II Türkei Putsch nach Willy Wimmer

Verschiedene Thesen unter https://futuretrendblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/tuerkei-misslungener-staatsstreich/

Wimmer sieht hinter dem Putsch die USA. Er meint, die Russen haben Errdogan gewarnt und deshalb sei Putsch misslungen. Grund sei, dass die Amerikaner dem türkischen Präsidenten durchgeben wollten, wer hier der Chef im Haus ist.

Der Hinweis auf die USA sei durch seine Aussage, dass Gülen dahinter stecke. Das sei nach Wimmer ein diplomatischer Hinweis an alle anderen gewesen.

Quelle: Wimmer in KenFM

 

Nachtrag 1: Sibel Edmond: Putschversuch war ein Problelauf, um herauszufinden, wer (Regierung, Militär Verwaltung, Bevölkerung…) wie reagiert und um dann den richtigen Putsch auch effektiv durchführen zu können. (corbettreport.com

 

Nachtrag 2: möglicher 2.Coup verhindert? vgl. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-30/turkey-surrounds-blocks-access-natos-incirlik-airbase-amid-speculation-second-coup

Turkey Surrounds, Blocks Access To NATO’s Incirlik Airbase Amid Speculation Of Second Coup

Tyler Durden's picture

While it is common knowledge by now that the failed and/or staged Turkish coup two weekends ago was nothing more than an excuse for Erdogan to concentrate even more power and eradicate all political and independent opposition, a story that has gotten less attention is the sudden, and acute deterioration in US-Turkish relations. This culminated two days ago when the Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM) General Joseph Votel was forced to deny on the record having anything to do with the attempted coup in Turkey following pointed allegations from the very top in the local government that the US orchestrated last Friday’s „coup“, according to a statement released by the US military on Friday.

As Stars and Stripes reported late last week, the recent failed coup and jailing of military leaders in Turkey could impact U.S. operations there against the Islamic State group, Gen. Joseph Votel said Thursday at a security conference in Colorado. Votel said the coup attempt in Turkey two weeks ago left him “concerned” about how U.S. operations and personnel at Incirlik Air Base will be affected.


Army Gen. Joseph Votel, commander of U.S. Central Command

„Turkey of course …sits on an extraordinarily important seam between the central region and Europe,” Votel said at the Aspen Security Forum. “It will have an impact on the operations we do along that very important seam. Obviously, we are very dependent on Turkey for basing of our resources…I am concerned it will impact the level of cooperation and collaboration that we have with Turkey.”

Yeni Safak, a daily paper known for its loyal support of Erdogan, even reported retired Army Gen. John F. Campbell, former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, was the mastermind behind the attempted overthrow. However, the paper also reported White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest called the allegations against the general unsubstantiated.

Votel said Thursday that the United States was “continuing to work through some of the friction that continues to exist” following the failed coup. He did not elaborate.

The general did say some of the arrested Turkish officers worked with U.S. personnel to coordinate airstrikes against the Islamic State group. “Yes, I think some of them are in jail,” Votel said of certain key Turkish military liaisons.

As a result of the coup attempt, U.S. air operations were temporarily suspended and the Turkish government cut power to Incirlik.

The diplomatic spat continued on Friday when comments made at an Erdogan’s rally once again blasted Votel for criticizing Turkey’s  post-coup attempt purge saying „Who are you? Know your place.“ Erdogan went on to hint once more that the United States planned the failed government overthrow bid.

To this Votel again responded that „any reporting that I had anything to do with the recent unsuccessful coup attempt in Turkey is unfortunate and completely inaccurate,“ Votel said. He was responding to an interpretation of comments made at a think tank in Washington, DC by Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accusing Votel of sympathizing with the coup plotters.

* * *

Meanwhile, Turkey’s war of words against the US escalated on Friday, when Turkey’s authoritarian despot Erdogan condemned the West for refusing to show solidarity with Ankara, accusing NATO ‚allies‘ as being more concerned about the fate of coup supporters than the survival of Turkey are not friends of Ankara. Erdogan blasted the West for criticizing the massive purge of Turkey’s military and other state institutions which has seen 60,000 people detained, removed or suspended over suspected links with the coup and for cancelling 50,000 civilian passports which many worry is but a prelude to an expansion of the reign of terror inside the country.

„The attitude of many countries and their officials over the coup attempt in Turkey is shameful in the name of democracy,“ Erdogan told hundreds of supporters at the presidential palace in Ankara.

„Any country and any leader who does not worry about the life of Turkish people and our democracy as much as they worry about the fate of coupists are not our friends,“ said Erdogan, who narrowly escaped capture and perhaps death on the night of the coup.

As Sputnik notes, the statements come in response to US National Intelligence Director James Clapper’s statement on Thursday that the purges were harming the fight against Daesh in Syria and Iraq by stripping away key Turkish officers who had worked closely with the United States.

„My people know who is behind this scheme… they know who the superior intelligence behind it is, and with these statements you are revealing yourselves, you are giving yourselves away.“  The remarks come at a troubling time only one day after over 5,000 protesters yelling „death to the US“ marched towards NATO’s critical Incirlik Air Base which houses between 50 and 90 US tactical nuclear weapons before security officials successfully dispersed the raging demonstrators.

* * *

Which brings us to today, and the news that NATO’s critical Incirlik Air Base was hours ago completely blocked off by Turkey, with all inputs and outputs to the Adana base having been closed according to Turkey’s Hurriyet among rumors of yet another coup.

 

As the Turkish Minister for European Affairs, Omar Celik, tweeted moments ago, this is just a routine „safety inspection“, although it has not stopped local papers from speculating that a a second Gulen-inspired coup attempt may be underway.

Hurriyet has raised concern that the closing may be tied to an attempt by the Erdogan regime to prevent a second coup attempt.

Some 7,000 armed police with heavy vehicles have surrounded and blocked the Incirlik air base in Adana used by NATO forces, already restricted in the aftermath of a failed coup. Unconfirmed reports say troops were sent to deal with a new coup attempt.

Hurriyet reported earlier that Adana police had been tipped off about a new coup attempt, and forces were immediately alerted. The entrance to the base was closed off.  Security forces armed with rifles and armored TOMA vehicles used by Turkish riot police could be seen at the site in photos taken by witnesses.

Indeed, the massive presence of armed police supported by heavy vehicles calls into question the Turkish government’s official line that the lock down at the Incirlik base is merely a „safety inspection.“?

Local media has focused on the base after the failed coup in Turkey occurred the night of July 15. Although the main scenes of the events were Istanbul and Ankara, Incirlik was shut down  for a time by local authorities shortly after the putsch, and several Turkish soldiers from the base were deemed by Turkish officials to be involved in the overthrow attempt.

The lockdown at Incirlik follows a massive wave of protests on Thursday when pro-Erdogan nationalists took to the streets yelling „death to the US“ and called for the immediate closure of the Incirlik base. Security personnel dispersed the protesters before they were able to make it to the base.

And while there has been no official statement from US armed forces stationed at Incirlik at this time, the situation continues to develop in front of the air bBase as more heavy trucks have been dispatched to surround and block access to the critical military facility.

It is unclear if Erdogan is naive enough to think that he can out-bluff and out-bully the US and keep Incirlik hostage until he gets Gulen repatriated by Obama on a silver platter, a hostage „tit for tat“ we first described two weeks ago. If so, one wonders, if he is doing so alone, or with the moral support of others, perhaps such recently prominent enemies of Erdogan as Vladimir Putin. Recall that just over a month ago Erdogan publicly apologized to Putin for downing the Russian Su-24 fighter jet in November, and called Putin „a friend.“

Finally, at least as of this moment, it appears that theairspace around Incirlik is closed.

 

 

Advertisements

DNC Convention: Was mit Bernies Sprechchören zu tun ist

Leon Panetta, ehem. Verteidigungsminister wurde von Sandernistas mit No more war Rufen unterbrochen. Von Clinton Seite hört man „USA“ Rufe, dann wurde auch Licht im Sanders-Block gelöscht und evtl. white noise Maschinen eingesetzt.

The Problem with Chanting “USA”

These were instructions passed around during the last night of the Wells Fargo Arena Anti-Russia Don’t-Say-TPP Call-It-Debt-Free-College-Not-Free-College Democratic Party Extravaganza. Noise Makers were deployed. Lights could be switched off on people as needed. Delegates were prevented from walking out. And chants like “Black Lives Matter” and “Love Is Love” were joined in by the corporatists.

However, if you chanted “Ban Fracking Now,” they would chant “Hillary” back at you, as if having Hillary as their beloved leader was better than banning fracking. Also if you chanted “Stop TPP” or “Walk the Walk” you’d be greeted by screams of “Hillary!”

But what if you shouted “No More War”? Wouldn’t they join in and try to own that one? Don’t Christmas decorations even today still sometimes say “Peace on Earth”? Didn’t Tim Kaine pretend in his speech that Woodrow Wilson was a peace maker? Doesn’t the Pentagon claim that it kills people for peace? Wouldn’t trying to shout down opposition to war be a step too far even for a pro-fracking, pro-corporate-trade, cult of personality?

The response of USA has got to be the worst choice they could have gone with. The poison of nationalism/patriotism is the driving force behind support for mass-murder expeditions. It turns clever shouts into mindless obedience.

Shout this over and over again, out loud: Hey You Ass Hey You Ass Hey You Ass Hey. Not the nicest thing to scream at a retired four-star mass-murderer, but still less repulsive than USA, USA, USA. This was supposed to be a convention marketing a candidate, an incredibly unpopular candidate, as the anti-fascist. Instead it became the convention of militarism, bluster, and blind loyalty to the god of war.

Türkei, misslungener Staatsstreich?

Staatsstreich durch einige Militärs am 15./16.7.2016 ist misslungen und Erdogan säubert nun die Gerichte und alle Institutionen, die kritisch gegenüber ihm und seiner AKP eingestellt sind.

Dazu gibt es verschiedene Thesen.

  1. Erdogan hat den Putsch selbst inszeniert, um seine Gegner/Opposition auszuschalten. Eine Art Reichstagbrand 2.0. Die Putschisten waren mit wenigen Panzern und Flugzeugen sowie nur teilweiser Kapperung von Regeriungsgebäuden, Parlament, wichtigen Personen und wichtigen öffentlichen Diensten (z.B. Internet, Medien, Wasser und Elektrizität)
  2. Die USA haben die Finger im Spiel entweder direkt über die CIA oder indirekt die Gülen-Sekte, der scheinbar einige putschende Offiziere angehören sollen. (These von Autoren in russischen oder russenfreundlichen Blogs  http://katehon.com/   http://thesaker.is/military-coup-in-turkey-sitrep-by-scott/)
  3. Russland hat Putsch angestossen, weil es ein Interesse hat, dass Erdogan von der Macht verschwindet.
  4. Es war eine rein innertürkische Verschwörung im Offizierskorps, die schlecht ausgeführt wurde
  5. Jemand anderes

 

Bewertung: Erst die Zeit wird zeigen, was es wirklich war. Man kann aber sagen: Erdogan profitiert davon, weil er jetzt seine Opposition ohne Wiederstand verhaften und entmachten kann.

Erdogan hatte sich erst kürzlich bei Putin entschuldigt und dort schienen die politischen Beziehungen wieder besser zu werden. Da ist ein Putsch eher ungünstig, insbesondere wenn er nicht gelingt.

Russia and Turkey just confirmed their agreement to organize bilateral meeting of the countries leaders.

 

Hintergründe:

The Attempted Coup in Turkey: Hell Hath No Fury Like a Teflon Sultan

shutterstock_303423746

thomas koch | Shutterstock.com

 

When Turkish President/aspiring Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdogan landed at Istanbul’s Ataturk airport early Saturday morning, he declared the attempted coup against his government a failure, and a “gift from God.”

God apparently uses Face Time. It was via that iconic iPhone footage from an undisclosed location shown live on CNN Turk by a bewildered female anchor that Erdogan managed to call his legion of followers to hit the streets, unleash People Power and defeat the military faction that had taken over state TV and proclaimed to be in charge.

So God does work in mysterious mobile ways. Erdogan’s call was heeded even by young Turks who had fiercely protested against him in Gezi Park; were tear-gassed or water-cannoned by his police; think the AKP governing party is disgusting; but would support them against a “fascist military coup.” Not to mention that virtually every mosque across Turkey relayed Erdogan’s call.

Ankara’s official version is that the coup was perpetrated by a small military faction remote-controlled by exiled-in-Pennsylvania cleric Fethullah Gulen, himself a CIA asset. As much as responsibility remains debatable, what’s clear is the coup was a Turk remix of The Three Stooges; the actual stooges in fact may have been the already detained 2nd Army Commander Gen. Adem Huduti; 3rd Army Commander Erdal Ozturk; and former Chief of Air Staff Akin Ozturk.

As over-excited former CIA ops were blaring on US networks – and they do know a thing or two about regime change — rule number one in a coup is to aim at, and isolate, the head of the snake. Yet the wily Turkish snake, in this case, was nowhere to be seen. Not to mention that no top generals sounding convincingly patriotic went on the TRT state network to fully explain the reasons for the coup.

(Erdogan) love is in the air

The coup plotters did aim at the intel services – whose top positions are at Istanbul’s airport, the presidential palace in Ankara and near the ministries. They used Cobra helicopters – with pilots trained in the US – against these targets. They also aimed at the army’s high command – which for the past 8 years is designated by Erdogan and is not trusted by many a mid-ranking officer.

As they occupied the Bosphorus bridges in Istanbul they seemed to be in touch with military police – which is spread out all over Turkey and have a solid esprit de corps. But in the end they did not have the numbers – and the necessary preparation. All key ministries seemed to be communicating among themselves as the plot developed, as well as the intel services. And as far as Turkish police as a whole is concerned, they are now a sort of AKP pretorian guard.

Meanwhile, Erdogan’s Gulfstream 4, flight number TK8456, took off from Bodrum’s airport at 1:43 A.M. and flew for hours over Turkey’s northwest with its transponder on, undisturbed. It was from the presidential plane, while still landed, that Erdogan had gone on Face Time, and then, on the air, managed to control the countercoup. The plane never left Turkish airspace – and was totally visible to civil and military radars. The coup plotters’ F-16s could have easily tracked and/or incinerated it. Instead they sent military choppers to bomb the presidential abode in Bodrum a long time after he had left the building.

The head of the snake must have been 100% sure that to board his plane and stay on Turkish airspace was as safe as eating a baklava. What’s even more startling is that the Gulfstream managed to land in Istanbul in absolute safety in the early hours of Saturday morning – despite the prevailing notion that the airport was occupied by the “rebels”.

In Ankara, the “rebels” used a mechanized division and two commandos. Around Istanbul there was a whole army; the 3rd command is actually integrated with NATO’s rapid reaction forces. They supplied the Leopards positioned in Istanbul’s key spots – which by the way did not open fire.

And yet the two key armies positioned in the Syrian and Iranian borders remained on “wait and see” mode. And then, at 2 A.M., the command of the also key 7th army based in Diyarbakir – in charge of fighting the PKK guerrillas – proclaimed his loyalty to Erdogan. That was the exact, crucial moment when Prime Minister Binali Yildırım announced a no-fly zone over Ankara.

That meant Erdogan controlled the skies. And the game was over. History does move in mysterious ways; the no-fly zone dreamed by Erdogan for so long over Aleppo or the Syrian-Turkish border in the end materialized over his own capital.

Round up the usual suspects

The US position was extremely ambiguous from the start. As the coup took over, the American embassy in Turkey called it “Turkish uprising”. Secretary of State John Kerry, in Moscow to discuss Syria, also hedged his bets. NATO was royally mute. Only when it became clear the coup was in fact smashed President Obama and the “NATO allies” officially proclaimed their “support for the democratically elected government”.

The Sultan went back to the game with a vengeance. He immediately went live on CNN Turk demanding Washington hands over Gulen even without any evidence he masterminded the coup. And that came with an inbuilt threat; “If you want to keep access to Incirlik air base you will have to give me Gulen”. It’s hard not to be reminded of recent history – when the Cheney regime in 2001 demanded the Taliban hand Osama bin Laden over to the US without offering proof he was responsible for 9/11.

So the number one eyebrow-raising possibility is a go; Erdogan’s intel services knew a coup was brewing; and the wily Sultan let it happen knowing it would fail as the plotters had very limited support. He also arguably knew – in advance — even the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), whose members Erdogan is trying to expel from parliament, would support the government in the name of democracy.

Two extra facts add to the credibility of this hypothesis. Earlier last week Erdogan signed a bill giving soldiers immunity from prosecution while taking part in domestic security ops – as in anti-PKK; that spells out improved relations between the AKP government and the army. And then Turkey’s top judicial body HSYK laid off no less than 2,745 judges after an extraordinary meeting post-coup. This can only mean the list was more than ready in advance.

The major, immediate post-coup geopolitical consequence is that Erdogan now seems to have miraculously reconquered his “strategic depth” – as former, sidelined Prime Minister Davutoglu would have it. Not only externally – after the miserable collapse of both his Middle East and Kurdish “policies” – but also internally. For all practical purposes Erdogan now controls the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary – and is taking no prisoners to purge the military for good. Ladies and gentlemen, the Sultan is in da house.

This means the neo-Ottoman project is still on – but now under massive tactical reorientation. The real “enemy” now is Syrian Kurds – not Russia and Israel (and not ISIS/ISIL/Daesh; but they never were in the first place). Erdogan is going after the YPG, which for him is a mere extension of the PKK. His order of the day is to prevent by all means an autonomous state entity in northeast Syria – a “Kurdistan” set up like a second Israel supported by the US. For that he needs some sort of entente cordiale with Damascus – as in insisting that Syria must preserve its territorial integrity. And that also means, of course, renewed dialogue with Russia.

So what’s the CIA been up to?

Needless to add Ankara and Washington are now on a certified collision course. If there is an Empire of Chaos hidden hand in the coup – no smoking gun yet — that certainly comes from the Beltway neocon/CIA axis, not the lame duck Obama administration. For the moment Erdogan’s leverage only amounts to access to Incirlik. But his paranoia is ballooning; for him Washington is doubly suspicious because they harbor Gulen and support the YPG.

Hell hath no fury as an underestimated Sultan as well. For all his recent geopolitical follies, Erdogan’s simultaneous ballet of reconnecting with Israel and Russia is eminently pragmatic. He knows he needs Russia for the Turkish Stream and to build nuclear plants;  and he needs Israeli gas to consolidate Turkey’s role as a key East-West energy crossroads.

When we learn, crucially, that Iran supported Turkey’s “brave defense of democracy”, as tweeted by Foreign Minister Zarif, it’s clear how Erdogan, in a mater of only a few weeks, reconfigured the whole regional picture. And that spells out Eurasia integration and Turkey deeply connected to the New Silk Roads – not NATO. No wonder the Beltway – for whom, overwhelmingly, Erdogan is the proverbial “erratic and unreliable ally” — is freaking out. That dream of Turkish colonels under direct CIA orders is over – at least for the foreseeable future.

So what about Europe? Yildirim already said that Turkey might reinstate the death penalty – to be applied to the coup plotters. This means, in essence, bye bye EU. And bye bye to the European Parliament approving visa-free travel for Turks visiting Europe. Erdogan after all already got what he wanted from chancellor Merkel; those 6 billion euros to contain the refugee crisis that he essentially unleashed. Merkel bet the farm on Erdogan. Now she’s talking to herself – while the Sultan is able to dial God on Face Time.

This piece first appeared in Sputnik.

 

 

Anschlag in Nizza, Frankreich

Regierung verlängert den Ausnahmezustand um 3 Monate, der jetzt ausgelaufen wäre. Frankreich ist seit den Anschlägen keine rechtsstaaltiche Republik mehr, weil Regierung autokratisch agieren kann.

 

 

wiki 1:

Präsident François Hollande sagte nach dem Anschlag in einer nächtlichen Ansprache an die Nation: „Frankreich ist an einem 14. Juli angegriffen worden, dem Symbol der Freiheit.“ Frankreich werde den Angriff auf die Freiheit nicht hinnehmen und werde seine Werte verteidigen.[40] Hollande kündigte an, die Angriffe auf die Terrororganisation Islamischer Staat auszuweiten. Weil ganz Frankreich vom islamistischen Terrorismus bedroht sei, werde man Reserven bei den Sicherheitskräften und Soldaten mobilisieren. Insbesondere das Personal an den französischen Grenzen solle aufgestockt werden.[41] Hollande entschied, den Ausnahmezustand, der bereits als Reaktion auf die Terroranschläge am 13. November 2015 in Paris für ganz Frankreich verhängt worden war und seither ununterbrochen gegolten hatte, um drei Monate zu verlängern; noch wenige Stunden vor dem Anschlag hatte er in seinem Interview zum Nationalfeiertag die Aufhebung des Notstands zum 26. Juli 2016 angekündigt.[40]

 

Wiki 2

In Frankreich kann der Ausnahmezustand (État d’urgence) laut Gesetz vom Präsidenten ausgerufen werden, „für den Fall unmittelbarer Gefahr durch schwere Gefährdungen der öffentlichen Ordnung“ oder „für den Fall von Ereignissen, die durch ihre Art und ihre Schwere den Charakter einer öffentlichen Katastrophe darstellen“. Der Staat kann Ausgangssperren verhängen und die Einschränkung der Bewegungsfreiheit ist möglich. Wohnungsdurchsuchungen ohne richterlichen Beschluss sind ebenso möglich wie Hausarrest für Menschen, deren „Aktivität“ als „gefährlich für die Sicherheit und die öffentliche Ordnung“ angesehen wird. Außerdem können die Behörden Versammlungsverbote verhängen und Konzertsäle sowie Kinos schließen lassen. Der Ausnahmezustand kann zunächst für höchstens zwölf Tage verhängt werden. Eine Verlängerung darüber hinaus muss durch ein Gesetz gebilligt werden. Das Gesetz, das den Ausnahmezustand regelt, wurde 1955 mit Beginn des Algerienkrieges beschlossen. Nach dessen Ende wurde der Ausnahmezustand in Frankreich drei weitere Male verhängt: 1985 im Rahmen der Unruhen durch die Unabhängigkeitsbewegung der zu Frankreich gehörenden Inselgruppe Neukaledonien, nach den Unruhen 2005 und nach den Terroranschlägen vom 13. November 2015 in Paris.[4] Nur Stunden vor dem Anschlag in Nizza am 14. Juli 2016 wurde verkündet den Ausnahmezustand, der am 26. Juli ausgelaufen wäre nicht mehr zu verlängern.[5]

Warum Clinton nicht angeklagt wurde II

These: FBI Direktor Comey war sich unter der Anklagefrage nach „mishandling her emails“ nicht sicher, dass er eine 100% Verurteilung erhalten würde.

Comey wartet durch die Auflistung der Verfehlungen von Clinton, dass er einen Auftrag bekommt, eine Anklage zu untersuchen, die auch wirklich zu einer Verurteilung führt. Weil man kann im amerikanischen Justizsystem nicht jemanden verurteilen, wenn er in einem ersten Prozess für das Gleiche freigesprochen wurde.

Es ist ja so, dass nicht nur Clinton von den Emails und damit um die Sicherheitsverletzung wusste, sondern der ganze Regierungsapparat, der nicht interveniert hat und damit mitschuldig ist. Es brächte das ganzes System in Gefahr, weil sich alle nicht darum gekümmert haben und es ihnen offenbar egal war.

Clinton wird wg Email Server nicht angeklagt – die juristische Beweislage ist zu schwach

FBI Director James Comey makes a statement at FBI Headquarters in Washington on July 5, 2016.
FBI Director James Comey makes a statement at FBI Headquarters in Washington on July 5, 2016. | AP Photo

Transcript: FBI Director James B. Comey’s statement on the Clinton email investigation

07/05/16 11:35 AM EDT

Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

USA stärken Truppenpräsenz im Mittelmeer

2 Flugzeugträger sind ins Mittelmeer abkommandiert, um den Russen zu zeigen, dass sie nicht allein sind und in Syrien und der Ukraine freie Hand haben.

Die Träger sollen die Einsätzfähigkeit der USA auf dem gesamten Globus demonstrieren. Die Russen sehen dies dagegen als Provokation.

Was übrigens auch die Absicht der USA zu sein scheint. Aus momentaner Optik scheint den USA nichts lieber als einen begrenzten Konflikt mit Russland anzuzetteln, bei dem sie an der Seitenlinie stehen und ihre Partner (kleine Länder, die den Kopf für die USA hinhalten sollen, wenn es zu Konfliken mit Russland kommt) unterstützen.

Deutschland hat im vergangenen Jahr übrigens die Rüstungsverkaufe verdoppelt und ist Nummer fünf im Markt (auf die Jahre 2011-2015 gesehen). Dasselbe dürfte für die USA gelten. Lokale Konflikte (z.B. Jemen/Syrien)  sind ideale Gelegenheiten für Waffengeschäfte.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-04/putin-deploys-russian-aircraft-carrier-syria-retaliation-us-naval-build-mediterreane

One month ago, in a move which US military officials admitted was aimed squarely at „sending a clear message to Russia“, the US deployed not one but two aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean: the USS Truman and USS Eisenhower.  As we reported at the time, a military official in Washington said the Truman’s shift was a signal to Moscow and a demonstration of the Navy’s operational flexibility and reach. “It provides some needed presence in the Med to check…the Russians,” the official said. “The unpredictability of what we did with Truman kind of makes them think twice.”

The Truman would not be alone: the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier strike group will allegedly support “US national security interests in Europe.” “The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group (IKE CSG) entered the US 6th Fleet area of operations […] in support of US national security interests in Europe,” the US European Command (EUCOM) has announced.


US Carriers Truman and Eisenhower.

Naturally, in addition to sending Russia a message, the official reason was to further punish the perpetual scapegoat for all military activity in the region, the Islamic State: „Washington claims that the increased military presence is aimed at fighting Islamic State and balancing Russian extensive military efforts. “The presence of two carrier strike groups in the Mediterranean Sea demonstrates our commitment to safety and security in the region,” the statement read. “These forces further serve to support European allies and partners, deter potential threats and are capable of conducting operations in support of the counter-ISIL [Daesh] mission.”

As the WSJ notes, Rear Adm. Bret Batchelder, the highest-ranking officer on the carrier, told visiting reporters this week that moving the “capital ship” of the U.S. Navy from the Gulf through the Suez Canal is a flexing of muscle meant to reassure North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies of the American commitment to maintaining the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean.  “It is a demonstration of capability. That’s for sure,” he said. “There are undoubtedly folks who are watching that and this is just a graphic representation of what we’re capable of.”

The implication from this escalation was clear, and this is how we concluded less than a month ago:

„while the US may be hoping to „check“ the Russians, all this action which will be seen as the latest provocation by the Kremlin will do is further strain already chilly relations between Russia and the US.We expect Russia to respond by promptly deploying warships of its own to the Mediterranean in a repeat of the summer of 2013 when the beach off the Syrian coast was a parking lot of Russian, US, European and even Chinese warships.“

Once again this assessment proved correct, and as Tass reports, citing a military-diplomatic source in Moscow, Russia will respond to the US double aircraft carrier escalation, by deploying its own aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, to Syria where its unofficial role will be as a counterpoint to US naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean. The official justification for the deployment is the same as that of the US: to crush the Islamic State of course, to wit: „the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier will participate in delivering strikes against militants in Syria from an eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea in October 2016 – January 2017, a military-diplomatic source in Moscow told TASS on Saturday.“

A military and diplomatic source told TASS earlier that the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov would arrive in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea in autumn. The ship is currently undergoing shipbuilders’ trials in the Barents Sea after repairs.


Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

„The General Staff has prepared a plan for involvement of the deck aircraft in delivering strikes on terrorist groups in the Syrian Arab Republic, where the crews will practice taking off the carrier to deliver strikes on ground targets.“

Not only that, but according to the Russian source, the Kuzentsov will henceforth lead the the Russian navy’s „permanent grouping“ in the Mediterranean, meaning that at any one moment there will be at least on Russian and, correspondingly, at least one (or more) US carriers.

Thus, the source said, in autumn-winter, the strikes will be delivered both by the crews located at the Hmeymim Base, and the aircraft carrier’s crews „in most close coordination.“ „The Admiral Kuznetsov,“ which will lead the Russian Navy’s permanent grouping in the Mediterranean Sea, will be close to the Syrian shore „so that the deck aircraft have enough fuel to complete the military tasks and return back,“ the source said.

 

During the voyage, the source continued, the Admiral Kuznetsov „will have about 15 fighters Su-33 and MiG-29K/KUB and more than ten helicopters Ka-52K, Ka-27 and Ka-31.“

 

„The aircraft carrier will come to the Mediterranean Sea roughly before end of January – early February, after that it will return home and in February-March it will undergo maintenance and modernization in Severodvinsk, supposedly at Sevmash,“ the source added.

TASS added that it does not have official confirmation of this information, although we expect the Kremlin will shortly confirm this Russian response to the build up of US naval forces in the region, in keeping with Putin’s warning that he will promptly respond to the growing build up of NATO forces on Russia’s borders.