Because the Obamas aren't smart enough to earn money themselves like @realDonaldTrump. They have to 'cash in' on 'public service' like the government parasites they are.
— Sassy Scarlett (@Southrngirl77) August 24, 2019
New text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have now been made public, and, as The Duran’s Alex Christoforou notes, the big reveal is that then-POTUS Barack Obama appears to be in the loop, on the whole ‘destroy Trump’ insurance plan hatched by upper management at the FBI.
The messages include an exchange about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, who wanted “to know everything we’re doing.”
Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016 about prepping Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.” Senate investigators told Fox News this text raises questions about Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.
In texts previously revealed, Strzok and Page have shown their disdain for Republicans in general, as well as Trump, calling him a “f—ing idiot,” among other insults.
Among the newly disclosed texts, Strzok also calls Virginians who voted against then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s wife for a state Senate seat “ignorant hillbillys.” (sic)
That text came from Strzok to Page on Nov. 4, 2015, the day after Jill McCabe lost a hotly contested Virginia state Senate election. Strzok said of the result, “Disappointing, but look at the district map. Loudon is being gentrified, but it’s still largely ignorant hillbilliys. Good for her for running, but curious if she’s energized or never again.”
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., along with majority staff from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is releasing the texts, along with a report titled, “The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI’s Investigation of it.”
The newly uncovered texts reveal a bit more about the timing of the discovery of “hundreds of thousands” of emails on former congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop, ultimately leading to Comey’s infamous letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election.
On Sept. 28, 2016 Strzok wrote to Page, “Got called up to Andy’s [McCabe] earlier.. hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Huma Abedin]. Sending team up tomorrow to review… this will never end.” Senate investigators told Fox News this text message raises questions about when FBI officials learned of emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the laptop belonging to Weiner, the husband to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
It was a full month later, on Oct. 28, 2016 when Comey informed Congress that, “Due to recent developments,” the FBI was reopening its Clinton email investigation.
“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday…” Comey said at the time.
The question becomes why Comey was only informed by his investigative team on Oct. 27, if the Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop were discovered by Sept. 28, at the latest.
The latest batch of text messages between Strzok and Page show more examples of the Deep State opposition to Donald Trump, including a text sent on Election Day 2016 where Page wrote…
“OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.”
Strzok replied to Page with a text saying…“Omg, I am so depressed.” Later that month, on November 13, 2016 Page wrote…
“I bought all the president’s men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.”
The next day on November 14, 2016, Page wrote…
“God, being here makes me angry. Lots of high fallutin’ national security talk. Meanwhile we have OUR task ahead of us.”
According to Fox News, Page’s meaning here is unclear, but Senate investigators say, coupled with Strzok’s August 15 text about an “insurance policy,” further investigation is warranted to find out what actions the two may have taken.
The last text is from Page to Strzok, and comes on June 23, 2017 when she wrote, “Please don’t ever text me again.”
It’s unclear whether she was mad at her friend, or if she suddenly became aware that they, and their thousands of texts, had been discovered.
Of course, none of this is surprising, but we are sure the new Democrat memo will clear up any misunderstandings.
Former Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino appeared on Tucker Carlson TV show tonight to discuss the release of Chairman Devin Nunes intelligence memo.
During the segment Mr. Bongino highlighted his theory that Chairman Nunes memo not only holds references to the DOJ and FBI use of fraudulent FISA702 application evidence, but that the memo also contains compartmented intelligence exclusive to former President Obama’s Presidential Daily Briefings (PDB’s). WATCH:
If true, this exclusive Bongino revelation could be explosive. Let’s explore.
What exactly is “The Nunes Memo”? From all indications it is an outline written by senior intelligence committee staff, with major input from Devin Nunes describing evidence, people and events who conspired back in 2016 and 2017. In essence it is a summary of facts, that Chairman Nunes knows to exist.
No-one actually knows what the underlying supportive material is, because no-one, other than Chairman Devin Nunes, has seen the full material in the context of his reference.
People are *assuming* the memo is heavily written around FISA-702 issues and documents (FISA application, Steele Dossier, wiretaps, surveillance, intercepts etc.), but no-one actually knows what is behind the memo, other than Devin Nunes. There could be much more than just FISA evidence.
Now, as we go forward with this we’ll be lost unless we have a full understanding of the March 2017 outline about “The Nunes Paradox” – SEE HERE – Remember, the issue on March 22nd, 2017 was:
[…] Our research indicates that Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence reports (most likely PDB’s) that were assembled exclusively for the office of the President (Obama). That is why he went to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) Information Facility to review.
The intelligence product would be delivered to that SCIF system for his review, most likely by the ODNI. It would be removed from that SCIF system after his review. No systems are connected.
Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”. So the product itself was likely a product for the President, that was not part of the ongoing FBI counter-intel product.
Again, this is why it seems likely it was part of a PDB – unless it was a separate product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intel on something Trump.]
♦ Now, HERE IS WHERE YOU NEED TO PUT ON A “Politics only” FILTER.
Couldn’t Adam Schiff (another gang of eight member) go look at the same intelligence as Nunes did?
Yes. However, purely from the standpoint of politics: why would he?
If Representative Schiff saw the same intelligence that substantiates Nunes he couldn’t keep up the fake outrage and false narrative. Right now Schiff can say anything about it he wants because he hasn’t seen it. If Schiff actually sees the intelligence Nunes saw he loses that ability. He would also lose the ability to criticize, ridicule and/or marginalize Devin Nunes. (read more – Critical to understand)
Back in March and April 2017, it was more valuable, politically, at least initially, for ranking member Adam Schiff never to go look at the same information compiled within the Eisenhower SCIF for Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes to see. Schiff did, eventually, go to see the information, but he waited a week to do so.
Absent of knowledge of the underlying evidence, Adam Schiff could say anything he wanted about Nunes and work to isolate him. Simultaneously, because the information was highly classified, Nunes could never explain it or defend himself. Thus Nunes was stuck in the compartmented intelligence box; that’s The Nunes Paradox.
Sneaky Schiff used a week of Nunes being in this boxed-in position, knowing Nunes could not defend himself, to demand Nunes step aside from the House Intelligence “Russia investigation”. It worked.
However, all the way through to today no-one except Devin Nunes has any idea the totality of what Nunes actually witnessed in March 2017, and what he was later able to connect to that evidence after the FISA Court release (late April 2017) [Nunes could see unredacted FISC opinion], and also overlay evidence provided to the House Intelligence Committee.
However, we have an idea of the earlier evidence Nunes saw from his March 22nd, 2017, statements and we can also overlay the FISA court information .
It is important to note here that President Trump nominated Senator Dan Coats as ODNI on January 5th, 2017 – however, Democrats held up that nomination until March 16th, 2017. It is not coincidental that immediately following DNI Dan Coat’s ability to provide information, Chairman Devin Nunes begins reporting his concerns. It was also Dan Coats who declassified the FISA court opinion on April 28th, 2017.
After Devin Nunes review the information March 22nd 2017, Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was: “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he has been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team. Later it was reported the incoming White House National Security Council may have assisted Nunes with information at the Eisenhower SCIF.
1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”
2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”
3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”
4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities.
“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”
•“Who was aware of it?”
•“Why it was not disclosed to congress?”
•“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”
•“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”
•“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”
“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th (2017) letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”
Again, this is why the intelligence reports seem likely to have been political opposition research -that was part of Obama’s PDB– unless it was a separate intelligence product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intelligence against political adversaries, ie candidate Donald Trump.]
Additionally, there is further evidence that surfaced a week after Nunes expressed his March 22nd, 2017 concerns. April 4th, 2017 Susan Rice appears:
With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared April 4th, 2017, on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell. This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘, to the push-back that was an outcome of Evelyn Farkas earlier statements on the same network.
Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer. Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.
You already know the routine. MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice. Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas) The full interview is below:
However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:
Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”
[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.
This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.
Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:
[…] But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)
Pay attention to that last part. According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to: “top strategic communications aide”, Ben Rhodes, and “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”.
In the interview, Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”, “NSA” ‘ODNI’ etc….
So under Obama’s watch the list of recipients was massive and included Asst. Secretaries of national security departments like the DOJ-National Security Division (John P Carlin) and FBI Counterintelligence Division (Bill Priestap). Massive numbers of administration officials including the DOJ and FBI had access to the PDB.
See where this is going?
Susan Rice is admitting to “unmasking” names within intelligence reports to give her context for how they pertain to the overall briefing material. That briefing material is the PDB. That PDB goes to dozens of political people and political entities, including the DOJ and FBI units investigating candidate Donald Trump.
This is the widespread distribution of intelligence information that former Asst. Deputy of Defense, Evelyn Farkas was discussing. Now, we go back to Farkas’s March 2nd, 2017 MSNBC statement for additional context:
“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”
Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill. … That’s why you had the leaking”.
That right there is the story. With dozens of people with access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of the intelligence report names gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, perhaps did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes, as outlined by Evelyn Farkas who was ultimately one of the recipients of the unmasked intelligence.
Additionally, that same material went directly to the people in the DOJ-NSD and FBI Counterintelligence who were conducting the “Trump Operation”.
The DOJ and FBI officials could comply with FISA-702 “minimization rules” (hiding of U.S. person’s names etc.) knowing full well that the unmasking could be done by the recipient of the FISA-702 source material, which would then be relayed back to the DOJ and FBI officials; the “small group”.
If you know how concentric circle political safety is constructed, you will notice that Susan Rice was then hugging the security of the Presidency. To take Rice down amid all of this unmasking, means to take down President Obama – back in March 2017 this was a safe play on her part.
Reverse the safety. No-one in ideological media or allies in congress were going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice and by extension President Obama. They had no choice.
Back to the interview and note how when shifting from rehearsed talking point (script) to cognitive explanation of Rices’ point , the noun shifts from “U.S. Person” to “U.S. Official”:
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
It’s subtle (like a Freudian slip), but Rice accidentally outlines her filter, her psychological trigger, for when to request the unmasking. She’s looking for the politics behind the intelligence. She’s looking for “U.S. Officials” in masked intelligence reports.
Mrs. Rice then follows up with a “hypothetical example” that is ridiculous as she describes. The example provided (a sketchy dude in mom’s basement) would NEVER reach the level of PDB; it would be pre-filtered, researched and reviewed for value. The PDB NEVER contains such banal information as Rice describes.
The interview goes much further. There is a lot of news in this interview. There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.
Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB. Rice states the PDB intel community, those assembling the information, to be very specific: James Clapper (DNI), James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers), and she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review (like a dude in mom’s basement):
Summary: In addition to the FISA702 material, and the material given by the current DOJ and FBI to Devin Nunes, there are strong indications the PDB material is part of the underlying information which backstops the Nunes Memo.
Devin Nunes, Admiral Mike Rogers and ODNI Dan Coats likely know exactly what Nunes has seen and where all of the underlying evidence is located. No-one else does, including Adam Schiff, despite having read the Nunes memo.
The important part of the House Memo release will be within the *footnotes* and *citations*, and the need to declassify that material will be the next phase in the sunlight.
Now we can see how Nunes brilliantly reversed the Paradox?
With help from a few friends:
LONDON (Reuters) – Goldman Sachs (GS.N) is cutting almost 30 percent of its 300 investment banking jobs in Asia outside Japan in response to a slowdown in activity in the region, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The Wall Street bank is reducing the number of bankers working on mergers and acquisitions (M&A), and equity and debt capital markets deals, the sources said. It will be left with slightly more than 200 bankers across Asia.
Most of the jobs cuts are likely to take place in Hong Kong, Singapore and China, where Goldman’s main Asian offices are located, according to the sources, who said the process was underway.
A Goldman Sachs spokesman declined to comment.
The company, whose investment banking revenue fell 11 percent to $1.79 billion in the second quarter, has been hit by a lacklustre environment for deals across Asia.
The total value of M&A deals across the Asia-Pacific region has dropped to $572.9 billion so far this year, from $745.7 billion in the same period of 2015, according to Thomson Reuters data.
Goldman said in July it had embarked on a cost-cutting plan that would save $700 million a year in response to a “challenging backdrop” for revenue.
It still tops the Asia-Pacific M&A league tables but in the first half of the year it came third after JPMorgan (JPM.N) and Citi (C.N) as the biggest bank by revenue in Asia, according to data published on Friday by industry analytics firm Coalition.
One of the sources said no managing directors in Asia were in the running to be made partners this year while three existing partners in the region had been stripped of their titles.
Goldman and other big investment banks are grappling with a harsh environment after the region’s economies and markets failed to deliver sustained growth after the 2008 financial crisis. The banks’ business has also been eroded by local competitors.
In 2015 Goldman reduced the number of its investment bankers in Singapore – a hub for Southeast Asia – to about 35 from 50, several sources said.
There have been further departures this year, including its Southeast Asia chairman Tim Leissner.
Many of Goldman’s European rivals have announced plans to scale down their operations in Asia.
Barclays (BARC.L) said in January that it would cut about 1,000 staff in its investment bank operations worldwide, with the bulk happening in Asia, while Societe Generale (SOGN.PA) decided to close its equities research desk in India.
Other European banks including BNP Paribas (BNPP.PA) and Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) are expected to scale back operations in non-core Asian markets while last year Asia-focused Standard Chartered (STAN.L) shut down its equities franchise.
Goldman employs just over 100 bankers in China, where it was one of the first foreign investment banks to start operations. But like other banks it has been hit by a drop in Chinese trading volumes and competition from local banks.
“Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government?
Are there any tips you can give me?”
“Well,” said the Queen,
“The most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people.”
Obama frowned, and then asked,
“But how do I know if the people around me are really intelligent?”
The Queen took a sip of champagne.
“Oh, that’s easy; you just ask them to answer an intelligent riddle, watch.”
The Queen pushed a button on her intercom.
“Please send Theresa May in here, would you?”
Theresa May walked into the room and said, “Yes, your Majesty?”
The Queen smiled and said,
“Answer me this please, Theresa. Your mother and father have a child.
It is not your brother, and it is not your sister. Who is it?”
Without pausing for a moment, Theresa May answered,
”That would be me.”
“Yes! Very good.” said the Queen.
Obama went back home to ask Joe Biden the same question.
“Joe, answer this for me.
Your mother and your father have a child.
It’s not your brother and it’s not your sister.
Who is it?”
“I’m not sure,” said Biden.
“Let me get back to you on that one.”
He went to his advisors and asked everyone,
But none could give him an answer.
Frustrated, Biden went to work out in congressional gym and saw Paul Ryan there.
Biden went up to him and asked,
“Hey, Paul, see if you can answer this question.
“Your mother and father have a child, and it’s not your brother or your sister.
Who is it?”
Paul Ryan answered, “That’s easy; it’s me!”
Biden smiled, and said, “Good answer, Paul!”
Biden then, went back to speak with President Obama.
“Say, I did some research, and I have the answer to that riddle.”
“It’s Paul Ryan!”
Obama got up, stomped over to Biden, and angrily yelled into his face,
“NO, you idiot! It’s Theresa May!”
…AND THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS PRECISELY WHAT’S GOING ON AT THE WHITE HOUSE
On Friday, March 18th, a combined effort by George Soros, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Tayyip Erdogan, has arranged to get the EU to abandon previously sacrosanct fundamental human rights of refugees, and to transfer $6B+ to Turkey, in return for placing the refugee burden onto Turkey and getting Turkey to cooperate so as to assist the breakup of Syria, which will enable a gas-pipeline and an oil-pipeline to be built through Syria to enable Qatar’s gas and Saudi Arabia’s oil to be pipelined through Syria into the EU, so as to replace Russian oil and gas, which now fuel the EU.
Here, in my rush translations from the original German-language reports at German Economic News (Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten) are the key reports and headlines:
Turkey deal: Germany could take majority of refugees
[Translated by Eric Zuesse from] German Economic News | Published:18:03:16 02:56 Clock
The most important consequence of the EU summit is not in the official statement. A plan long discussed, now finalizing: Germany takes the majority of refugees from Turkey, and oil and gas pipelines will replace Russian oil and gas to Europe by Saudi oil and Qatari gas.
Europe’s energy supply should result in future Syria. (Graphic: oilprice.net)
According to Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, the leaders of the European Union mutually agreed with Turkey to cut Russia out of the EU gas market, cut Qatar [a U.S. ally] in. They agreed in the early hours of Friday on a refugee-&-gas-pipeline package to be approved by the Turkish government.
This agreement will substantially correspond to the Pact of Angela Merkel with Turkish President Erdogan. But it apparently comprises only a small portion of the prepared between Germany, Turkey and the USA.
Gerald Knaus, director of the Soros-funded think tank “European Stability Initiative” (ESI), for many months now has been advising Chancellor Angela Merkel on the refugee crisis. His ESI submitted the plan in October.
The original plan consists of two parts: On the one hand, Germany should, during the coming year, “grant 500,000 Syrian refugees asylum, who are now in Turkey.” Other European countries may participate, but on a voluntary basis. At the same time Turkey will take from Greece “all new migrants.”
Knaus, himself Austrian, told the Viennese daily the press, that “in the background, a more radical idea has already been largely negotiated” which will “probably very soon be announced“: Knaus said that a “coalition of the willing” will take 900 Syrians per day — “no matter how many Syrians come to Greece.” This would be about 300,000 people per year — slightly less than in the original Soros plan.
The reason for Europe’s acquisition of hundreds of thousands of refugees is obvious: The proposed EU summit one-to-one solution would not be enough to relieve Turkey significantly. Moreover, it’s not lawful from the perspective of the Geneva Convention, as human rights organizations have complained since the start of the Soros proposal. The coalition of the willing currently consists of Germany, Portugal and Sweden. Austria has not yet agreed. Presumably Merkel will move some other countries also to participate. Thus, the plan could be presented as a European solution.
From an organizational standpoint, Knaus thinks that consideration in Turkey of the plan will succeed in an agreement being reached. Knaus holds this to be essential. He told the newspaper Die Welt: “The acceptance, by the public, of receiving the refugees is essential. Had we in Europe started earlier with a quota solution, we’d be farther along today. I think that also Sweden and Austria would have been on our side. Unfortunately, the process in the past year fell out of control. We had no idea who is coming into our country. This fueled fears. ”
The Soros plan is apparently agreed with the US government. Angela Merkel supported in this way the geopolitical plans of the Americans, who have a special interest in developing their energy policies in the region. They are planning the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). Construction of TAP is pushed by the United States. This will run from the Turkish border via Greece, Albania and the Strait of Otranto to Italy. Thus, one of the main refugee routes to Europe, which is particularly overloaded after the closure of the Balkan route, will be cleared for pipelining gas into Europe.
Further destabilization of the TAP region is therefore not in the interests of the United States. They also want to ensure that Europe is supplied via a pipeline that’s under US control, not under Russian control. The US and Russia are fighting for the European energy market.
It is interesting in this context that a competing Russian pipeline through Syrian territory could also result. The surprising retreat of the Russians from Syria might suggest that there could be an agreement between Russia and the US: In this way, the geopolitical interests of both Great Powers could be safeguarded. The relationship between the pipeline projects and the war in Syria has the raw material site Oilprice.net analyzed in order that all parties want to solve the dependence of Saudi oil.
In this connection the role of the Americans is also in the media largely ignored regarding the visiting US diplomat Victoria Nuland in Idomeni. Nuland’s pithy sayings (such as “fuck the EU”) and her role in Ukraine, made her try to become known as a Goodwill Ambassador for Europe; she Thursday visited the refugee camps in the northern Greek Idomeni, reports Kathimerini .
The Turkish news portal Haberler reports what Nuland said in Idomeni: “It needs to be done for these people more. Athens has made a direct request to Washington. In this difficult situation, I’m here, for American-Greek solidarity. We will work together to solve the problem of distribution of refugees within the EU. In addition, we want to help ensure that the deal between the EU and Turkey is fair and transparent. It’s time to better accommodate the migrants. ”
On 11 March, Nuland met with representatives of the Greek government in Athens to discuss the full range of bilateral and regional issues, including the request for assistance of Greece to the United States, in solving the migration problem, reported the US State Department .
This context could explain also why Angela Merkel has waited so long to go to the German public with a real plan for the refugee crisis — even though they have long been familiar with the Soros plan and he apparently also laid the basis with the Chancellor for Turkey jointly to launch the proposal at the EU summit: this was to help Merkel not to inflame sentiment in Germany before the state elections. Because the message that Germany could possibly be the only country to take a large number of refugees, would have a serious impact that has led even without this perspective to tectonic shifts in favor of the AFD [anti-immigrant party].
Knaus sees the axis Ankara-Berlin as crucial for geopolitical orientation against Russia. He said in an international interview that Germany made the mistake not to place undue reliance on the EU Commission: “Germany has early understood much. But it made the mistake of relying too much on the implementation by the Commission. Germany would have taken matters into its own hands earlier.”
Knaus sees the role of Germany as partners with Turkey and the USA. Here lies the common interest to host the refugees: “Germany does not expire like other states in an anti-Islam rhetoric. At the same time it sees Ankara, in a delicate geostrategic position between anti-Muslim governments in Europe and a strong Putin. A successful and connected in partnership by Berlin may be worth a lot for Turkey and its approach to Europe.”
This closes the circle for the TAP pipeline: The Americans want to snatch the European energy market away from Russia. In the absence of our own energy policy, Europeans are currently completely dependent on Russia. If both pipelines – quasi in a duopoly of the Americans and the Russians – are built, the energy policy space for the EU would increase significantly.
That led to the present situation, a murderous war that’s driven hundreds of thousands from Syria and Iraq. It had to be, from a geopolitical point of view of the parties — Russia, the US and the EU — regarded as collateral damage.
After all, the Soros plan would in fact lead to the result that the right of asylum would be respected so that immigration to Europe is not completely disordered. What guarantees that the EU gets Turkey to treat the refugees humanely, is completely unclear. It also is unclear whether the acceptance of refugees in Germany can be satisfactorily prepared. It also remains open whether the EU will have, as a result of the apparent cleavage of the project, neither the power to play as a political union, nor a role that goes beyond that of simply a large, attractive market.
EU and Turkey Reach Agreement on Refugees
The EU and Turkey have agreed on a deal. The deal enters into force on March 20. From then on, refugees who arrive irregularly in Greece will be returned to Turkey.
German Economic News | March 18, 2016, 19:08 Clock
The human rights organization Pro Asyl has sharply condemned the deal with Turkey. Today is a day of mourning for the right of asylum. The organization announces that it will file lawsuits.
German Economic News | March 18, 2016, 19:00 Clock
EU deal: Turkey does not agree to respect human rights Angela Merkel and Dutch Mark Rutte at the summit in Brussels. (Ph
The deal with Turkey stipulates that Turkey serves as large refugee camps for the EU. Turkey seems to have succeeded to determine the standards for the treatment of refugees and migrants. A commitment to respect for human rights was deleted from the final document.
German Economic News | March 18, 2016, 18:13 Clock