DW: John Bolton says Iran is 'almost certainly' behind oil tanker 'attacks'
US President Trump's national security adviser did not provide evidence but claimed Iran was behind attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Tehran called the accusation "laughable."
US National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Wednesday that Iran was likely behind the attacks on four ships off the coast of the United Arab Emirates earlier this month.
Bolton made the remarks in Abu Dhabi, during a visit to the Emirati capital "to discuss important and timely regional security matters."
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Iran has responded .... Iran Lambasts Bolton's Accusations of Involvement in Attacks on UAE Oil Tankers (Sputnik). More here .... Iran lashes out at ‘warmonger’ Bolton over ‘ridiculous’ claims about UAE oil tanker attacks (RT).
More News On U.S. National Security Advise Bolton's Claims That Iranian Mines Are Likely Responsible For Tanker Attacks Off The Coast Of UAE
Top U.S. security aide: Iranian mines likely caused UAE tanker blasts -- Reuters
In UAE, Trump’s adviser warns Iran of ‘very strong response’ -- AP
Iran 'almost certainly' behind ship attacks off UAE, says Bolton -- France 24
Tankers almost certainly damaged by Iranian naval mines, US says -- BBC
John Bolton says UAE tanker attacks were ‘almost certainly from Iran’ -- CNBC
Iran 'almost certainly' sabotaged ships off UAE, Bolton says -- FOX News
Bolton says Iranian mines likely used in UAE oil-tanker attacks -- Al Jazeera
John Bolton: Iran naval mines ‘almost certainly’ used in Fujairah tanker attacks -- The National
Bolton says Iran behind oil tanker attack off UAE...'almost certainly' -- RT
Bolton seeking a place in history along with other war criminals of the past.
ReplyDeleteSteve bannon predicts donald trump's downfall once investigations into his finances prove he is 'just another scumbag,' claims book
ReplyDeletenewsweek.com/bannon...
Adhd kickin in can't even stay on topic ��
ReplyDeleteFull transcript: Robert Mueller’s statement on the Russia investigation
ReplyDelete"And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction to the Volume 2 of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.
A special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you.
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.
And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.
So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president."
Says it all. He's likely as guilty as hell. Interesting that it is a DOJ departmental policy that a sitting President cannot be charged with a federal, offense which is unconstitutional. Seems like the DOJ needs to be charged with violating the Constitution. I wonder about being charged with a violation of the Constitution's Emoluments clause. Would the DOJ avoid that too?