28-06-20 03:16:00, Als je apparaat niet snel begint met afspelen, kun je het misschien opnieuw starten. Hierna Autoplay is onderbroken Je bent uitgelogd Video’s die je bekijkt,…
FBI and DOJ Sued for Failure to Report 9/11 Evidence to Congress
Editor’s Note: The announcement below is from the press release of two 9/11 research groups that the Justice Integrity Project supports.
Justice Integrity Project, “FBI and Department of Justice Sued for Failure To Perform Mandatory Duties To Report Known 9/11 Attack Evidence To Congress,” Andrew Kreig, March 25, 2019. https://www.justice-integrity.org/1629-fbi-and-department-of-justice-sued-for-failure-to-perform-mandatory-duties-to-report-known-9-11-attack-evidence-to-congress
The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 victim family members Robert McIlvaine and Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli are announcing on March 25 a joint federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI for their failure to perform a congressionally mandated assessment of any evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission related to any factors that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
A news conference about these filings is scheduled for 1 p.m. on March 25, 2019 in Washington, DC near the federal courthouse. The conference locale is 555 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, outside the Newseum, helping underscore the news value of the topic.
Justice Integrity Project Editor (www.justice-integrity.org)
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 638-0070; (202) 787-8335 (c)
RSS Feed for Updates: http://feeds.feedburner.com/JusticeIntegrityProject
“A dinosaur with a bird’s brain”. This is how the ex-President of Iran Hashemi Rafsanjani described the United States of America, evoking its great military strength but lack of strategic intelligence in foreign policy. Indeed, the very unusual meeting of the chiefs of staff of Syria, Iraq and Iran in Damascus this week would not have been possible without the latest US action in Syria. The US establishment has done a favour for the three countries aligned with the “Axis of resistance” by eliminating the “Islamic State” group (ISIS) in its last stronghold east of the Euphrates. The US attack on Baghuz (east of Syria), done in conjunction with its Kurdish proxies, has led the three military commanders to decide to re-open the land road between Syria and Iraq, paving the way for a safe Iranian land passage to Iraq and Syria. This means the Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut road is now clear. This is not the first time the US establishment has rendered substantial strategic support to Iran with its clumsy planning.
When US President Donald Trump decided to pull out of Syria, describing it as a land of “sand and death”, he was serious about his plan. However, the US could not leave without first eliminating the ISIS pocket in the area under US control in the east of Syria, which would have meant leaving in place what has been the sole pretext for its occupation of the area. This is why Trump was advised to eliminate ISIS first and then withdraw his troops. He finally ordered his forces to do so after long months of inaction, during which the US effectively offered protection to the terror group and allowed tens of thousands of ISIS militants to move freely to attack the Syrian Army and its allies along the Deir-ezzour al-Bukamal axis.
The significance of Trump’s decision to finally move against ISIS cannot be overestimated. Since 2014 the US has been engaged in a phoney war against ISIS, pretending to fight this brutal takfiri group while in fact allowing it to expand and killing Syrian Army soldiers who actually fought the group. Throughout this time the US has used ISIS as a pretext for the US military presence in Syria. The US did bomb ISIS occupied Raqqah and destroyed it;
“What the United States is banking on in Venezuela is that stress and strain will break the Venezuelan military. So far it has stood with the elected government in Venezuela and I think most likely members of the Venezuelan military understand that if the American coup succeeds, then the whole country will be back into poverty and will be plundered again as it has been in the past. So they have an incentive to stand with the elected government. Whatever Maduro’s failures, they are very small compared to what will happen to Venezuela once it is back in America’s clutches,” the former US assistant secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and current chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, told Tasnim.
He added, “…Maduro’s failure to arrest this man and all of his supporters and put them on trial will contribute to the military losing confidence in Maduro’s government.”
From early 1981 to January 1982, Roberts served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. After his time in government, he turned to journalism, holding positions of editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week, the Scripps Howard News Service as well as contributing editor to Harper’s Magazine. Roberts was a professor of business administration and professor of economics at George Mason University and was the inaugural William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at Georgetown University, serving for 12 years.
Following is the full text of the interview.
Tasnim: Recently, US National Security Adviser John Bolton said Washington is working to build a coalition seeking to replace Venezuela’s president Nicolas Maduro and his government. The US has also threatened Venezuela with military action. What is your take on this?
Dr. Roberts: The United States government is unable to tolerate any country that has an independent policy. This is the reason the United States government tried to overthrow (Bashar) Assad in Syria and the reason it wants to overthrow the Iranian government. Those governments that do not follow Washington’s rule are unacceptable and so in the case of Venezuela and in many other examples, the situation is magnified by the fact that Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world (and) that these oil reserves,
The US Department of Defense spent over $360 million to confirm there are problems in the $2.7 trillion organization, but the Pentagon leadership considers the mere fact that this “first-ever” audit happened was a great success.
“We never thought we were going to pass an audit, right? Everyone was betting against us that we wouldn’t even do the audit,” Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told reporters on Thursday, announcing the end of the eleven-month process.
The actual results of the audit, along with the report by the Pentagon’s inspector general, will reportedly be made public on Friday. The process began in December 2017 and involved around 1,200 auditors at the cost of some $367 million, according to what the DOD’s Chief Financial Officer David Norquist told Congress in January.
Shanahan tried to put a brave face on the news, saying that the very fact an audit was done at all was “substantial,” since the Pentagon is a “$2.7 trillion organization.” A 1990 law required an audit of all government departments, but the DOD managed to avoid one until 2017, when the Trump administration appointed Norquist to oversee the process.
“If I’m a taxpayer, what I want to see is: ‘You did the audit, you have all these findings. How long is it going to take for you to fix those?’,” Shanahan said, adding that the idea was for the next audit to show fewer problems. There was no word on whether there would be another audit, however.
The audit is not a pass-fail process, Shanahan’s spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Joe Buccino, told Stars and Stripes in an email following the briefing. “We did not receive an ‘adverse’ finding – the lowest possible category – in any area,” he wrote.
Some of the issues found in the audit were “irritating,” Shanahan said, because they showed the Pentagon failed to follow its own rules and procedures. One of the major issues was described as “inventory accuracy,” where the DOD records showed items and equipment that did not exist in actuality.
The announcement comes just days after a report by a bipartisan commission,
Russia’s Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev recently declared that the latest round of US sanctions to be imposed on Russia constituted “economic warfare” and that Russia would respond “economically, politically, or in any other way, if required.” One is tempted to ask: why has it taken so long?
Russia has been the subject of what Andrew Korybko calls “hybrid warfare” for decades. The only post World War 2 period when there was a lessening of the attacks was during the Yeltsin years in the 1990s. That period, when Russia’s economy was pillaged, was even more catastrophic for Russia than the sanctions and relentless negative propaganda that has ensued ever since.
The hybrid warfare, of which the sanctions are only a part, are a substitute for actual hot war which the neocon elements in successive American administrations have never taken off their agenda. That also is not a recent phenomenon.
Operation Unthinkable was a British plan conceived by the long time anti-Russian Prime Minister Winston Churchill to continue the war after the defeat of Germany in 1945 by invading Russia. The plan even included incorporating troops from the defeated German forces.
Churchill’s current equivalent is Theresa May. Her antipathy to Russia is most obviously reflected in the increasingly bizarre allegations and demands made upon the Russian government arising out of the attacks upon Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.
Not only is the British government’s version utterly at odds with logic and known scientific facts, the British government is prepared to cast to one side its obligations under for example, the Chemical Weapons Treaty, the Consular Convention, and even fundamental principles of its much vaunted “rules based legal order” such as onus of proof, an evidential basis to one’s allegations, and the right of Yulia Skripal to return home to Russia, something she has publicly stated is her wish.
Allegations against Russia allegedly “interfering” in the 2016 United States presidential election (a particularly ironic claim), “invading Ukraine,” “annexing Crimea” being “aggressive” towards the Baltic States and a host of other evidence free allegations have some common threads apart from their manifest falsity.
They all represent a form of hybrid warfare, being waged (a) because actual warfare with Russia (and China) is,