9/11 Investigation and Operation Trump: M.N.: The 9/11 WAS NOT investigated successfully and cannot considered to be resolved. If anything, it deepened the mystery further, without answering convincingly the questions about the real culprits and the real masterminds. The 9/11 case has to be reopened and re-investigated. It was a precursor to Operation Trump. But presenting the 9/11 Investigation as the model for the Trump Investigations is the erroneous notion, methinks. I think that it would be a very good idea to investigate all the major political events after WW2, and to try to discern the New Abwehr's roles and ways in these events.
YourNewsWire:
FBI files prove Robert Mueller actively covered up crimes during the 9/11 investigation...
______________________________________________
9/11 Investigation and Operation Trump
The 9/11 WAS NOT investigated successfully and cannot be considered to be resolved.
If anything, its investigation deepened the mystery further, without answering convincingly the questions about the real culprits and the real masterminds, which, in my current, very humble and non-specialist opinion, are the hypothetical New Abwehr: Abwehr after WW2 which undoubtedly survived and prospered quite nicely, and never lost the sight of its ambitious WW2 goals.
The Russians, much less the Arabs, did not have the capabilities, experience, and predilection for these types of the spectacular propaganda operations, but for the Abwehr, and later the New Abwehr, it was and became the signature style and the diagnostic sign.
The GRU splinter groups, such as Far West and others, the Arabs (and also Chechens and Russians) were just convenient for the New Abwehr unwitting players, with the core Hamburg Cell trained under the watchful strategic eye of Ernest Urhlau, a chief of the Hamburg Police at the time. It is difficult to accuse this person of complicity in a legal sense but his role and the position at the center of those events is undeniable. Urhlau was under the command of Gerhard Schroeder, who as reported, was involved most closely in the discussions of these matters, and who should be investigated very carefully too.
Both of them have to be investigated very vigorously, in my humble opinion.
All the suspicious big calamities, starting with McCarthyism, to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and many, many others, if not all of them, very well might be the New Abwehr's operations.
I think that presently Mr. Mueller is doing an excellent job, thorough and without overextending his mandate and prerogatives. He has laid out his findings respectfully at the feet of the US Congress to evaluate, assess, and judge for themselves, as the ultimate representatives of the American people. I think, that his work, the Mueller Investigation of the Elections 2016, will be cited by the textbooks as the classic example of the investigations in the area of Political Criminology, and a lesson in how they should be performed.
But presenting the 9/11 Investigation as the model for the Trump Investigations is the erroneous notion, methinks.
And I do think that it would be a very good idea to investigate all the major political events after WW2, and to try to discern the New Abwehr's roles and ways in these events.
Abwehr was a formidable, leading, the first among the others military intelligence service, with the huge knowledge base, experience, and resolve. It is only logical to assume that the New Abwehr followed firmly, deliberately, and decisively in their footsteps; accumulating, preserving, and using these capabilities.
We do have to investigate and to re-investigate the Abwehr, the personalities of its founders; the hypothetical New Abwehr and its hypothetical new role: as the Meshuggah - Demiurge trying to rule and to control the world.
Michael Novakhov
1.28.19
___________________________________________________
What Robert Mueller and William Barr need to tell us - The Washington Post
Attorney general nominee William P. Barr speaks during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Jan, 15. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
The writer is White Burkett Miller professor of history and J. Wilson Newman professor of governance at the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.
During his confirmation hearings, attorney general nominee William P. Barr cautioned that while he intended to provide “as much transparency as I can” about the results of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, he might be required to keep certain elements of the counsel’s report that dealt with grand jury matters confidential. Mueller and his staff should consider dividing their report into two parts, one of which would provide the public an overall narrative of their findings about Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. The American people and the American government deserve those facts.
Unlike past independent counsels, including Leon Jaworski, who investigated the Nixon administration, or Kenneth Starr, who pursued the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, or the 9/11 Commission, for which I served as executive director, Mueller is acting as a Justice Department employee who is conducting a special investigation for the attorney general. Yet, from the start, the Justice Department made this work broader than just a legal investigation.
In appointing Mueller in May of 2017, and elaborating the scope of his work in August 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein referred to and endorsed former FBI director James B. Comey’s description of Mueller’s mission as a counterintelligence inquiry into “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” That counterintelligence investigation could extend to the investigation of what crimes were committed, but was not limited to the criminal questions.
A report on the counterintelligence investigation is a report on a threat to America’s national security: a significant, covert foreign intervention into the country’s most important political process. This is quite apart from the separate matter of who committed what crimes. It is not necessarily a crime for Russians to interfere in our politics. It may or may not be a crime for Americans to work with the Russians or their agents, depending on the specifics of what people knew and did — evidentiary issues — and whether the allegations are prosecutable.
A report on the counterintelligence investigation is a report on a threat to America’s national security: a significant, covert foreign intervention into the country’s most important political process. This is quite apart from the separate matter of who committed what crimes. It is not necessarily a crime for Russians to interfere in our politics. It may or may not be a crime for Americans to work with the Russians or their agents, depending on the specifics of what people knew and did — evidentiary issues — and whether the allegations are prosecutable.
But our government and citizens are certainly entitled to understand, as best they can, the counterintelligence story: how the Russian government carried out a series of covert operations to intervene in the election of a U.S. president, and how Americans may have encouraged or worked with the foreign agents.
One of the most important insights from the 9/11 Commission work was the value of explaining the context, including a study of both sides. Therefore, we tried to bring the reader into al-Qaeda’s world and its operational planning, not just examine the American reactions.
In Mueller’s case, this means, for example, that part of the narrative could set a context to help citizens understand how the Russian government carries out covert activities, the way many Russian businesspeople interact with this work and the way Americans who do business with such connected Russians comprehend this. Similarly, the report can set the context of the Trump campaign in 2016, and how it operated, that was relevant to the Russian intervention. Some of this may have spilled over into the presidential transition process as well, if not the operations of the administration itself.
In Mueller’s case, this means, for example, that part of the narrative could set a context to help citizens understand how the Russian government carries out covert activities, the way many Russian businesspeople interact with this work and the way Americans who do business with such connected Russians comprehend this. Similarly, the report can set the context of the Trump campaign in 2016, and how it operated, that was relevant to the Russian intervention. Some of this may have spilled over into the presidential transition process as well, if not the operations of the administration itself.
The other part of Mueller’s report could be a road map of the progress of criminal investigations, explaining certain prosecutorial choices so far, and also referrals of some investigations to other parts of the Justice Department or to other authorities. In handling the issue of referrals, Mueller has the option, which Jaworski followed in 1974, of providing the attorney general with material prepared for referral to a House committee responsible for considering possible articles of impeachment. As Jaworski did, this particular referral road map could signpost key issues of presidential misconduct, introduce the surrounding facts and point to relevant evidence.
Above all, because of its counterintelligence writ, the Mueller report should provide a historical account of a troubling and intensely controversial episode in American history. The special counsel regulations invest the attorney general with the authority to decide how much of Mueller’s work is shared with the public and in what form. “As much transparency as I can” is the right answer. If Barr is confirmed, the country is counting on him to keep his promise.
The 9/11 Commission started from this premise. We were fortunate in the final choice of commission chair and vice chair Thomas H. Kean and Lee Hamilton, respectively. Kean and Hamilton were veteran politicians, but Kean had originally been trained as an academic historian at Princeton, working with R.R. Palmer. Kean’s hope, like mine, was that the commission would provide a reasonably sound understanding of what had happened, a foundation that others could build on. Hamilton deeply influenced the “house style” of the work, always driving it to be terse and factual, leaving larger interpretive conclusions to the good judgment of the reader, free of off-putting technical vocabulary without being dumbed down, and accessible to interested citizens.
The 9/11 Commission started from this premise. We were fortunate in the final choice of commission chair and vice chair Thomas H. Kean and Lee Hamilton, respectively. Kean and Hamilton were veteran politicians, but Kean had originally been trained as an academic historian at Princeton, working with R.R. Palmer. Kean’s hope, like mine, was that the commission would provide a reasonably sound understanding of what had happened, a foundation that others could build on. Hamilton deeply influenced the “house style” of the work, always driving it to be terse and factual, leaving larger interpretive conclusions to the good judgment of the reader, free of off-putting technical vocabulary without being dumbed down, and accessible to interested citizens.
Hamilton doubted, though, that many people would read such a long, detailed report. In that, he underestimated the citizenry, as people sometimes do. Robert Mueller and William P. Barr should trust Americans to rise to the occasion once again.
Read more:
"deutsche bank and trump" - Google News.
1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites).
"Former Defense Secretary James Mattis received a standing ovation" - Google News.
-
Comments
Post a Comment