Puppet MastersS


Binoculars

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists warns of "civilization-ending nuclear war"

Andre Damon
World Socialist Website
Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:00 UTC
Soldiers mount a refurbished nuclear warhead
© AP Photo/Eric DraperSoldiers mount a refurbished nuclear warhead on to the top of a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile
On Wednesday, Congressman Adam Schiff, speaking from the Senate floor during the second day of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, said "the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here."

For most of the American population, the assertion that "we" are fighting Russia will come as a surprise.

For years, the media has laughed off the danger of a war between the United States and Russia or China as a "conspiracy theory." But Schiff raised the United States fighting Russia not just as a possibility, but as a statement of present fact.

The United States and Russia each possesses over 6,000 nuclear weapons. Just a fraction of these is sufficient to kill billions of people and destroy human society. A war between these two countries, in other words, would be a cataclysmic disaster.

And yet, the entire political establishment, from the Democrats with their anti-Russian hysteria to Trump with his bullying threats against the whole world are preparing for military conflict on a scale not seen since World War II.

On Thursday, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which for more than seven decades has maintained a Doomsday Clock, warned that human civilization is closer to midnight, i.e., total destruction, than at any other period in history, including the Cuban Missile Crisis at the height of the Cold War.
Read More...
Arrow Down

The global financial system is at a point of no return

Greg Hunter
USA Watchdog
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:00 UTC
storm clouds gathering
Financial writer and book author John Rubino sees the world careening toward a debt reset at an increasing pace. Rubino explains,
"The coming monetary reset and what that means for gold and what that means for the rest of the global financial system, you don't need a war to bring that about because we are making enough financial mistakes that will get us there in no time flat now without geopolitical turmoil. If you add a big war in the Middle East into the equation, then anything can happen. A scenario right now that is very, very feasible is we start shooting in the Middle East and Russia and China is on the other side of this in one way or another. They help Iran, and we have our allies helping us, and we start using these next generation weapons that are breathtakingly powerful. Nobody has any idea what's going to happen when we start throwing these things at each other. . . . Oil spikes to $100 - $150 per barrel, and that tips the already extremely fragile global financial system over the edge. So, we get the 'Greater Depression' or the monetary reset or a hyperinflation or whatever we get sooner rather than later. It's a disaster for everybody when it happens that way."
Read More...
Bullseye

Pam Bondi lays out explosive case against Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Burisma

Joel Pollak
Beitbart
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:54 UTC
Pam Bondi
Former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi made the White House's case to the Senate on Monday afternoon that President Donald Trump had good reason to ask Ukraine to investigate the conflict of interest involving former Vice President Joe Biden; his son Hunter Biden; and the corrupt Ukraine gas company, Burisma.

Using clips of testimony from Democrats' own witnesses, and reports from the mainstream media — including an ABC News interview with Hunter Biden — Bondi argued that Hunter Biden was paid handsomely for little reason other than that he was the vice president's son. The company was under investigation at the time — and Vice President Biden later famously insisted the prosecutor be fired.

She also noted that Hunter Biden was involved in business with Chris Heinz, the stepson of then-Secretary of State John Kerry. Both were involved in Ukraine — and elsewhere — at a time when ending corruption was said to be the top priority of the United States and other western governments in dealing with Ukraine.
Read More...
Blue Planet

Why the New Silk Roads are a 'threat' to US bloc, and the Middle East is key

Pepe Escobar
Asia Times
Mon, 27 Jan 2020 21:59 UTC
Silk Road
© FacebookModern day traders on the ancient Silk Road track in Central Asia.
Under the cascading roar of the 24/7 news cycle cum Twitter eruptions, it's easy for most of the West, especially the US, to forget the basics about the interaction of Eurasia with its western peninsula, Europe.

Asia and Europe have been trading goods and ideas since at least 3,500 BC. Historically, the flux may have suffered some occasional bumps - for instance, with the irruption of 5th-century nomad horsemen in the Eurasian plains. But it was essentially steady up to the end of the 15th century. We can essentially describe it as a millennium-old axis - from Greece to Persia, from the Roman empire to China.

A land route with myriad ramifications, through Central Asia, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey, linking India and China to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, ended up coalescing into what we came to know as the Ancient Silk Roads.

Comment: See also:

Read More...
Alarm Clock

The troubling decline of respect for international law

Craig Murray
craigmurray.org.uk
Mon, 27 Jan 2020 21:11 UTC
International Criminal Court building
© Reuters / Piroschka Van De WouwThe International Criminal Court building in The Hague, The Netherlands
While it is true that rogue states - most notably the USA - have always posed a threat to the rule of international law, I see no serious room to dispute that the development of the corpus of international law, and of the institutions to implement it, was one of the great achievements of the twentieth century, and did a huge amount to reduce global conflict.

The International Court of Justice, the Law of the Sea Tribunal, the European Court of Justice, the World Trade Organisation, these are just some of the institutions which have played an extremely positive role, helping resolve hundreds of disputes during their existence and, still more importantly, helping establish rules that prevented thousands more disputes from arising. Regional Organisations, dozens of them including the EU, the African Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, have also flourished.

The judgement of the ICJ in the 160 cases it has heard has almost always been respected by the parties to the case. That has applied even when the dispute is radical, inflammatory and had already led to fighting and deaths, such as the settlement of the Nigeria/Cameroon border. The ICJ has been a massive success story.
Read More...
Bad Guys

Brexit's 'finish line' only marks the beginning of the End

Finian Cunningham
The Strategic Culture Foundation
Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:23 UTC
boris john brexit
© Getty imagesBoris Johnson
The British parliament voted through the EU divorce bill last week, with the head of state Queen Elizabeth giving her symbolic assent. And so this week, on January 31, Britain is officially out of the continental bloc - after more than four decades of membership.

Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, was in self-congratulatory mode when he extolled the passing of the deal, saying: "At times it felt like we would never cross the Brexit finish line, but we've done it."

It was Johnson's "get Brexit done" promise that was key to his Conservative party winning the national election last month when it gained a landslide majority.

However, the Brexit "finish line" is not as straightforward as it might seem. Britain will have officially departed from the EU at 11pm on January 31 and it will no longer have representation in the European parliament or in the bloc's executive in the Brussels-based European Commission. But there is a long way to go before "Britannia rules the waves", if it ever does.
Read More...
Briefcase

Impeachment: Trump team begins defense blasting Dems for 'massive election interference'

Alex Swoyer, S.A. Miller
The Washington Times
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 00:00 UTC
Cipollone
© Senate Television via APPat Cipollone speaks during the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Saturday, Jan. 25, 2020.
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone on Saturday opened the defense case at President Trump's impeachment trial by accusing the Democratic prosecutors of attempting the biggest election meddling scheme in U.S. history.

Mr. Cipollone, addressing the Senate a day after House impeachment managers completed nearly 24 hours of presenting their case, said the Democrats left out key evidence in a quest to undo the 2016 election and tear him from the ballot in 2020.

"They are asking you to tear up all the ballots across this county," he said. "I don't think they spend one minute talking about the consequences of that for our country."

He then accused the Democrats of the same offense they have charged Mr. Trump: attempting to cheat in an election.

"They are here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in U.S. history," said Mr. Cipollone.

It was the first time Mr. Trump's defense team had presented a defense in a formal setting since the impeachment process began Sept. 24.

Comment: Breitbart, 26/1/2020: Biden unmentioned in Trump's opening argument
Politico reported Saturday morning that President Donald Trump's lawyers would open their arguments in the Senate impeachment trial by focusing on former Vice President Joe Biden. In fact, they barely mentioned Biden at all.

White House lawyers instead focused their two-hour presentation on the facts that, they argued, House Democrats had deliberately left out of their three-day presentation to the Senate because the facts would "collapse" their case. The only person they attacked was lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), arguing that his track record of misleading the public meant the Senate could not trust his inferences about the evidence.

A few minutes before the opening of proceedings in the Senate at 10:00 a.m. ET, Politico sent an email alert: "BREAKING NEWS: Trump's legal team to begin opening arguments with assault on Biden." The email claimed that White House counsel were going to open their defense of Trump with an "unbridled" attack on Biden.

But in the end, there was simply a passing reference to the vice president that did not mention him by name.

Politico later reported: "Trump's legal team launches attack on Dem case — and Schiff." It admitted:
Unmentioned in the first hours of the trial was Joe Biden, who Trump asked Zelensky to investigate during their July 25 call, a request that Democrats said amounted to a violation of Trump's oath of office — using his power to obtain a personal, political benefit. Biden is a front-runner to challenge Trump in the 2020 election.
It added: "But [White House lawyer Jay] Sekulow has foreshadowed that Biden will be a feature of the defense."

The opening arguments of the White House will resume Monday in the Senate at 1:00 p.m. ET.


Read More...
X

Trump denies Bolton's Ukraine account of quid pro quo

Dave Boyer
The Washington Times
Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:00 UTC
TrumpBolton
© Reuters/Carlos BarriaUS President Donald Trump • Former National Security Advisor John Bolton
President Trump rejected a reported claim by former National Security Adviser John Bolton early Monday that he tied military aid to Ukraine to investigations of Democratic candidate Joseph Biden.

"I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens," the president tweeted after midnight. "In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book."

The New York Times reported the conversation in a draft of a forthcoming book by Mr. Bolton, prompting Democrats to renew calls for his testimony in the president's impeachment trial.

Mr. Trump said transcripts of his calls with Ukraine's president "are all the proof that is needed." "Additionally, I met with President [Volodymry] Zelensky at the United Nations ... ... (Democrats said I never met) and released the military aid to Ukraine without any conditions or investigations - and far ahead of schedule," he tweeted. " I also allowed Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank missiles. My Administration has done far more than the previous Administration."
Read More...
Dollars

Svetlana Lokhova: Follow the money trail of FBI spy to expose Russia hoax origins

Sara Carter
saraacarter.com
Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:00 UTC
HalperLokhova
© neonnettle.com/BBCStefan Halper • Svetlana Lokhova
Svetlana Lokhova is suing numerous media outlets, as well as FBI informant Stefan Halper, for defamation and tells The Sara Carter Show that she was used as a target of opportunity by the FBI in an attempt to discredit former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and target President Donald Trump.

Lokhova, a Russian born British scholar, calls Halper "the dirty trickster." She says his past connections to these agencies and the FBI is a 'big tell' as to why he was used to used to gather information on the Trump campaign.

"So you have 17 intelligence agencies in the United States with an $80 billion budget you have thousands if not tens of thousands of trained people working for your intelligence services and, yet, they seek out this complete outsider (Halper) right he's not a trained investigator," she says, describing Halper as an overweight 74 year old.

"He's somebody whose known...has a history of being involved in every single scandal for over forty years," said Lokhova. She says Halper's money trail is the answer.

Lokhova isn't the only one.

Comment:



Read More...
Briefcase

Six legal arguments: Why US extradition of Julian Assange should be denied

Tom Coburg
The Canary
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 00:00 UTC
Westminster magistrates court
© Mohamed Elmaazi
Part I: There are at least six legal reasons why the extradition request by the US against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be dismissed by the UK courts. The main extradition hearing is scheduled to commence 24 February 2020, with district judge Vanessa Baraitser presiding. The evidence to support Assange is compelling.

1. Client-lawyer confidentiality breached

It's a cornerstone of English law that client-lawyer confidentiality (also known as client-lawyer privilege) is sacrosanct and should not be violated. Yet Assange's case raises serious questions about this.

In September 2019, The Canary reported that a private security company organised 24/7 surveillance of Assange during his stay at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Spanish-based firm UC Global conducted the surveillance and installed a video streaming service direct to the US. Also monitored were meetings between Assange and his lawyers, including Melynda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson, and Baltasar Garzón.


Comment: The Canary, 26/1/2020: Irregularities/conflicts in UK court procedures
Part II: [T]here is another dimension - that of alleged prejudice by UK justices and other legal irregularities. This builds another strong case to challenge extradition.

Conflicting interests

The Guide to Judicial Conduct in England and Wales states:

The judiciary must be seen to be independent of the legislative and executive arms of government both as individuals and as a whole. However, in November 2019 Daily Maverick journalists Mark Curtis and Matt Kennard revealed that:
at the same time Lady [Emma] Arbuthnot was presiding over Assange's legal case, the judge's husband [Lord James Arbuthnot], was holding talks with senior officials in Turkey, exposed by WikiLeaks, some of whom have an interest in punishing Assange and the WikiLeaks organisation.
Before becoming a peer, Lord Arbuthnot was a member of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee from 2001-06. He is also currently an officer of the all party parliamentary group on cybersecurity which is administered by the Information Security Group (ISG) at Royal Holloway, University of London. ... He is also a former member of the national security strategy joint committee and the armed forces bill committee.

Vitruvian Partners, the employer of Arbuthnot's son Alexander, has a multimillion-pound investment in cybersecurity firm Darktrace, whose officials originate from the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.

More conflicting interests

The Canary revealed how Lord Arbuthnot is a member of the advisory board of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI); is chair of the advisory board of the UK division of defence and security systems manufacturer Thales; and that when a Tory MP he was chair of the Defence Select Committee.

Restricted access

At a hearing in December 2019, Gareth Peirce, Assange's UK lawyer, told the court that access to her client at Belmarsh prison had been restricted. Consequently, Assange had not been provided with access to evidence in preparation for the main extradition hearing. Regarding that evidence, Peirce explained to the court:

"Without Mr Assange's knowledge, some of it is recently acquired evidence, some of it is subject to months of investigation not always in this country, of which he is unaware because of the blockage in visits." Indeed, such evidence would include the surveillance footage of Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.

For in the latest twist, witnesses during the trial of UC Global head David Morales stated how that footage and other material was regularly provided to the CIA by him via a security operator working for billionaire gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson, who just happens to be one of Donald Trump's "biggest benefactors".

At another hearing, on 15 January, presiding magistrate District Judge Vanessa Baraitsar made it clear to Peirce that she and her legal team will only have access to Assange for one hour, during which evidence can be examined. Consequently, Peirce has raised the possibility of a judicial review.

Implications for journalists

The outcome of Assange's trial is also significant for journalists around the world. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges argues that if the extradition proceeds:
"it will create a legal precedent that will terminate the ability of the press, which Trump repeatedly has called "the enemy of the people," to hold power accountable. The crimes of war and finance, the persecution of dissidents, minorities and immigrants, the pillaging by corporations of the nation and the ecosystem and the ruthless impoverishment of working men and women to swell the bank accounts of the rich and consolidate the global oligarchs' total grip on power will not only expand, but will no longer be part of public debate. First Assange. Then us."
And Shadowproof journalist Kevin Gozstola points out that the charges raised against Assange have wider implications:
Assange holds citizenship in Australia and was also granted citizenship by Ecuador a little over one year ago. Invoking secrecy regulations in the US as part of an indictment against someone who is not an American citizen carries implications for world press freedom.
Let legal battle commence

Altogether, the six legal arguments, as well as claims of impartiality by UK justices and restriction of access to Assange by his lawyers, could see the extradition request denied.

At a hearing on 23 January, it was agreed that the main extradition hearing will start on 24 February at Woolwich Crown Court and will last about one week, with further proceedings expected on 18 May to last another three weeks. A number of parliamentarians from across Europe have indicated they hope to attend the court hearings.


Read More...