(ANOTHER GLOBALIST WHO NEEDS A WAR) – Boris Johnson: Likely ‘Putin’s decision’ to order use of nerve agent in UK

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson © Daniel Leal-Olivas / AFP

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said it is overwhelmingly likely it was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to direct the nerve agent attack against Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

During a museum visit in west London alongside his Polish counterpart Jacek Czaputowicz, Johnson said: “We have nothing against the Russians themselves. There is to be no Russophobia as a result of what is happening.”

“Our quarrel is with Putin’s Kremlin, and with his decision – and we think it overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision – to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the UK, on the streets of Europe for the first time since the Second World War.”

READ MORE: ‘Nice young man seeks place in history but lacks upbringing’: Lavrov on Williamson ‘shut up’ remark

Yesterday, Boris Johnson said the UK will allow for an independent international examination of the nerve agent which was used in the attack on the former double agent Sergei Skripal.

Writing in Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper, the UK Foreign Minister said the poisoning of the former spy was part of a “pattern of lawless behavior” by Russia. He also announced that the UK government will give international experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the Hague the opportunity to review Britain’s analysis of the sample.

Russia has repeatedly denied any involvement in the incident. Speaking at a news briefing Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused London of making “insane” accusations while refusing to provide Moscow with any evidence.

Johnson’s comments came after UK Prime Minister Theresa May announced the expulsion of some 23 Russian diplomats, on Wednesday. In turn, Johnson’s counterpart Sergei Lavrov confirmed to journalists that Moscow will respond in kind. Lavrov also iterated that Russia “has stopped paying attention” to allegations against them, suggesting it is a violation of international law that May is now refusing to work with Russia.


UK Russian false flag???? – (UK HAS TO MAKE THE GLOBALISTS HAPPY)

The poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal is looking more and more like a false flag to stur up tensions between the UK and Russia. The actions of the UK government have Ben dubious at best and it’s actions hark back to the weapons of mass destruction and the war based on that false narrative. In this video I show that the uks accusations are not backed up with hard evidence!



It was not clear why the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, issued the subpoena instead of simply asking for the documents from the company. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has subpoenaed the Trump Organization to turn over documents, including some related to Russia, according to two people briefed on the matter. The order is the first known time that the special counsel demanded documents directly related to President Trump’s businesses, bringing the investigation closer to the president.

The breadth of the subpoena was not clear, nor was it clear why Mr. Mueller issued it instead of simply asking for the documents from the company, an umbrella organization that oversees Mr. Trump’s business ventures. In the subpoena, delivered in recent weeks, Mr. Mueller ordered the Trump Organization to hand over all documents related to Russia and other topics he is investigating, the people said.

The subpoena is the latest indication that the investigation, which Mr. Trump’s lawyers once regularly assured him would be completed by now, will drag on for at least several more months. Word of the subpoena comes as Mr. Mueller appears to be broadening his investigation to examine the role foreign money may have played in funding Mr. Trump’s political activities. In recent weeks, Mr. Mueller’s investigators have questioned witnesses, including an adviser to the United Arab Emirates, about the flow of Emirati money into the United States.

Neither White House officials nor Alan S. Futerfas, a lawyer representing the Trump Organization, immediately responded to requests for comment. The Trump Organization has typically complied with requests from congressional investigators for documents for their own inquiries into Russian election interference, and there was no indication the company planned to fight Mr. Mueller about it.

The Trump Organization has said that it never had real estate holdings in Russia, but witnesses recently interviewed by Mr. Mueller have been asked about a possible real estate deal in Moscow. In 2015, a longtime business associate of Mr. Trump’s emailed Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, at his Trump Organization account claiming he had ties to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and said that building a Trump Tower in Moscow would help Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.

Mr. Trump signed a nonbinding “letter of intent” for the project in 2015 and discussed it three times with Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Mueller could run afoul of a line the president has warned him not to cross. Though it is not clear how much of the subpoena is related to Mr. Trump’s business beyond ties to Russia, Mr. Trump said in an interview with The New York Times in July that the special counsel would be crossing a “red line” if he looked into his family’s finances beyond any relationship with Russia. The president declined to say how he would respond if he concluded that the special counsel had crossed that line.

A month before Mr. Trump spoke of his red line, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, threatened to quit after Mr. Trump asked him to have Mr. Mueller fired because the president believed he had conflict-of-interest issues that precluded him from running the special counsel investigation.

Mr. Mueller was appointed in May to investigate whether Mr. Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election and any other matters that may arise from the inquiry. He is also examining whether the president has tried to obstruct the investigation.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers are in negotiations with Mr. Mueller’s office about whether and how to allow his investigators to interview the president. Mr. Mueller’s office has shared topics it wants to discuss with the president, according to two people familiar with the talks. The lawyers have advised Mr. Trump to refuse an interview but the president wants to do it, as he believes he has done nothing wrong and can easily answer investigators’ questions.

At the same time, Mr. Trump is considering whether to bring on a new lawyer to help represent him in the special counsel’s investigation. Last week, Mr. Trump spoke with Emmet Flood, a longtime Washington lawyer who represented former President Bill Clinton during the impeachment process, about coming into the White House to deal with the inquiry.

‘Don’t try anything rash’: Russian Embassy urges UK to rethink rumored cyber attack

Bad blood is continuing to rise between the UK and the Kremlin. The UK Russian Embassy has warned May’s government to choose its next step carefully as rumors swirl that Britain is planning a cyber attack on Russia.

The claims come as Theresa May’s midnight deadline ticks ever closer. On Monday afternoon, Theresa May took to the House of Commons to address the issue on everyone’s lips – the poisoning of ex-Russian double agent Sergei Skripal, 66, and his thirty-three-year-old daughter, Yulia.

May warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to explain why a Russian-developed nerve agent was used to attack a British citizen on UK soil, or face consequences.

READ MORE: UK TV regulator writes to RT, says it may consider whether channel’s license is ‘fit and proper’

On Tuesday, Russia’s embassy in London said it was deeply concerned about reports that the UK could launch a cyber attack against Russia. “Not only is Russia groundlessly and provocatively accused of the Salisbury incident, but apparently, plans are being developed in the UK to strike Russia with cyber weapons,” said the Russian embassy.

The London-based embassy added: “Statements by a number of MPs, ‘Whitehall sources’ and ‘experts’ regarding a possible ‘deployment’ of ‘offensive cyber-capabilities’ cause serious concern. We invite the British side to once again consider the consequences of such a reckless move.”

(BRITAIN MUST KEEP THE GLOBALISTS HAPPY) – Britain’s presumption of guilt towards Russia invites conflict and chaos

By Finian Cunningham

Britain’s abandonment of due process has taken a dangerous and reckless leap, with Theresa May declaring economic sanctions and diplomatic expulsions for Russia’s “failure” to respond to allegations over the Skripal poisoning.

Provocatively, Moscow was given a 24-hour deadline to “answer” charges leveled by the British government that it was responsible for the attempted murder of a Russian double agent, Sergei Skripal, who had been living in England since 2010 after a spy-swap deal.

Skripal (66) and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia were apparently stricken with a deadly nerve agent in his adopted hometown of Salisbury on March 4 while strolling through a public park. The pair have been receiving treatment in intensive care ever since.

Earlier this week, the British prime minister asserted that the chemical weapon used was a Soviet-era nerve agent, Novichok, and – on that basis – the Russian state was implicated in the attempted murder of the former spy. Skripal had been exiled from Russia in 2010 after he was convicted of treason as a double agent for British intelligence MI6.

The new economic and diplomatic sanctions against Moscow, which were announced by May in the House of Commons on Wednesday, constitute a reckless escalation towards conflict between Britain, its NATO allies, and Russia.

Moscow has said it will not stand for British punitive measures and is vowing to take reciprocal actions.

Washington and European states have quickly followed Britain’s lead in ramping up hostile rhetoric towards Russia, and issuing statements of “solidarity.” Relations between Russia and NATO states had already plummeted to Cold War depths before the latest row.

The invitation for more chaos and conflict comes with the abandonment of any pretense at upholding legal principles and standards.

Britain and its allies are relying on the inverted principle of “presumption of guilt” as opposed to “innocence.” Within days of the apparent poison attack on the Sergei Skripal and his daughter, the British authorities and media had rushed to judgement that the alleged attack was the work of the Russian state in an act of revenge for past betrayal. That motive does not stand up to scrutiny, noted former British ambassador Craig Murray.

Furthermore, the hypothetical Soviet-era nerve agent identified by the British authorities has not been independently verified. We are relying on official British claims. The alleged chemical may or may not have been used in the attack.

READ MORE: Corbyn challenges May’s ‘evidence’ of Russian ‘culpability’ in ex-spy poisoning

As Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov revealed, all requests from Moscow for access to the alleged poison as evidence have been refused by London. Such a refusal is a violation of the Convention on Chemical Weapons treaty, which mandates joint inspection of alleged incidents.

So, the British government imposed an ultimatum on Russia to provide “answers” to provocative charges without Moscow being given a fair chance to ascertain those charges. On the basis of that contemptible lack of due process, the British are calling on its NATO allies to escalate punitive measures against Russia.

There are even British media reports of Britain invoking NATO’s Article Five clause, which mandates the military pact to come to the defense of another member deemed to be under attack.

One senior British cabinet minister was quoted anonymously by The Independent as saying: “What happens will be an economic war, these will be economic measures. Russia’s economy is only half that of the UK… That doesn’t give us any pleasure at all, but we need the nations of Europe to behave within the rule of law and not like gangsters.”

The logic is unhinged. British authorities are claiming to be acting within the rule of law against Russian “gangsters,” when in fact it is the British who are bludgeoning any legal standard of due process.

Paramount to due process is the presumption of innocence, which is the bedrock of international law and the United Nations’ Charter of Human Rights.

Canadian-based war crimes defense attorney Christopher Black says: “The presumption of innocence is the foundation stone of modern criminal justice. It is the pre-eminent factor in every trial. The accused is deemed to be innocent unless and until evidence that cannot be doubted establishes that the crime took place as claimed, and the accused is the person who committed it and had the intent to commit it.”

Black says that this is the exact opposite of what is taking place with regard to British claims over the latest alleged poisoning incident in Britain. The lawyer adds that the erosion of standard legal principle has been underway for several years due to political expedience by Western states. He points to the various ad-hoc war-crimes trials pushed by the United States and its NATO allies to convict political enemies in former Yugoslavia and Africa.

With regard to Russia and, in particular, the demonization of the government under President Vladimir Putin, the Western states have used the principle of “presumption of guilt” on numerous occasions, including the downing of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine in 2014; implicating Russia in Ukraine’s conflict; smearing Russia over sports doping and banning it from the Olympics; allegations of Russian “interference” in US and European elections; and blackening Moscow for “war crimes” in Syria.

In all cases, allegations are simply leveled and repeated ad nauseam without evidence ever being presented. Indeed, sometimes in spite of plausible counter-evidence.

Christopher Black continues: “The accusations against Russia from the MH-17 Malaysian airliner, Crimea, Ukraine, electoral interference, and so on, are all part of carefully orchestrated propaganda warfare aimed at reducing Russia’s prestige in the world, its range of friends and allies, and to paint it as the ‘evil other’ for the Western public, who are having their minds conditioned to prepare them for war.”

The presumption of guilt towards Russia has now converged over chemical weapons and Syria.

In rallying Washington and European allies to back Britain’s “economic war” against Russia, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson this week said of conversations with his French counterpart: “The French government stressed particular concerns about Russia’s use of chemical weapons elsewhere, as is evident with their support to Assad’s murderous regime in Syria.”

On the basis of no evidence, dubious hearsay from terrorist-affiliated groups like the White Helmets, and the expedient presumption of guilt, Britain and its NATO allies are willing to go to war in Syria.

This week, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley accused Syria and its Russian ally of carrying out chemical-weapons attacks, for which the “US is prepared to take military actions.”

All this should be a lesson on why there is such a thing as legal standards and due process as a safeguard for international order. Once certain states start to assert “presumption of guilt” towards others, then all pretense of upholding law and order collapses into a descent of chaos and conflict.

Attorney Christopher Black goes further. He says that Britain and its NATO allies are not just derelict in their duty to abide by law. “As in the latest reckless statements concerning Russia and the alleged poisoning in Britain, the case can be made that the British and their allies are in fact guilty of war crimes by inciting the conditions for war.”

Finally, there is one very obvious question that nobody seems to be asking, and that relates to the timing of Skripal’s alleged poisoning. Why would Russia do it now, just a week before the presidential election and three months before the World Cup?

It suggests total insanity on Moscow’s part. How could Russia possibly benefit from such an act? Skripal was previously in Russian custody and has lived in the UK for years. If Russia did want to poison him, as the UK has imagined, could it not have waited for a few more months?

It is not clear who benefitted from the inopportune timing of the incident, but certainly wasn’t Russia.

(ANOTHER GLOBALIST AT WORK) – ‘Straight off the playground’: UK defence sec ridiculed for ‘childish’ Russia remarks

UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson © Stefan Wermuth / Reuters

UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has been widely criticized for suggesting on Thursday that “Russia should go away and shut up” over Britain’s response to the poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal.

Tory minister Williamson made the comments while speaking at an event in Bristol. “Frankly, Russia should go away and shut up. But if they do respond to the action we have taken we’ll consider it carefully and we’ll look at our options. But it would be wrong to pre-judge their response,” Williamson said.

READ MORE: ‘Russia should go away and shut up,’ UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson says (VIDEO)

He was widely ridiculed by political commentators and journalists on social media within minutes, with many branding his comments ‘childish.’



Others wondered whether Williamson was even fit for the job and criticized his diplomacy skills. Some questioned how on Earth he was even picked for the role.




Williamson made the remarks during his first keynote speech since being appointed last year. During his address, the minister announced that the UK is to construct a £48 million (US$66.8 million) chemical weapons defense center to tackle what he claims is a growing threat from Russia and North Korea.

READ MORE: UK to build £48mn chemical weapon center to protect from ‘hostile’ activity