Attorney's file on Roger Stone, LaRouche and Russia influencing the 2016 presidential election

[Bob Ness]

26 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The counter-argument is that the constitution of Ukraine was not functioning:

"In Kiev there was a coup, and it means that the legitimate authorities disappeared. The president fled under the threat of murder, the government partially fled and was partially not able to fulfil its duties, the parliament made decisions under the barrels of machine guns… at the time of the Crimean events there weren’t any constitutional, legitimate, and internationally recognised authorities in Ukraine… Internationally recognised elections that formally established the activity of constitutional structures in Ukraine happened only at the end of May… when Ukraine formally restored the action of its Constitution, Crimea was Russian for already a long time."

https://www.stalkerzone.org/ishchenko-crimea-recognition-trump/

The deliberate scuttling of an internationally mediated political agreement in the form of an armed attack on the country’s legislature seems to me the signal event from which all else transpired. That is why Stephen Cohen describes what happened in Crimea as a “reactive” move, rather than an “aggressive” move which is how it has been portrayed in the west.

By whose estimation was the constitution not functioning? The Rada approved an interim President on 2/22/2014 while the Russians invaded and occupied Crimea on the 27th. There was no overlap and the new government was formed according to the constitution's provisions. He fled because he was going to be impeached and criminally charged for thousands of criminal offenses, Jeff. He was worth $12 billion dollars but never made over $2,000 dollars a month! How many dollars made it over the border?

What armed attack on the legislature? I can find no reference to the RADA voting with guns to their heads.

[Bob Ness]

9 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The argument that Yanukovych “LEFT THE COUNTRY to avoid criminal prosecution and/or impeachment” is highly contentious, to say the least. There were no impeachment or prosecutorial actions active on the day the government was chased out of town. Regardless of what an unsourced UN human rights report may say, there is no evidence that government forces were responsible for the sniper event in February 2014, and most of the agreed witness testimony holds that the shooting occurred from a building controlled by opposition forces. There was no “legal constitutional vote for his removal” to change the legal government in Ukraine. No one claims Right Sektor were “prime movers” in the Maidan protests, rather that they were prime movers in the unconstitutional coup which occurred on a particular day, and their particular involvement was recorded in on-the-scene reports published in the NY Times, among others.

“A putsch or coup or overthrow doesn't mean the Ukraine is up for grabs!!”

What are you talking about? The initiation of a putsch or coup implies a political entity is “up for grabs” simply by the initiation of a putsch or coup. That Ukraine was a “constitutionally formulated sovereign state” was never at question here, it was the expressly unconstitutional assertion that the duly elected government could be somehow suddenly replaced by a “legitimate” body of opposition representatives which is contentious.  That is, your arguments appear as contrarian talking points which lack basis in material reality. I also watched what was going on at the time and have a diametrically opposed analysis of events. The arguments invoking Montana, Venezuela and Katanga are irrelevant in this case, as the resources are not at stake compared to the geography. The geographical issue of Crimea is the primary geopolitics informing this debate , best to acknowledge that. Overturning the apple cart, or kicking the hornet’s nest, however you phrase it, was a poor policy initiative and should be seen as such.

The argument that Yanukovych “LEFT THE COUNTRY to avoid criminal prosecution and/or impeachment” is highly contentious, to say the least.

He left, Jeff. What's contentious? The reasons why? He could have gone to Donbas, Donetsk, Odessa, Kharkiv or for that matter Sebatopol but where did he vanish to? What could he avoid there that he couldn't even in sympathetic regions?

There were no impeachment or prosecutorial actions active on the day the government was chased out of town.

He left to go view factories in Kharkiv supposedly. The actions of the parliament came the day after. At what point does this invalidate the constitution, Jeff? If, as you say, it's "up for grabs" then what is your problem with his removal? You're trying to get it both ways here and that doesn't work. It's wrong when the Ukrainian Parliament extra-constitutionally removes its President but when Crimea votes itself into the Russian Federation it's a different story. I personally believe they had more right to assign a temporary succession in lieu of an election or return of the President than Crimea had to split off. Neither case renders the constitution invalid however.

Regardless of what an unsourced UN human rights report may say, there is no evidence that government forces were responsible for the sniper event in February 2014, and most of the agreed witness testimony holds that the shooting occurred from a building controlled by opposition forces.

Okay here ya go. Now where are your sources?? Agreed by whom?

Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine

During March 2014 ASG Ivan Šimonović visited Ukraine twice, and travelled to Bakhchisaray, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Lviv, Sevastopol and Simferopol, where he met with national and local authorities, Ombudspersons, civil society and other representatives, and victims of alleged human rights abuses. This report is based on his findings, also drawing on the work of the newly established United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU).

There was no “legal constitutional vote for his removal” to change the legal government in Ukraine.

The removal of the President doesn't change "the government" any more than the removal of Trump would. There is still a judiciary, parliamentary and the executive successor. There are still Ukrainians too!

What are you talking about? The initiation of a putsch or coup implies a political entity is “up for grabs” simply by the initiation of a putsch or coup. That Ukraine was a “constitutionally formulated sovereign state” was never at question here, it was the expressly unconstitutional assertion that the duly elected government could be somehow suddenly replaced by a “legitimate” body of opposition representatives which is contentious. 

The parliament, judiciary and executive successor were legitimate according to their constitution. What was clearly, unambiguously, unarguably true was that Crimea was a portion of a sovereign state and it was annexed illegally. The examples I gave were built with your and Jim's argument which is seen above.

[Douglas Caddy]

The judge today chose to ignore Roger Stone's many overt violations of her gag order and instead set his trial for November. Why did she do this? My educated guess is because Mueller is about to release his omnipotent massive indictment covering Trump's collusion with Russia that "fixed" the November 2016 presidential election. When that indictment is released, which may happen tomorrow (Friday) on the Ides of March, Stone will lbe named as one of the defendants. So Stone got a sort of reprieve today but his euphoria will be short lived just as Manafort's relief yesterday was a brief one after the judge's lenient sentence of him when half an hour later he was indicted on 16 counts by the Manhattan D.A. Both Manafort and Stone adopted a strategy of protecting Trump at the cost of losing their criminal cases on the false assumption he would pardon them. It was a stupid strategy and now they must pay the price through incarceration for years in federal and perhaps state prisons.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Douglas Caddy

[David G. Healy]

32 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Andrew Weissmann is leaving "Team Mueller" soon, so I don't think Team Mueller is going to be indicting anyone of any importance soon.

Andy Weissmann, formerly of ENRON fame has been running the show on Team Mueller for over a year now. Robert Swan Mueller III has been mailing it in since the Strzok/Page texts came out last year.

There will certainly be indictments of people of importance, just not by Team Mueller.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/politics/andrew-weissmann-mueller.html

"WASHINGTON — One of the key prosecutors in the special counsel’s investigation into Russian election interference is leaving the team soon, the Justice Department said Thursday, in another signal that the inquiry is winding down.

The prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann, who helped lead the cases against the former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, “will be concluding his detail to the special counsel’s office in the near future,” said Peter Carr, the special counsel’s spokesman..."

They'll ALL be concluding their services soon. MSM predictions have been less than stellar concerning this debacle. What makes you think Weissmann is throwing the towel in?

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

By whose estimation was the constitution not functioning? The Rada approved an interim President on 2/22/2014 while the Russians invaded and occupied Crimea on the 27th. There was no overlap and the new government was formed according to the constitution's provisions. He fled because he was going to be impeached and criminally charged for thousands of criminal offenses, Jeff. He was worth $12 billion dollars but never made over $2,000 dollars a month! How many dollars made it over the border?

What armed attack on the legislature? I can find no reference to the RADA voting with guns to their heads.

Simply referring to the New York Times, who had reporters on the ground in Kiev, allows one to see what happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/world/europe/ukraine.html

On Friday a mediated settlement between the elected president, Yanukovych, and the political opposition is announced. In line with this announcement, Ukraine security forces are withdrawn. The radical militant groups from western Ukraine, associated with Right Sector, react angrily to the agreement, and insist on the removal of the president.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/world/europe/ukraine.html

On Saturday, the legal elected government effectively goes into hiding because security has been removed and armed militants are now the new “guards” at government buildings. The political opposition unilaterally declares itself the new government, while Yanukovych declares a coup has occurred.

"Regional governors from eastern Ukraine met in Kharkiv and adopted a resolution resisting the authority of Parliament. They said that until matters were resolved, “we have decided to take responsibility for safeguarding the constitutional order, legality, citizens’ rights and their security on our territories.'"

So half of the country immediately refuses to recognize a new government, and reject a constitutional argument that the new government had the power to declare itself such. On Friday, the opposition concludes negotiations with the recognized elected government, and then 24 hours later decides the president is “unable to fulfill his duties”. Is that indicative of any kind of deliberative process? Armed militants patrol government buildings, and their leaders are appointed to the “new” government.

The appropriate context is not limited to that, as Robert Parry often commented:

You have foreign money, including from the U.S. government, pouring into Ukraine to finance political and propaganda operations. You have open encouragement to the coup-makers from senior American officials.

You have hundreds of trained and armed paramilitary fighters dispatched to Kiev from Lviv and other western cities. You have the seizure of an arsenal amid rumors that these more powerful weapons are being distributed to these paramilitaries. You have international pressure on the elected president to pull back his security forces, even as Western propaganda portrays him as a mass murderer.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine/

What Parry was criticizing particularly in regard to Ukraine was a simplifying tendency to appoint white hats and black hats which served to promote an active misunderstanding of the events. Crimea continues to be "Exhibit A" in charges that Russia represents a unique malign international actor, a false narrative which eventually morphed into the current US domestic politics dispute.

[James DiEugenio]

Bob, 

Congo was a brand new country coming out of brutal colonization.  Recall Leopold?  You have heard of the book Leopold's Ghost?  

Lumumba was the first leader chosen by those previously colonized citizens.  So right then and there, these are all significant differences with Ukraine.  In Congo, Lumumba was the guy who outside forces were determined to get rid of or assassinate.  Which they eventually did.

In Ukraine, the elected leader was deposed by the neo Nazis who were followers of the Hitler collaborator Bandera. I mean you are aware of him are you not?

They were determined to get rid of the elected leader because he opposed memorializing Bandera, as these neo Nazi thugs had done.

It was the neo nazis who began the whole rioting thing over who they were going to get aid from, since the previous leader, who the USA liked, had driven the country's economy into the ground.

When Yanukovych reversed course and decided to take the EU offer, even thought it was worse for the country, the neo nazis began to upgrade the violence and terror. And threaten his life.

Until the point he had to leave the country or be assassinated. They did not remove him legally.  There was no judicial process and there were not enough votes to impeach at the time he left. This was all egged on, guided, supervised and essentially managed by Nuland and Pyatt.  There is a pile of documentary evidence that proves this.  The overthrow was being run by those two.

The Russians did not invade Crimea, they already had a detachment of troops there to protect their naval base.  The violence by Bandera's followers was now spreading into Crimea.  (Unless you think those films are all faked.)  So a referendum was arranged. In addition to the terror, Russia was in much better shape economically than Ukraine, which was a basket case.  There was no referendum in Katanga.  (Unless your Ukraine sources can invent one Bob. I would not put it past them.)  

Every source said the overwhelming majority of Crimeans  preferred being part of Russia.  Even bodies like Forbes.

Your arguments and your sources are so bizarre,  perverse and desperate that I really have a hard time thinking that you believe them.

 

PS What happened in Ukraine is not being recycled in Venezuela.  The so called opposition leader is a CIA flunky, and they sent in that neo con thug Abrams to run things.  

 

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob, 

Congo was a brand new country coming out of brutal colonization.  Recall Leopold?  You have heard of the book Leopold's Ghost?  

Lumumba was the first leader chosen by those previously colonized citizens.  So right then and there, these are all significant differences with Ukraine.  In Congo, Lumumba was the guy who outside forces were determined to get rid of or assassinate.  Which they eventually did.

In Ukraine, the elected leader was deposed by the neo Nazis who were followers of the Hitler collaborator Bandera. I mean you are aware of him are you not?

They were determined to get rid of the elected leader because he opposed memorializing Bandera, as these neo Nazi thugs had done.

It was the neo nazis who began the whole rioting thing over who they were going to get aid from, since the previous leader, who the USA liked, had driven the country's economy into the ground.

When Yanukovych reversed course and decided to take the EU offer, even thought it was worse for the country, the neo nazis began to upgrade the violence and terror. And threaten his life.

Until the point he had to leave the country or be assassinated. They did not remove him legally.  There was no judicial process and there were not enough votes to impeach at the time he left. This was all egged on, guided, supervised and essentially managed by Nuland and Pyatt.  There is a pile of documentary evidence that proves this.  The overthrow was being run by those two.

The Russians did not invade Crimea, they already had a detachment of troops there to protect their naval base.  The violence by Bandera's followers was now spreading into Crimea.  (Unless you think those films are all faked.)  So a referendum was arranged. In addition to the terror, Russia was in much better shape economically than Ukraine, which was a basket case.  There was no referendum in Katanga.  (Unless your Ukraine sources can invent one Bob. I would not put it past them.)  

Every source said the overwhelming majority of Crimeans  preferred being part of Russia.  Even bodies like Forbes.

Your arguments and your sources are so bizarre,  perverse and desperate that I really have a hard time thinking that you believe them.

 

PS What happened in Ukraine is not being recycled in Venezuela.  The so called opposition leader is a CIA flunky, and they sent in that neo con thug Abrams to run things.  

 

 

 

 

And so it was only possible for a massive power like Russia to annex Crimea and not possible for them to restore order and return the country back to civilian control under the auspices of the United Nations, which it was uniquely situated to do. Bovine scatology. The fact is Jim, whether you care to admit it or not, is that the Russian grab of Crimea, justified on some level though it may have been, was a land grab to restore that region and The Ukraine back to where they felt it belongs. They did what they could to further that and foment chaos once it became clear Yanukovich was deemed ineffective and unable to share his plunder.

The Russian Federation is not the sterling silver guardian of all Saintly wishes the world over. Your defense of them on every single item of contention in every subject I'm aware of is curious to me. I believe I've rightly stated why their aggression in Crimea was illegal. You have presented no valid, authoritative third party opinion stating why the annexation and extra-constitutional referendum should be recognized as legal.

I remain unswayed in my opinion but recognize (as I've always stated) that the Russian Federation has a different set of considerations concerning their neighbors along their border areas.

[Bob Ness]

5 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Simply referring to the New York Times, who had reporters on the ground in Kiev, allows one to see what happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/world/europe/ukraine.html

On Friday a mediated settlement between the elected president, Yanukovych, and the political opposition is announced. In line with this announcement, Ukraine security forces are withdrawn. The radical militant groups from western Ukraine, associated with Right Sector, react angrily to the agreement, and insist on the removal of the president.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/world/europe/ukraine.html

On Saturday, the legal elected government effectively goes into hiding because security has been removed and armed militants are now the new “guards” at government buildings. The political opposition unilaterally declares itself the new government, while Yanukovych declares a coup has occurred.

"Regional governors from eastern Ukraine met in Kharkiv and adopted a resolution resisting the authority of Parliament. They said that until matters were resolved, “we have decided to take responsibility for safeguarding the constitutional order, legality, citizens’ rights and their security on our territories.'"

So half of the country immediately refuses to recognize a new government, and reject a constitutional argument that the new government had the power to declare itself such. On Friday, the opposition concludes negotiations with the recognized elected government, and then 24 hours later decides the president is “unable to fulfill his duties”. Is that indicative of any kind of deliberative process? Armed militants patrol government buildings, and their leaders are appointed to the “new” government.

The appropriate context is not limited to that, as Robert Parry often commented:

You have foreign money, including from the U.S. government, pouring into Ukraine to finance political and propaganda operations. You have open encouragement to the coup-makers from senior American officials.

You have hundreds of trained and armed paramilitary fighters dispatched to Kiev from Lviv and other western cities. You have the seizure of an arsenal amid rumors that these more powerful weapons are being distributed to these paramilitaries. You have international pressure on the elected president to pull back his security forces, even as Western propaganda portrays him as a mass murderer.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine/

What Parry was criticizing particularly in regard to Ukraine was a simplifying tendency to appoint white hats and black hats which served to promote an active misunderstanding of the events. Crimea continues to be "Exhibit A" in charges that Russia represents a unique malign international actor, a false narrative which eventually morphed into the current US domestic politics dispute.

Well then Jeff you'll have to argue with these people about the validity of the referendum:

Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States

That's the UN majority that condemned the annexation. Of course these stellar state actors disagreed:

A regular all-star team of the most principled countries on the planet:

Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

Yanukovich was unable to fulfill his duties as President because he fled the country to save his money rather than his country ! If there was support for him I'd think he would enlist his Army to give a helping hand don't you? Here's a few more highlights from the UN report:

SPECIFIC HUMAN RIGHTS CHALLENGES IN CRIMEA

ASG Šimonović visited Crimea on 21 and 22 March and travelled to Bakhchisaray, Sevastopol and Simferopol. The main objectives of the visit, were to: discuss the presence and operation of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission’s sub-office in Simferopol and, in this context, present Mr. Harutyunyan as the Head of the UNHRMM in Ukraine who will be based in Kyiv; discuss the human rights concerns and allegations collected so far, and inquire about actions undertaken by the authorities to address them; and finally, to discuss measures pertaining to human rights which would contribute to addressing urgent protection concerns and thus also alleviating tensions and leading to the de-escalation of situation in and around Crimea.

ASG Šimonović collected first-hand information through meetings with the authorities in Crimea, leaders and members of the Crimean Tatar community, other representatives of civil society and journalists, and Ukrainian military officers and officers without insignia. Additional information has been gathered from a variety of reliable sources, including some through extensive telephone and Skype discussions.

The political aspects of recent developments in Crimea are beyond the scope of the assessment of this report. At the same time, however, these developments have a direct impact on the enjoyment of human rights by all people in Crimea. The delegation met with sources, who claimed that there had been alleged cases of non-Ukrainian citizens participating in the referendum, as well as individuals voting numerous times in different locations.

Preliminary findings, based on publicly available information as well as reports from civil society representatives in Crimea, suggest that the referendum of 16 March raised a number of concerns in terms of respect for human rights standards. Such concerns relate to the free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues. This implies a free press and other media are able to comment on public issues without censorship or restraint and to inform public opinion. A local Ukrainian journalist reportedly received threats through posters, which were disseminated near his place of residence. According to other reports, people in Crimea had limited access to information during the week prior to the referendum. According to some reports, Ukrainian TV channels were blocked since 10 March.

For the full enjoyment and respect for the rights guaranteed in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is necessary to ensure, inter alia, freedom to debate public affairs, to hold peaceful demonstrations and meetings, to criticize and oppose, to publish political material, to campaign and to advertise political ideas. Bloggers and local civil society representatives reported cases of human rights violations regarding journalists and civil society representatives who were perceived to be against the referendum.

Reports included a number of cases of abduction, unlawful arrest and detention by unidentified armed groups, harassment, and violence against peaceful demonstrators. Some activists and journalists were arbitrarily detained or disappeared. According to information provided by civil society groups, seven persons were known to have gone missing. Some previously considered missing were later released but found to have been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment. Some victims were kept in the Military Drafting Center (Voenkomat) in Simferopol. For example, on 9 March, two persons – Mr. Andrei Schekun and Mr. Kovalski – were allegedly kidnapped and later released on the administrative border with Kherson Oblast – with signs of ill-treatment or torture. However, the media reported soon after the referendum about the disappearance of a Crimean Tatar, Mr Reshat Ametov, who had been missing for several days. Reportedly, he was taken away by uniformed men. Mr. Ametov’s body was found on 16 March in the village of Zemlyanichne, in the Belogoski district of Crimea, with alleged signs of torture, hand-cuffed and with adhesive tape over his mouth. The HRMMU is verifying the whereabouts of all those who went missing.

The presence of paramilitary and so called self-defence groups as well as soldiers without insignia, widely believed to be from the Russian Federation, was also not conducive to an environment in which the will of the voters could be exercised freely. According to reports, some individuals had their documents/ passports taken away before the poll by unidentified militias, and searches and identity checks were conducted by unauthorised or unidentified people, in the presence of regular police forces1.

It is widely assessed that Russian-speakers have not been subject to threats in Crimea. Concerns regarding discrimination and violence were expressed by some ethnic Ukrainians members of minorities, and especially Tatars, as indigenous peoples. In a meeting with authorities in Crimea these concerns regarding inter-ethnic tensions were dismissed, assuring that ethnic Russians, ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars and other minorities receive sufficient protection, with their three languages recognized as official languages. Despite this, Tatars largely boycotted the referendum and remain very concerned about their future treatment and prospects. Although there was no evidence of harassment or attacks on ethnic Russians ahead of the referendum, there was widespread fear for their physical security. Photographs of the Maidan protests, greatly exaggerated stories of harassment of ethnic Russians by Ukrainian nationalist extremists, and misinformed reports of them coming armed to persecute ethnic Russians in Crimea, were systematically used to create a climate of fear and insecurity that reflected on support to integration of Crimea into the Russian Federation.

What I continue to hear is this victimization of Yanukovich, The Russian Federation and their allies in The Ukraine, which is ridiculous. Did hooligans move in when Yanukovich ordered the shooting and beating of protesters (ala' Tienanmen) by the Berkut? Yeah! You would too if they were shooting little old ladies, students and so on. The Maidan were not an armed militia of right-wing thugs. Sorry. It paints a nice picture but that wasn't the case. "Hundreds of para military - money pouring in - massive arsenal"  my god man.

I guess Robert Parry never saw a dime of cash change hands between the RF and Ukraine? Nary a bullet or bad thought ever crossed that border? Uh.... I don't think so. My bet would be that the RF had a nice little well of money in the East and real estate in Crimea with a compliant, well paid administrator and when the people of Ukraine got fed up  and contemplated moving to the EU with everyone else in the twenty first century they panicked. I know that sounds crazy! What am I thinking! Couldn't be anything like that... etc.

This I agree with: What Parry was criticizing particularly in regard to Ukraine was a simplifying tendency to appoint white hats and black hats which served to promote an active misunderstanding of the events. These type of discussions almost always become over simplified for the sake of brevity with no one particularly worse than the other.

As I've stated elsewhere and will again here I remain unconvinced that you or Jim have showed how the annexation of Crimea was all cricket and so forth and agree with the majority of the people  that the Crimean referendum foisted on the Ukraine was in violation of its constitution and illegal under international law..

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

12 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Bob, Thank You, Those are some great pictures, some great faces. Though  perhaps in my ignorance,  it does raise a few questions.

Being American I first assumed all those sacks were untended trash bags. Then I see them used as a barricade for that tent. Those shields the police use are also unusual, they look like covers to industrial heaters. 

Am I to assume this is before Yanukovich fled the scene?

Kirk! I didn't get my ass shot taking them thank Marc Estabrook hahaha!

I think you may mean the shields some of the Maidan used. Some of them had improvised riot shields for obvious reasons.

The exact circumstances of his leaving remain a mystery I believe. He high-tailed it to his Russian sponsors either way while passing through Khirkiv and Crimea under Russian guard. He had been accused of looting several billion dollars from The Ukraine and I'm sure that weighed heavily on many of his decisions, if true. I doubt he took time to stop and pose for selfies, kiss babies and shake hands though. As has been stated, there we're plenty of people after him. I'm not certain that the money wasn't of more immediate concern to him though. A guard detail protecting a small entourage against some hooligans shouldn't be too much trouble for even a small military force but maybe he wasn't willing to stay (which would be my bet).

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Yanukovich was unable to fulfill his duties as President because he fled the country to save his money rather than his country !

That's not correct, as confirmed by the New York Times on-the-scene reporters as the events occurred. Your theory is premised on an analysis of Yanukovych's motives which has no basis in the material record. There were no corruption or other legal proceedings against him at the time. He left Kiev due to security concerns, which is clear in the NY Times coverage. The opposition unilaterally declared they were the new government, and this was immediately disputed by half of the country. The constitutional order had been overthrown. A better way forward had already been agreed and then was scuttled by extremists backed by the US. The ensuing consequences were predictable because they had been already predicted by all sides. Your position condemns the predictable consequences, while failing to appropriately analyze what precipitated the events in question. The opposition presumably negotiated in good faith with the recognized government, and then 24 hours later declared it "unable to fulfill its duties". The answer to why it did that is not "because he fled the country to save his money" - surely you are more sophisticated than that supposition, particularly as it is not supported by the on-the-ground reporting on the day. 

[Andrew Prutsok]

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr told SaraACarter.com that “Andrew Weissmann will be concluding his detail to the Special Counsel’s Office in the near future.” Carr did not elaborate on whether or not Mueller’s Special Counsel will be wrapping up.

There are a number of reasons why Team Mueller is throwing in the Towel.

1. Anybody who could possibly charged with something already has been.
2. William Barr told Team Mueller to wrap it up. (ie. When he was confirmed, he became the official head of the investigation.) Recall Sessions recused himself and the authority to hire/fire the Special Counsel fell to Rossenstein.  Sessions resigned and Whitaker was in charge as the Temporary AG. Barr was confirmed  Feb. 14, 2019 and took over from Whitaker.
3. The Mueller report is, or will be soon, nearly complete.

You appear to be about as knowledgeable about this situation as Ken Dilanen at NBC news who has been reporting the investigation is ending since last fall.

All members of Mueller’s team had specific tasks to which they were assigned. Weinstein’s job was to prosecute Manafort on money laundering charges. His job is done. He is leaving, just as have other prosecutors on the team did after their work was completed.

Around October 1, 2018, after submitting a filing saying Mike Flynn was ready to be sentenced, Brandon Van Grack moved back to his duties elsewhere at DOJ (though he continues to be named in documents in the case, as he was Tuesday). He is now starting a prosecutorial focus on FARA.

The investigation did not end after Van Grack left.

Around October 15, 2018, Kyle Freeny, who had worked the money laundering angle on the GRU and Manafort cases, moved back to her duties elsewhere at DOJ.

Did I miss the end of the investigation after Feeney left?

Around December 31, 2018, after successfully defending the Mystery Appellant challenge in the DC Circuit, Scott Meisler moved back to his duties elsewhere at DOJ.

I wonder why it didn’t end after Meisler left?

While four have left, Mueller still has 13 of the original 17-member team of prosecutors on staff and working.

The investigation may well end today. I don’t know, nor do you and your reasoning for saying so is clearly deeply flawed as I have easily demonstrated here.

I kind of lean toward the theory that with 13 of the world’s fiercest prosecutors still on the payroll, anybody who confidently claims it’s over and there will be no more indictments does not know what he is talking about.

Manafort’s sharing of documents with Kilimnik and George Nader’s revelations of Trump Jr. and Eric Prince meeting in August 2016with UAE reps who offer campaign help, prove conspiracy with foreign governments by top representatives of the campaign.

 

[Andrew Prutsok]

And the prosecutor responsible for investigating "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals aassociated with" Trump's campaign, as Mueller's appointment memo describes it -- Jeannie Rhee --  is still on staff.

Here was Judge Jackson Wednesday after sending Manafort off to his death:

"The 'no collusion' mantra is simply a non sequitur," referring to Manafort's attorneys' claim that Mueller had found no evidence of collusion with Russia (which was just a stunt to appeal for a pardon). "It's also not accurate because the investigation is ongoing."

 

[Andrew Prutsok]

Obviously, the investigation is over.

 

[Douglas Caddy]

Mueller today says multiple investigations continue:

 

http://news.trust.org/item/20190315143150-hb2lr

[Andrew Prutsok]

Rod Rosentein, who has said he will stay at the Justice (sic) Department until Mueller probe is finished, did an about face this morning and instead of leaving DOJ as planned this month, will stay on indefinitely.

Another sure sign the end is near and Mueller has nothing?