Russian military aircraft .
They two countries were at daggers drawn .
Curiously , that accusation that the Turks were backing ISIS has not been repeated for a few years .
All of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became bosom buddies .
Iran has helped defeat ISIS not just by fighting in Iraq and Iran .
ISIS was armed and funded by Saudi Arabia .
Leaked Saudi Arabian governmental documents revealed how the government there had arranged for volunteers to go and join ISIS .
Iran has also helped to vanquish ISIS by backing the Houthi insurrectionists in Yemen .
I take no view on the Yemeni Civil War .
The Saudi Arabians are very keen to support the Sunni majority government in Yemen .
Riyadh accepts that it has basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What keeps Mohammad Bin Salman up at night is the prospect of a pro-Iranian regime in Yemen .
That is because Yemen is geographically contiguous with Saudi whereas Syria is not .
The Saudi Arabian Air Force has pounded Houthi positions in Yemen and slain thousands of civilians into the bargain .
Saudi has also cut off food supplies to rebel held areas causing many to starve .
This tactic is as old as war itself and it used in Syria too .
Because of the Yemen Conflict the Saudis are de-emphasising Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been allies against ISIS their interests diverge .
Iran wishes to defend its land and ensure it has the maximum sway in the rest of the region .
It feels duty bound to help its Shia co-religionists in Syria , Lebanon and Iraq .
The Russians would like to extend their regional sway .
They also want to be a counterweight to Uncle Sam .
What sort of Syria will emerge when the dust finally settles ?
Much of the country is a heap of rubble .
The country was never wealthy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for decades .
It has run up war debts to Russia and China that it can never possibly repay .
The Ba ’ athists never ever want to run the risk of this happening again .
In a sense they will not have to worry .
Their foes will perceive that revolt pays no dividends .
So many enemies of the Ba ’ athists will be dead or in exile far away .
Moscow will want to protect its foothold .
It has expended several billion dollars in propping up President Assad .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ political capital in doing so .
Further , hundreds of Russians have laid down their lives to keep President Assad in office .
The Russian Federation will want to keep it military bases in Syria permanently and even extend them .
Fulsome diplomatic backing from Syria is the least Moscow can expect .
The Russian Government will conclude that wholeheartedly backing an ally pays off .
In 2011 Russia voted for the UN Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya to prevent Gaddafi ’ s forces massacring civilians .
NATO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and effectively functioned as the insurgents ’ air force .
Moscow has learnt the lesson that it must not vote for such resolutions and not to trust Western protestations of seeking to uphold human rights .
The Iranians would like to see Syria leaning their way .
Both governments are anti-US .
They are both anti-Zionist .
Syria is in no fit state to take on Israel .
As Syria has been wrecked by almost a decade of war the last thing it needs is another one .
Syria will not be helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turks want to extirpate the Kurdish nationalists in Syria .
The Kurdish forces are made up of Sunni Muslims almost to a man .
However , they are opposed to ISIS and the Al Nusra Front .
The Kurdish nationalists have teamed up with their confreres in Iraqi Kurdistan .
The Turkish Government does not like this one jot .
This has the makings of a very viable Kurdish state .
Perhaps a fifth of Turkey is ethnically and linguistically Kurdish .
President Erdogan is a chauvinistic nationalist .
His desire to smash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Kurds enjoy a decent relationship with other regional players .
There is a danger that the Kurdish nationalists will conclude that as no one else will help them they shall be obliged to make common cause with ISIS .
Chemical weapons have been used on multiple occasions in their internecine war .
These ghastly and illegal weapons have slain several thousand civilians at least .
Whoever has used them has gotten away with it .
The United States , France and the UK have carried out attacks on Syrian Armed Forces positions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Syrian Government vigorously protested its innocence .
The UN voted to investigate the use of these chemical weapons .
Russia vetoed the part where the UN would attribute blame .
I wonder why ?
Moscow accused the United Kingdom of carrying out some of these bestial chemical attacks on the civil population .
That is despite the UK not having had any troops in Syria since 1945 .
Nor has the United Kingdom used chemical weapons for about 100 years .
Oddly this accusation by Moscow has not been repeated by them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be pulling out of Syria .
Again , that means even more work for Russia and Iran .
The conflict will not come to a definite end just as it did not have a definite starting point .
The level of violence might be a little lower next year and a little lower the year after that .
Gradually normality will slowly return .
Some of jihadists might move on to pastures new such as Libya .
It looks as though we shall return to status quo ante .
Dr Bashir Al Assad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of him going anywhere .
His government will be even more vigilant on expressions of dissent or of excessive religiosity .
There has been no gain for Western countries in intervening .
Syria has not become more like a Western nation .
Western lands have even less say in Syria now than they did 10 years ago .
Neither the Ba ’ athists nor ISIS want to follow a Western model .
Occidental intervention has proved to be an error of the first magnitude .
Further , it is unpardonable folly .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by George Callaghan…
Perhaps Syria’s nine years of agony is finally drawing to a close. After almost a decade of bloodshed hundreds of thousands have been slain. Hundreds of thousands more are maimed for life. At least 10% of the population has fled the country. Many of these will not choose to return. Those who have emigrated are often the youngest and the most educated. The brain drain has been particularly acute.
ISIS is on the backfoot. The Al Nusra Front, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Free Syria Army and various Kurdish nationalists have also been pushed back. The battle is far from finished. But there is inexorable impetus behind the Syrian Army.
This war has been won by Iranian ground forces and the Russian Air Force. Do not expect to hear NATO countries paying tribute to Iran or Russia for rescuing Europe from ISIS hordes. Iran is now rightly preoccupied about the serious possibility that the United States and its allies may launch an unprovoked attack on Iran. If the Iranian Revolutionary Guard pulls back from Syria to defend the Iranian homeland then ISIS may spring up where it had once been stamped down.
Turkey is occupying a small section of northern Syria. This is against the wishes of Damascus. It is hard to remember that 10 years ago relations between Ankara and Damascus were very warm.
In 2015 Turkey was accused by Russia of abetting ISIS. The Turks shot down a Russian military aircraft. They two countries were at daggers drawn. Curiously, that accusation that the Turks were backing ISIS has not been repeated for a few years. All of a sudden the Turkish and Russian governments became bosom buddies.
Iran has helped defeat ISIS not just by fighting in Iraq and Iran. ISIS was armed and funded by Saudi Arabia. Leaked Saudi Arabian governmental documents revealed how the government there had arranged for volunteers to go and join ISIS. Iran has also helped to vanquish ISIS by backing the Houthi insurrectionists in Yemen. I take no view on the Yemeni Civil War. The Saudi Arabians are very keen to support the Sunni majority government in Yemen. Riyadh accepts that it has basically lost the battle in Al Shams. What keeps Mohammad Bin Salman up at night is the prospect of a pro-Iranian regime in Yemen. That is because Yemen is geographically contiguous with Saudi whereas Syria is not. The Saudi Arabian Air Force has pounded Houthi positions in Yemen and slain thousands of civilians into the bargain. Saudi has also cut off food supplies to rebel held areas causing many to starve. This tactic is as old as war itself and it used in Syria too. Because of the Yemen Conflict the Saudis are de-emphasising Syria.
Though the Russians and Iranians have been allies against ISIS their interests diverge. Iran wishes to defend its land and ensure it has the maximum sway in the rest of the region. It feels duty bound to help its Shia co-religionists in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The Russians would like to extend their regional sway. They also want to be a counterweight to Uncle Sam.
What sort of Syria will emerge when the dust finally settles? Much of the country is a heap of rubble. The country was never wealthy. Now it will be economically knocked back for decades. It has run up war debts to Russia and China that it can never possibly repay.
The Ba’athists never ever want to run the risk of this happening again. In a sense they will not have to worry. Their foes will perceive that revolt pays no dividends. So many enemies of the Ba’athists will be dead or in exile far away.
Moscow will want to protect its foothold. It has expended several billion dollars in propping up President Assad. It has also spent a lot of political capital in doing so. Further, hundreds of Russians have laid down their lives to keep President Assad in office. The Russian Federation will want to keep it military bases in Syria permanently and even extend them. Fulsome diplomatic backing from Syria is the least Moscow can expect.
The Russian Government will conclude that wholeheartedly backing an ally pays off. In 2011 Russia voted for the UN Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya to prevent Gaddafi’s forces massacring civilians. NATO countries interpreted that very ‘creatively’ and effectively functioned as the insurgents’ air force. Moscow has learnt the lesson that it must not vote for such resolutions and not to trust Western protestations of seeking to uphold human rights.
The Iranians would like to see Syria leaning their way. Both governments are anti-US. They are both anti-Zionist. Syria is in no fit state to take on Israel. As Syria has been wrecked by almost a decade of war the last thing it needs is another one. Syria will not be helping Iran against the United States.
The Turks want to extirpate the Kurdish nationalists in Syria. The Kurdish forces are made up of Sunni Muslims almost to a man. However, they are opposed to ISIS and the Al Nusra Front. The Kurdish nationalists have teamed up with their confreres in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Turkish Government does not like this one jot. This has the makings of a very viable Kurdish state. Perhaps a fifth of Turkey is ethnically and linguistically Kurdish. President Erdogan is a chauvinistic nationalist. His desire to smash the Kurds will upset Washington DC. The Kurds enjoy a decent relationship with other regional players. There is a danger that the Kurdish nationalists will conclude that as no one else will help them they shall be obliged to make common cause with ISIS.
Chemical weapons have been used on multiple occasions in their internecine war. These ghastly and illegal weapons have slain several thousand civilians at least. Whoever has used them has gotten away with it. The United States, France and the UK have carried out attacks on Syrian Armed Forces positions in retaliation for chemical weapons attacks. The Syrian Government vigorously protested its innocence. The UN voted to investigate the use of these chemical weapons. Russia vetoed the part where the UN would attribute blame. I wonder why? Moscow accused the United Kingdom of carrying out some of these bestial chemical attacks on the civil population. That is despite the UK not having had any troops in Syria since 1945. Nor has the United Kingdom used chemical weapons for about 100 years. Oddly this accusation by Moscow has not been repeated by them often.
The United States may well be pulling out of Syria. Again, that means even more work for Russia and Iran.
The conflict will not come to a definite end just as it did not have a definite starting point. The level of violence might be a little lower next year and a little lower the year after that. Gradually normality will slowly return. Some of jihadists might move on to pastures new such as Libya.
It looks as though we shall return to status quo ante. Dr Bashir Al Assad is president and there is no sign of him going anywhere. His government will be even more vigilant on expressions of dissent or of excessive religiosity.
There has been no gain for Western countries in intervening. Syria has not become more like a Western nation. Western lands have even less say in Syria now than they did 10 years ago. Neither the Ba’athists nor ISIS want to follow a Western model. Occidental intervention has proved to be an error of the first magnitude. Further, it is unpardonable folly.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-21--Rod Rosenstein the lovebird leaker. Senate impeachment circus begins (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the beginning of the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate .
Will we get a fair and real trial .
will we see Hunter Biden testify , or will the Republican in the U.S. Senate move to dismiss impeachment process and end the Pelosi charade .
Meanwhile , former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has admitted to giving the text messages of FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page to the press in 2017 .
The messages between the Strzok and Page , exchanged in 2016 while both were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hatred to candidate Donald Trump and loyalty to Hillary Clinton .
Rosenstein ’ s admission came in a Friday court filing by the Department of Justice , which is seeking to dismiss Strzok ’ s lawsuit challenging his June 2016 firing .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein authorized the release to the media of text messages between ‘ FBI lovebirds ’ Peter Strzok and Lisa Page , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-candidate Donald Trump while they were investigating him during the 2016 presidential campaign , according to Politico .
In a Friday night court filing submitted shortly before midnight , Rosenstein says he made the decision to protect Strzok and Page from the damaging effects of lawmakers and others releasing the texts for use as political ammunition .
In the messages , Strzok and Page regularly disparaged Trump and appeared to seek to reassure each other he could not be elected .
Both called Trump an “ idiot ” and said Democratic nominee Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also included murky discussions of an “ insurance policy ” to guard against Trump ’ s election .
Trump backers have interpreted the reference as a plan to use the then-ongoing investigation into ties between Trump advisers and Russia as way to prevent him from taking office or undermine his presidency , but Strzok and Page have denied any such intent .
–Politico Lisa Page – who sued the DOJ and FBI in December over the release , appears to be pissed .
Strzok has separately sued the agencies as well – for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as part of the government ’ s defense .
The former DAG says that public disclosure of the texts was inevitable in connection with testimony he was set to give the next day in front of the House Judiciary Committee .
“ With the express understanding that it would not violate the Privacy Act and that the text messages would become public by the next day in any event , I authorized [ Justice ’ s Office of Public Affairs ] to disclose to the news media the text messages that were being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rosenstein .
In November , the Justice Department asked U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to throw out Strzok ’ s suit , which challenges both his firing from the FBI and the release of the texts .
However , Strzok ’ s attorneys countered in a court filing last month that one reason to allow the suit to proceed was that Justice Department was being vague about just who made the final call to give the messages .
Arguing that an air of mystery continued to surround the disclosure , Strzok @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice ’ s decision to seek dismissal of the suit without identifying the responsible official .
“ An agency can not avoid Privacy Act liability for a disclosure actually made for an improper purpose by eliciting a sanitized after-the-fact rationale from an official who does not have all of the facts , ” Goelman wrote .
–Politico According to Rosenstein , his aides originally suggested that he should delay sending the texts to Congress until after his testimony in front of the House , however he thought it would be “ inappropriate ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also said he decided to give them to the media prior to his testimony over concerns that they would be cherrypicked and weaponized .
“ The Department ’ s Office of Public Affairs … recommended providing the text messages to the media because otherwise , some congressional members and staff were expected to release them intermittently before , during and after the hearing , exacerbating the adverse publicity for Mr. Strzok , Ms .
Page and the Department , ” wrote Rosenstein .
“ Providing the most egregious messages in one package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selective disclosures and minimize the appearance of the Department concealing information that was embarrassing to the FBI .
”

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the beginning of the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. Will we get a fair and real trial. will we see Hunter Biden testify, or will the Republican in the U.S. Senate move to dismiss impeachment process and end the Pelosi charade.
Meanwhile, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has admitted to giving the text messages of FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page to the press in 2017.
The messages between the Strzok and Page, exchanged in 2016 while both were involved in political probes, revealed their hatred to candidate Donald Trump and loyalty to Hillary Clinton. Rosenstein’s admission came in a Friday court filing by the Department of Justice, which is seeking to dismiss Strzok’s lawsuit challenging his June 2016 firing.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via Zerohedge…
Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein authorized the release to the media of text messages between ‘FBI lovebirds’ Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, many of which revealed deep animus towards then-candidate Donald Trump while they were investigating him during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to Politico.
In a Friday night court filing submitted shortly before midnight, Rosenstein says he made the decision to protect Strzok and Page from the damaging effects of lawmakers and others releasing the texts for use as political ammunition.
In the messages, Strzok and Page regularly disparaged Trump and appeared to seek to reassure each other he could not be elected. Both called Trump an “idiot” and said Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton deserved to win. The texts also included murky discussions of an “insurance policy” to guard against Trump’s election. Trump backers have interpreted the reference as a plan to use the then-ongoing investigation into ties between Trump advisers and Russia as way to prevent him from taking office or undermine his presidency, but Strzok and Page have denied any such intent. –Politico
Lisa Page – who sued the DOJ and FBI in December over the release, appears to be pissed.
Strzok has separately sued the agencies as well – for which Rosenstein’s admission was submitted as part of the government’s defense. The former DAG says that public disclosure of the texts was inevitable in connection with testimony he was set to give the next day in front of the House Judiciary Committee.
“With the express understanding that it would not violate the Privacy Act and that the text messages would become public by the next day in any event, I authorized [Justice’s Office of Public Affairs] to disclose to the news media the text messages that were being disclosed to Congressional committees,” wrote Rosenstein.
In November, the Justice Department asked U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to throw out Strzok’s suit, which challenges both his firing from the FBI and the release of the texts. However, Strzok’s attorneys countered in a court filing last month that one reason to allow the suit to proceed was that Justice Department was being vague about just who made the final call to give the messages. Arguing that an air of mystery continued to surround the disclosure, Strzok lawyer Aitan Goelman called “revealing” Justice’s decision to seek dismissal of the suit without identifying the responsible official. “An agency cannot avoid Privacy Act liability for a disclosure actually made for an improper purpose by eliciting a sanitized after-the-fact rationale from an official who does not have all of the facts,” Goelman wrote. –Politico
According to Rosenstein, his aides originally suggested that he should delay sending the texts to Congress until after his testimony in front of the House, however he thought it would be “inappropriate” to do so for that reason. He also said he decided to give them to the media prior to his testimony over concerns that they would be cherrypicked and weaponized.
“The Department’s Office of Public Affairs … recommended providing the text messages to the media because otherwise, some congressional members and staff were expected to release them intermittently before, during and after the hearing, exacerbating the adverse publicity for Mr. Strzok, Ms. Page and the Department,” wrote Rosenstein. “Providing the most egregious messages in one package would avoid the additional harm of prolonged selective disclosures and minimize the appearance of the Department concealing information that was embarrassing to the FBI.”
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-22--Berlin Conference Has Not Brought Peace to Libya

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Paul Antonopoulos , Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies… The Berlin Conference on Libya held on Sunday will not end the conflict in the North African country , especially as the leaders of the two opposing Libyan factions refused to face each other .
In fact , Fayez al-Sarraj of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated government in Tripoli and Field Marshal Khalifa Belqasim Haftar of the opposing Libyan National Army ( LNA ) could not even tolerate each other so much so that they could not be in the same room during the conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the world were surprisingly disappointed by the so-called void left by Washington in certain regions of the globe , particularly in Libya where a division of pro-Haftar and pro-Sarraj factions have emerged .
The U.S. has been unusually quiet about the situation in Libya , suggesting it is not willing to get involved despite the critical role it played in destroying the country in 2011 .
The torture , sodomy and murder of long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi by NATO-backed jihadists , divided the country into differing competing factions , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a further 160,000 displaced , according to the UN .
The fact that Haftar and Sarraj refused to even be in the same room gives an indication of the little progress the Berlin conference made towards a peaceful settlement in Libya , despite the organization of the conference by German leader Angela Merkel after her contacts in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin .
This was even despite the participation of all five members of the UN Security Council ( U.S. , UK , France , China and Russia ) , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United Arab Emirates , Algeria and the Republic of Congo .
Tunisia were invited at the last minute , in which they rejected in protest to the disrespect , and Greece , who has had a key role and position in the latest destabilization in Libya , was not even invited by Merkel to much confusion by many analysts .
Although discussions went on all day with a point of the final draft of the conference ’ s resolution calling for a “ permanent ceasefire , ” fighting broke out between Sarraj @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the conference .
The resolutions also called for an end of air warfare using drones .
This is unlikely to occur with militias belonging to Sarraj receiving Turkish-made drones and the LNA using UAE supplied drones .
Despite a supposed arms embargo , there is little secret that both sides are receiving significant war material from their backers .
Haftar mostly receives his equipment over the Egyptian border while Sarraj gets it via sea , which can then become very complicated for his militias if a sea blockade is imposed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Being a key reason for the flareup in violence in Libya , French president Emanuel Macron did not hold back on his criticisms of Turkey for sending mercenaries from Syria , that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described as “ extremists , ” to Libya .
It has to be remembered that The Guardian revealed that each extremist fighting in Libya from Syria gets paid $ 2,000 , has healthcare guarantees and receives Turkish nationality .
With Turkey adamant in continuing to support the Tripoli government , they have also pulled Greece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Understanding signed between Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Sarraj to steal Greek maritime space that is rich in oil and gas .
Because Greece was dragged into this complex situation in Libya , Haftar before the Berlin Conference made a visit to Greece where he met top officials in the country , including the Prime Minister , Foreign Minister and top intelligence figures to seek diplomatic and political support against Turkish actions .
With Turkey having adversarial relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates , alliances are forming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region , with Greece strengthening relations with both Arab countries , as well as Egypt , Cyprus , Israel and Haftar .
Ankara has failed to find any external support in the region and has made itself isolated .
Erdoğan left the Berlin conference early , with reports speculating that he was dismayed with the provision that the Turkish-backed militias in Libya had to be disarmed .
Libya is an oil rich country and strategically located in the middle of the Mediterranean .
It is also the gateway between Europe and terrorist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these reasons , there are far too many conflicting interests from international players for the conflict to conclude with negotiated agreements , let alone in one day without the participation of other key players , Greece and Saudi Arabia .
Erdoğan days ago , said that the Mediterranean will be the center of focus for Turkey ’ s foreign policy in 2020 , meaning that the situation in Libya is unlikely to be resolved so long as the Eurasian country continues to back jihadist forces operating in the North African country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bashar al-Assad from power since it became a key organizer in anti-government efforts in 2011 , the LNA advancing on Tripoli which will mean the removal of Sarraj from power , and finding no international support to steal Greek maritime space , Erdoğan has failed in his attempts for Eastern Mediterranean hegemony , which will increasingly make him irrational in decision-making .
For these reasons , the Berlin Conference was nothing but a failure to achieve peace in Libya so-long as Turkey searches for regional dominance and backs radical forces .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies…
The Berlin Conference on Libya held on Sunday will not end the conflict in the North African country, especially as the leaders of the two opposing Libyan factions refused to face each other. In fact, Fayez al-Sarraj of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated government in Tripoli and Field Marshal Khalifa Belqasim Haftar of the opposing Libyan National Army (LNA) could not even tolerate each other so much so that they could not be in the same room during the conference.
Many commentators who denounce U.S. intervention across the world were surprisingly disappointed by the so-called void left by Washington in certain regions of the globe, particularly in Libya where a division of pro-Haftar and pro-Sarraj factions have emerged. The U.S. has been unusually quiet about the situation in Libya, suggesting it is not willing to get involved despite the critical role it played in destroying the country in 2011. The torture, sodomy and murder of long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi by NATO-backed jihadists, divided the country into differing competing factions, with the latest flareup killing 2,000 people and leaving a further 160,000 displaced, according to the UN.
The fact that Haftar and Sarraj refused to even be in the same room gives an indication of the little progress the Berlin conference made towards a peaceful settlement in Libya, despite the organization of the conference by German leader Angela Merkel after her contacts in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was even despite the participation of all five members of the UN Security Council (U.S., UK, France, China and Russia), as well as Germany, Italy, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria and the Republic of Congo. Tunisia were invited at the last minute, in which they rejected in protest to the disrespect, and Greece, who has had a key role and position in the latest destabilization in Libya, was not even invited by Merkel to much confusion by many analysts.
Although discussions went on all day with a point of the final draft of the conference’s resolution calling for a “permanent ceasefire,” fighting broke out between Sarraj and Haftar forces within hours of the end of the conference. The resolutions also called for an end of air warfare using drones. This is unlikely to occur with militias belonging to Sarraj receiving Turkish-made drones and the LNA using UAE supplied drones. Despite a supposed arms embargo, there is little secret that both sides are receiving significant war material from their backers. Haftar mostly receives his equipment over the Egyptian border while Sarraj gets it via sea, which can then become very complicated for his militias if a sea blockade is imposed by Greece, Egypt or an international coalition.
Being a key reason for the flareup in violence in Libya, French president Emanuel Macron did not hold back on his criticisms of Turkey for sending mercenaries from Syria, that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described as “extremists,” to Libya. It has to be remembered that The Guardian revealed that each extremist fighting in Libya from Syria gets paid $2,000, has healthcare guarantees and receives Turkish nationality.
With Turkey adamant in continuing to support the Tripoli government, they have also pulled Greece into Libyan affairs because of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Sarraj to steal Greek maritime space that is rich in oil and gas. Because Greece was dragged into this complex situation in Libya, Haftar before the Berlin Conference made a visit to Greece where he met top officials in the country, including the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and top intelligence figures to seek diplomatic and political support against Turkish actions. With Turkey having adversarial relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, alliances are forming to counter Erdoğan’s hegemonic attempts in the region, with Greece strengthening relations with both Arab countries, as well as Egypt, Cyprus, Israel and Haftar. Ankara has failed to find any external support in the region and has made itself isolated. Erdoğan left the Berlin conference early, with reports speculating that he was dismayed with the provision that the Turkish-backed militias in Libya had to be disarmed.
Libya is an oil rich country and strategically located in the middle of the Mediterranean. It is also the gateway between Europe and terrorist organizations based in the Sahel. Because of these reasons, there are far too many conflicting interests from international players for the conflict to conclude with negotiated agreements, let alone in one day without the participation of other key players, Greece and Saudi Arabia.
Erdoğan days ago, said that the Mediterranean will be the center of focus for Turkey’s foreign policy in 2020, meaning that the situation in Libya is unlikely to be resolved so long as the Eurasian country continues to back jihadist forces operating in the North African country. With Turkey failing to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power since it became a key organizer in anti-government efforts in 2011, the LNA advancing on Tripoli which will mean the removal of Sarraj from power, and finding no international support to steal Greek maritime space, Erdoğan has failed in his attempts for Eastern Mediterranean hegemony, which will increasingly make him irrational in decision-making. For these reasons, the Berlin Conference was nothing but a failure to achieve peace in Libya so-long as Turkey searches for regional dominance and backs radical forces.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report