Showing posts with label trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trump. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 25, 2020

Is the Council on Foreign Relations... A Modern-Day Domestic, Technological Terrorist Organization?

Editor, DL Mullan 
CFR / Terrorism  
_____________________________

Who wouldn't wonder?

The Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR, was established in 1921 as a private, bipartisan group to “awaken America to its worldwide responsibilities."

Aw. Who wouldn't get behind such a noble cause?

"A well-known Council member famously explained, that they transformed the American republic into a global empire, albeit a “bene­volent” one..." but scratch American, that was for the 20th Century, replace the pronoun for the 21st Century: CHINA, and forget about being benevolent.

The CFR has lost its way and sees its "Empire" just like the one we were all warned about in Star Wars. If we were to cast this movie, Emperor Palpatine would be David Rockefeller (1915-2017), who finances the group along with the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group. Darth Vader would be all his minions like John Kerry, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Robert Mueller, Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, and many, many others who believe in Mr. Rockefeller's idea to destroy all nation states, create a global dictatorship, and to hell with everyone else.

And, the CFR membership list shows the vastness of the problem:
  • several US Presidents and Vice Presidents of both parties;
  • almost all Secretaries of State, Defense, and the Treasury;
  • many high-ranking commanders of the US military and NATO;
  • some of the most influential Members of Congress (notably in foreign & security policy);
  • almost all National Security Advisors, CIA Directors, Ambassadors to the U.N., Chairs of the Federal Reserve, Presidents of the World Bank, and Directors of the National Economic Council;
  • many prominent academics, especially in key fields such as Economics and Political Science;
  • many top executives of Wall Street, policy think tanks, universities, NGOs, and Hollywood;
  • as well as the key members of both the 9/11 Commission and the Warren Commission (JFK)
So to say that the CFR is influential is an understatement. The group has their tentacles in everything. Everything but common sense. The truth is the CFR has grown so much that the group has outgrown their own usefulness.

Now all we hear from CFR members is bitch, bitch, bitch and wah wah wah temper tantrum theatrics for political pundits on their mainstream media shows, who just happen to be CFR members (or equivalent) themselves (George Stephenopoulos, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezenski). Of course, members whine like babies to each other in their "safe space": the CFR website.

In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, the CFR magazine, a former general wrote that there needed to be an end to the "America First" policy. Say, what? What is the CFR's problem with America First? Because a Globalist vision means that America becomes a Third World country as a defunct nation state so the remnants can be absorbed into the one world government model of a global, communist dictatorship. You know, the United States should collaborate with others... to make CFR members wealthy and China the world power. Just submit... the CFR means: collaborate!

Except Americans know what "collaboration" entails: there's a boogeyman, send in the troops!, 100 years war, the commoners supply the cannon fodder, taxpayers are scammed out of trillions of dollars in defense contracts (most are no-bid), the country in question is destroyed, people are misplaced (mass immigration), domestic rights and freedoms are attacked (Patriot Act/NDAA), and then the CFR alum go in and "rebuild" the nation they just destroyed for profit, power, and influence.

Did I get that all correct? Oh I missed one: pat yourselves on the back for bringing "democracy" to a nation that didn't need it.

I just described the aftermath of 9/11.

Yes, we know what influential dictators are all about. America has a slew of these think tank tinkerers in the political bowels of our nation. The question is: can America afford to indulge anymore half-witted, hair-brained, influence-peddling, ego-maniacal tirades of the Council on Foreign Relations, any of its offshoots and its dim-witted acolytes?

I know the world cannot afford their "benevolent" malfeasance any longer. It's war, War, WAR; fear Fear, FEAR!

We're done with your military grade psychological warfare operations (ShadowNet) being played by your minions and their foot massagers. If you have to use coercion, then you don't have a political platform; you have communism. Communism means the United States is no longer a Constitutional Republic...

So that is why you hate President Trump that much. He took away your pacifiers of greed (Federal Reserve), corruption (Clinton Foundation pay to play), and debauchery (Jeffrey Epstein's Island). Then he told you to get your Sunday best on because he's taking you to church!

The nerve of some people!

The fact is that the American people did not vote you into any public office. CFR members have to be "appointed." When has a candidate run for an election touting the CFR platform? Joe Biden? In order for Americans to vote for your platform, you have to offer internet freebies (which are never free; you have to pay shipping) and your candidate has to be half-out of his mind?

Seriously? That does not add up to victory, but I could be wrong; I didn't take Common Core math.

Let's think about this one, shall we? The CFR ran Joe Biden. That's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you. My cat even said she is embarrassed for you.

But that shows the level of hubris the CFR has fallen down to that the membership are so tone deaf to the rest of the world as to offer a dementia patient being paraded around in a soap-opera-style elder abuse scene as a viable presidential candidate.

Americans rejected that idiocy because we want reality. A real guy in the White House, with a real family who thinks of others instead of themselves. An ideal that CFR cannot offer.

Shocker.

The Council of Foreign Relations has sunk so low that the membership has become a group of champagne-drinking, cocaine-sniffing, foot-job getting grifters... Oh, wait, that's Hunter Biden. Have you seen his laptop?

The CFR enabled that behavior because it is their behavior too: joy-riding scammers on the backs of the American people.

Speaking of scams... Americans lived through the shoe bomber and Michael Chertoff's need to profit off "body scanners" for the airports. Dick Cheney's need to clean up the gulf oil spill with his newly purchase Boots & Coots through Haliburton. CFR members like these ones have an addiction for government funded corporate welfare, er... contracts. Especially: no bid contracts. What? Can any of you make an honest living?

It's like living in a game show: I would like to buy today's CFR Member's Scam for $100 Billion: Defund the Police. That's right! With the need to get rid of and replace the police for no reason whatsoever, the elite ruling class wants to give you security: ROBOTS!

Danger, Will Robinson!

Who is going to profit from this fake news hysteria? General Jones? General Hayden? General McCrystal? Brennan? I have a list of CFR degenerates; I can keep going. I did watch Shadow Gate 1 and 2; I took notes too. 

The question becomes: do we really need the Council on Foreign Relations? 

Or... do they need us? Because there seems to be no benefit to Americans or the world to having these think tanks. 

Guess that is why the David Rockefeller funded Council on Foreign Relations, CFR member: David Rubenstein at the Carlyle Group, and CFR member: William Kennard at Staple Street Capital bought (Venezuelan/Canadian) Dominion Voting Systems machines so they could hack our reality by rigging the game?

Because they cannot win unless you play the game: Collaboration.
 
 
 
 


Thursday, June 4, 2020

No. Defense Secretary Esper, Trump is the Commander in Chief

Staff Writer, DL Mullan 
Insurrection / Enemy Combatants

___________________________________

Defense Secretary Mark Esper is wrong. So wrong the question becomes why is he in a position of leadership in our government?

“The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act,” Esper stated. 

But insurrection is already taking place. Once peaceful protests erupt into violence, mayhem, death and destruction, these demonstrations are no longer protected rights under the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. 

Former Ambassador Alan Keyes sums up the Presidents rights and responsibilities under the Constitution in this interview: Only the Commander in Chief Can Stop Civil Insurrection. 

When life, liberty, and property are being taken from the American people without due process of law, then yes, Mr. Esper, President Trump can act accordingly through the Constitution with the power of the military. 

The Insurrection Act has been updated: 
Public Law 109-364 (H.R. 5122) Oct 17, 2006 2014-06-19

Section 1076
Major changes:

Changed the title of the law from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act"

Specifies situations in which the President can invoke martial law (natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident or other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order). These had not been specified before.

Spells out the President's obligation to inform Congress within 14 days when he determines to exercise the authority, and every 14 days thereafter, during the exercise of the authority. This had also not been specified under the Insurrection Act.
President Trump has many other powers granted to him by Congress in the war on terror.

For example:

In 2012, the U.S. Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with relatively little attention from the media―despite the freedoms it obliterated. The NDAA was enacted to empower the U.S. military to fight the war on terror. But buried in this law are two provisions (Sections 1021 and 1022) that authorize the indefinite military detention, without charge or trial, of any person labeled a “belligerent”―including an American citizen.

These NDAA provisions (which have been re-approved by Congress and signed by President Obama every year since 2012) override habeas corpus―the essence of our justice system. Habeas corpus is the vital legal procedure that prevents the government from detaining you indefinitely without showing just cause. When you challenge your detention by filing a writ of habeas corpus, you must be promptly brought before a judge or into court, where lawful grounds must be shown for your detention or you must be released.

Under Section 1021, however, anyone who has committed a “belligerent act,” can be detained indefinitely, without charges or trial, as a “suspected terrorist.” This is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and our Bill or Rights. In The Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton stressed the importance of the writ of habeas corpus to protect against “the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”
Another illustration of the power of the Presidency:
A. Military Commissions Act of 2009. Title XVIII of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 (the NDAA), signed into law in October 2009, replaced the Military Commissions Act of 2006 with the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA 2009).
The concept of our military commissions "which by law are only for defendants who are not citizens of the United States" remains widely disparaged around the world as a second-class justice system. Some allied countries have refused to provide crucial witnesses or evidence for use in the tribunals.
Arizona has illegal aliens participating in the riots: DACA Illegal Aliens Among 200 People Arrested in Phoenix, Arizona Riots. Those individuals constitute an invading foreign force waging war within the United States.  

ANTIFA and other militant organizations are also contributing to the lawlessness. 

And, have you forgotten about: 
The detainee provisions passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012, P.L. 112-81, affirm that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),P.L. 107-40, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, authorizes the detention of persons captured in connection with hostilities. The act provides for the first time a statutory definition of covered persons whose detention is authorized pursuant to the AUMF. During debate of the provision, significant attention focused on the applicability of this detention authority to U.S. citizens and other persons within the United States. The Senate adopted an amendment to clarify that the provision was not intended to affect any existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. This report analyzes the existing law and authority to detain U.S. persons, including American citizens and resident aliens, as well as other persons within the United States who are suspected of being members, agents, or associates of Al Qaeda or possibly other terrorist organizations as “enemy combatants.” The Supreme Court in 2004 affirmed the President’s power to detain “enemy combatants,” including those who are U.S. citizens, as part of the necessary force authorized by Congress after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality held that a U.S. citizen allegedly captured during combat in Afghanistan and incarcerated at a Navy brig in South Carolina is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral decision maker regarding the government’s reasons for detaining him. On the same day, the Court in Rumsfeld v. Padillaoverturned a lower court’s grant of habeas corpus to another U.S. citizen in military custody in South Carolina on jurisdictional grounds, leaving undecided whether the authority to detain also applies to U.S. citizens arrested in the United States by civilian authorities. Lower courts that have addressed the issue of wartime detention within the United States have reached conflicting conclusions. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ultimately confirmed the detention authority in principle in two separate cases (one of which was subsequently vacated), the government avoided taking the argument to the Supreme Court by indicting the accused detainees for federal crimes, making their habeas appeals moot and leaving the law generally unsettled. A federal judge enjoined the detention of persons on the basis of providing support to or associating with belligerent parties under one prong of the definition enacted as Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012, P.L. 112-81 (Hedges v. Obama), but the decision has been reversed on appeal on the basis of standing. This report provides a background to the legal issues presented, followed by a brief introduction to the law of war pertinent to the detention of different categories of individuals. An overview of U.S. practice during wartime to detain persons deemed dangerous to the national security is presented. The report concludes by discussing Congress’s role in prescribing rules for wartime detention, subsequent legislation in the 112th Congress that addresses the detention of U.S. persons, and legislative proposals in the 113th Congress to further address the issue (H.R. 1960, S. 1147, H.R. 2325, and H.R. 3304.
At the moment, the rioters along with city mayors and state governors who are allowing the wanton destruction of American life, liberty, and property fit this definition of a belligerent/enemy combatant. As well, mayors and governors have allowed protests to turn into the legal definition of Rebellion or insurrection.
18 U.S. Code § 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Yet these enemy combatants, militant revolutionaries, and illegal aliens continue to get bailed out of jail to terrorize their neighbors. Enough is enough. These people have no right to behave in this manner.

President Trump as Commander in Chief has numerous options open to him, including the military.

So please, Mr. Esper, tell Americans again the vastness of your wisdom because your knowledge is lacking and it shows.

Sources: Breitbart, Survival Monkey, Banned Video, American Bar, Cornell Law,   

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Washington Post's Azari: I Would Not Trust the Elite to Choose a Dog Catcher

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Elites / Oligarchs / Elections
___________________________________

The elite political class from monarchies to dictatorships spanning five thousand years, what hasn't the world's elite done for humanity? Conquest, war, hunger, and death. The elite political class preys on people's fears in order to manipulate and control their everyday lives like psychopaths.

So when the mainstream media praises the elite political class for anything, shouldn't we question if that publication should be even take seriously? The original headline to the Washington Post read: Give the Elites a Bigger Say in Choosing the President. Now the headline reads: It's time to switch to preference primaries. 

Entitled elite political class has given humanity endless wars to profit from while pushing the failures of socialism/communism for societal control like they have for any other religion:
  • World War I
  •  Bolshevik Revolution
  • World War II
  • National Socialist German Workers' Party
  • Cold War Communism vs the Free World 
  •  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
  • Berlin Wall, East and West Germany 
  • Vietnam
  • Korea, North verses South
  • Communist China
  • United Nations' Agenda 21, 2030, Megaregions 2050
That is but a snapshot of elite damage caused because their way was more important to them than one human life. When the entitled elite political class can make money off human suffering, they are happy to provide the false flags, lies through media, deception via politicians to make their dreams of death and destruction come true.

The Elite's top organizations
I would never choose someone from the entitled class of pompous egomaniacs to choose my local dog catcher let alone President of the United States. 

“And for the international order that we have worked for generations to build, ordinary men and women are too small minded to govern their own affairs. Order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all powerful sovereign.”
Obsessed with power and control of someone else... and ordinary people are small minded? Gimme a break, losers.

That mindset is how they think of everyone who isn't them: peasants, unworthy, useless eaters.

Why would anyone want that mental illness to be in charge of anything or anyone?

We have new entitled pozers of the rich and famous believing their celebrity is more important than being a productive member of our society. If you are on a television show or in a movie, somehow your voice carries more weight. If you recorded an album, somehow your voice carries more weight. If you play a child's sport as a profession, somehow your voice carries more weight.

We have presidential candidates who have spent $400 million on their egos, I  mean: campaigns, but have not once used their money to help someone in need. $64 billion could erase debts of the disabled and their caregivers. 

That's the issue. We have elites who want to tell the rest of us what to do and how high to jump, but at the end of the day, the elites themselves harbor no personal responsibility to their own edicts.

So what are our elections about? Elevating the elite's favorite candidate to make the masses feel all the ill in the world is their own fault? Shouldn't we be blaming the top 1% of the 1% instead? 

There is a lot of talking the talk, which is meaningless. We need politicians who walk the walk. How are you productive in our society? What have you done besides move our industry and manufacturing to China and India? Replaced our workers with foreigners for cost cutting? 

Is that really walking the walk of American ideals and exceptionalism? 

Or, is it another example of how the elite political class feels they are entitled to selling us out to line their own hedge funds?



Wednesday, January 8, 2020

How the Globalists set up Iran vs America

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Iran / Globalist War
___________________________________

How the Globalists set up Iran vs America... So when are we going to arrest Kerry and Obama? Oh right... it's Trump's fault.

December 4, 2011
Obama provided Iran with stealth drone that penetrated Israel’s border
On December 4, 2011, an American stealth drone was captured by Iranian forces near the city of Kashmar in northeastern Iran. The Iranian government announced that the UAV was brought down by its cyberwarfare unit which commandeered the aircraft and safely landed it. Meaning it wasn’t shot down, as earlier reported. President Obama acknowledged that the downed drone was his,and requested that Iran return it. We’re not kidding.

https://gellerreport.com/2018/02/obama-drone-givt-iran.html/

13 June 2014
Revealed: How Obama SET FREE the merciless terrorist warlord now leading the ISIS horde blazing a trail of destruction through Iraq
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Revealed-Obama-RELEASED-warlo…

January 16-19, 2016
...payments because of diplomatic sensitivities. They involved 13 separate payments of $99,999,999.99 and final payment of about $10 million
https://www.cbsnews.com/…/u-s-paid-1-3-billion-to-iran-two…/

January 16, 2016
Obama Just Got 4 Americans Released From Iran, But Republicans Are Still Criticizing Him
https://www.huffpost.com/…/republicans-criticize-prisoner-s…

January 17, 2016
Obama releases 10 more Gitmo prisoners, this time to Oman
https://www.usatoday.com/…/pentagon-releases-15-m…/88802522/

August 15, 2016
Pentagon releases 15 more Gitmo detainees
According to the Pentagon, the 15 prisoners are Abd al-Muhsin Abd al-Rab Salih al-Busi, Abd al-Rahman Sulayman, Mohammed Nasir Yahi Khussrof Kazaz, Abdul Muhammad Ahmad Nassar al-Muhajari, Muhammad Ahmad Said al-Adahi, Abdel Qadir al-Mudafari, Mahmud Abd Al Aziz al-Mujahid, Saeed Ahmed Mohammed Abdullah Sarem Jarabh, Mohammed Kamin, Zahar Omar Hamis bin Hamdoun, Hamid al-Razak (aka Haji Hamidullah), Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmed, Ayub Murshid Ali Salih, Obaidullah, and Bashir Nasir Ali al-Marwalah.
https://www.usatoday.com/…/pentagon-releases-15-m…/88802522/

August 24, 2016
U.S. paid $1.3 billion to Iran two days after cash delivery;
two days after allowing $400 million in cash to fly to Tehran
https://www.cbsnews.com/…/u-s-paid-1-3-billion-to-iran-two…/

Now, Iran has nuclear capabilities:

January 9th, 2017 Obama’s Final Gift: Uranium Headed To Iran
https://www.dailywire.com/…/obamas-final-gift-uranium-heade…

Remember who the true enemy is...
September 12, 2018
Kerry admits to meeting Iranian officials over nuclear deal
https://nypost.com/…/kerry-admits-to-meeting-iranian-offic…/

Iran strikes outside its country first, so how is the Persians able to hide behind International Law when Iran has directed hostilities to another country in the Middle East?

Will Russia and China back such illegal actions?

September 15, 2019
Iran hits Saudi Arabia Oil Supply
https://www.reuters.com/…/us-saudi-aramco-attacks-idUSKBN1W…

December 04, 2019
Iran, China & Russia to conduct joint war games in ‘message to the world’
https://americanmilitarynews.com/…/iran-china-russia-to-co…/

Again, Iran has stepped outside the bounds of International Law and killed an American and wounded service members from America and Iraq. 

28/12/2019
Rocket attack in Iraq kills US contractor, wounds troops
https://www.france24.com/…/20191228-us-contractor-killed-tr…


12/29/2019
Klein: Iran Crossed All Red Lines with U.S. Embassy Breach
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2019/12/31/klein-iran-crossed-all-red-lines-with-u-s-embassy-breach/


Americans strike a military general, but that is the act of war to Iran when Iran has been hostile for months. 

3 January 2020
Qasem Soleimani: US kills top Iranian general in Baghdad air strike
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50979463

January 5, 2020
US government website hacked with pro-Iranian messages, image of bloodied Trump
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/05/iran-hack-homeland-security-website-hacked-image-bloody-trump/2818308001/ 

Can you say trap? Is this to save China from US intervention from its aggressive actions against Taiwan, Tibet, and Hong Kong? Is Iran the distraction to wear American forces down and divide our troops into the Middle East instead of concentrating on Asia?

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Ukraine / Mutual Legal Assistance
 ___________________________________

TREATY WITH UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL 
 ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS WITH ANNEX, SIGNED AT KIEV ON JULY 22, 
1998, AND WITH AN EXCHANGE OF NOTES SIGNED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, WHICH 
                PROVIDES FOR ITS PROVISIONAL APPLICATION




 November 10, 1999.--Treaty was read the first time, and together with 
the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 
          and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-118                     WASHINGTON : 1999


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                The White House, November 10, 1999.
To the Senate of the United States:
    With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the 
Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty Between 
the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal 
Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on 
July 22, 1998. I transmit also, for the information of the 
Senate, an exchange of notes which was signed on September 30, 
1999, which provides for its provisional application, as well 
as the report of the Department of State with respect to the 
Treaty.
    The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal 
assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in 
order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The 
Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution 
of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking 
offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad 
range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance 
available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or 
statements of persons; providing documents, records, and 
articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or 
identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for 
testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches 
and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, 
confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection 
of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by 
the laws of the requested state.
    I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable 
consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to 
ratification.

                                                William J. Clinton.
                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                                
        

                                       Department of State,
                                      Washington, October 19, 1999.
The President,
The White House.
    The President: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty 
Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual 
Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex (``the 
Treaty''), signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998. I recommend that 
the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and 
consent to ratification.
    Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, is an 
exchange of notes under which the Treaty is being provisionally 
applied to the extent possible under our respective domestic 
laws, in order to provide a basis for immediate mutual 
assistance in criminal matters. Provisional application would 
cease upon entry into force of the Treaty.
    The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal 
matters. In recent years, similar bilateral treaties have 
entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty 
with Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the 
United States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and 
prosecute a range of offenses. The Treaty is designed to be 
self-executing and will not require new legislation.
    Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major 
types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including 
taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing 
documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or 
identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring 
persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing 
requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings 
related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, 
restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other 
form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested 
State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal 
offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters, 
which may be civil or administrative in nature.
    Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided 
without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute 
an offense under the laws of the Requested State.
    Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not 
intended to create rights in private parties to obtain, 
suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution 
of a request.
    Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central 
Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the 
Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be 
the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney 
General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the 
Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General. 
The article provides that the Central Authorities shall 
communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the 
Treaty.
    Article 3 sets forth the circumstances under which a 
Requested State's Central Authority may deny assistance under 
the Treaty. A request may be denied if it relates to a military 
offense that would not be an offense under ordinary criminal 
law. A further ground for denial is that the request relates to 
a political offense (a term expected to be defined on the basis 
of that term's usage in extradition treaties). In addition, a 
request may be denied if its execution would prejudice the 
security or similar essential interests of the Requested State, 
or if it is not made in conformity with the Treaty.
    Before denying assistance under Article 3, the Central 
Authority of the Requested State is required to consult with 
its counterpart in the Requesting State to consider whether 
assistance can be given subject to such conditions as the 
Central Authority of the RequestedState deems necessary. If the 
Requesting State accepts assistance subject to these conditions, it is 
required to comply with the conditions. If the Central Authority of the 
Requested State denies assistance, it is required to inform the Central 
Authority of the Requesting State of the reasons for the denial.
    Article 4 prescribes the form and content of written 
requests under the Treaty, specifying in detail the information 
required in each request. The article permits other forms of 
requests in emergency situations but requires written 
confirmation within ten days thereafter unless the Central 
Authority of the Requested State agrees otherwise.
    Article 5 requires the Central Authority of the Requested 
State to execute the request promptly or to transmit it to the 
authority having jurisdiction to do so. It provides that the 
competent authorities of the Requested State shall do 
everything in their power to execute a request, and that the 
courts or other competent authorities of the Requested State 
shall have authority to issue subpoenas, search and arrest 
warrants, or other orders necessary to execute the request. The 
Central Authority of the Requested State must make all 
arrangements for representation of the Requesting State in any 
proceedings arising out of an assistance request.
    Under Article 5(3), requests are to be executed in 
accordance with the laws of the Requested State except to the 
extent that the Treaty provides otherwise. However, the method 
of execution specified in the request is to be followed except 
insofar as it is prohibited by the laws of the Requested State.
    Article 5(4) provides that if the Central Authority of the 
Requested State determines that execution of the request would 
interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation, prosecution, 
or proceeding in that State, it may postpone execution or, 
after consulting with the Central Authority of the Requesting 
State, impose conditions on execution. If the Requesting State 
accepts assistance subject to the conditions, it shall comply 
with such conditions.
    Article 5(5) further requires the Requested State, if so 
requested, to use its best efforts to keep confidential a 
request and its contents, and to inform the Requesting State's 
Central Authority if the request cannot be executed without 
breaching confidentiality. This provides the Requesting State 
an opportunity to decide whether to pursue the request or to 
withdraw it in order to maintain confidentiality.
    This article additionally requires the Requested State's 
Central Authority to respond to reasonable inquiries by the 
Requesting State's Central Authority regarding the status of 
the execution of a particular request; to report promptly to 
the Requesting State's Central Authority the outcome of its 
execution; and, if the request is denied, to inform the 
Requesting State's Central Authority of the reasons for the 
denial.
    Article 6 apportions between the two States the costs 
incurred in executing a request. It provides that the Request 
State shall pay all costs, except for the following items to be 
paid by the Requesting State: fees of expert witnesses, costs 
of interpretation, translation and transcription, and 
allowances and expenses related to travel of persons pursuant 
to Articles 10 and 11. If during the execution of the request, 
it becomes apparent that extraordinary expenses will be 
entailed, the Central Authorities shall consult to determine 
the terms and conditions under which execution may continue.
    Article 7 requires the Requesting State to comply with any 
request by the Central Authority of the Requested State that 
information or evidence obtained under the Treaty not be used 
for proceedings other than those described in the request 
without its priorconsent. Further, if the Requested State's 
Central Authority asks that information or evidence furnished under 
this Treaty be kept confidential or be used in accordance with 
specified conditions, the Requesting State must use its best efforts to 
comply with the conditions. Once information is made public in the 
Requesting State in accordance with either or these provisions, no 
further limitations on use apply. Nothing in the article prevents the 
use or disclosure of information to the extent that there is an 
obligation to do so under the Constitution of the Requesting State in a 
criminal prosecution. The Requesting State is obliged to notify the 
Requesting State in advance of any such proposed use or disclosure.
    Article 8 provides that a person in the Requesting State 
from whom testimony or evidence is requested pursuant to the 
Treaty shall be compelled, if necessary, to appear and testify 
or produce items, documents and records. The article requires 
the Central Authority of the Requested State, upon request, to 
furnish information in advance about the date and place of the 
taking of testimony or evidence pursuant to this Article.
    Article 8(3) further requires the Requested State to permit 
the presence of persons specified in the request and to permit 
them to question the person giving the testimony or evidence. 
In the event that a person whose testimony or evidence is being 
taken asserts a claim of immunity, incapacity, or privilege 
under the laws of the Requesting State, Article 8(4) provides 
that the testimony or evidence shall be taken and the claim 
made known by written notification to the Central Authority of 
the Requesting State for resolution by its competent 
authorities. Finally, in order to ensure admissibility of 
evidence in the Requesting State, Article 8(5) provides a 
mechanism for authenticating evidence that is produced pursuant 
to or that is the subject of testimony taken in the Requested 
State.
    Article 9 requires that the Requested State provide the 
Requesting State with copies of publicly available records in 
the possession of government departments and agencies in the 
Requesting State. The Requested State may further provide 
copies of any documents, records or information in the 
possession of a government department or agency, but not 
publicly available, to the same extent and under the same 
conditions as it would provide them to its own law enforcement 
or judicial authorities. The Requested State has the discretion 
to refuse to execute, entirely or in part, such requests for 
records not publicly available. Article 9(3) provides that 
records produced pursuant to this Article shall, upon request, 
be certified by the appropriate form attached to the request. 
Article 9(3) also provides that no further authentication shall 
be necessary for admissibility into evidence in the Requesting 
State of official records pursuant to this Article.
    Article 10 provides a mechanism for the Requesting State to 
invite the voluntary appearance in its territory of a person 
located in the Requested State shall indicate the extent to 
which the expenses will be paid. It also states that the 
Central Authority of the Requesting State has discretion to 
determine that a person appearing in the Requesting State 
pursuant to this Article shall not be subject to service of 
process or be detained or subjected to any restriction of 
personal liberty by reason of any acts or convictions that 
preceded his departure from the Requested State. Any safe 
conduct provided for by this article ceases seven days after 
the Central Authority of the Requesting State has notified the 
Central Authority of the Requested State that the person's 
presence is no longer required, or if the person has left the 
Requesting State and voluntarily returns to it.
    Article 11 provides for temporary transfer of a person in 
custody in the Requested State or in a third State to the 
Requesting State for purposes of assistance under the Treaty 
(for example, a witness incarcerated in the Requested State may 
be transferred to have his deposition taken in the presence of 
the defendant), provided that the person in question and the 
Central Authorities of both States agree. The article also 
provides for voluntary transfer of a person in the custody of 
the Requesting State to the Requested State for purposes of 
assistance under the Treaty (for example, a defendant in the 
Requesting State may be transferred for purposes of attending a 
witness deposition in the Requesting State), if the person 
consents and if the Central Authorities of both States agree.
    Article 11(3) further establishes both the express 
authority and the obligation of the receiving State to maintain 
the person transferred in custody unless otherwise agreed by 
both Central Authorities. The return of the person transferred 
is subject to terms and conditions agreed to by the Central 
Authorities, and the sending State is not required to initiate 
extradition proceedings for return of the person transferred. 
The person transferred receives credit for time served in the 
custody of the receiving State.
    Article 12 establishes the authority of the Requested State 
to authorize transit through its territory of a person held in 
custody by a third State whose appearance has been requested by 
the Requesting State. The Requested State further has the 
authority and the obligation to keep the person in custody 
during transit. The Parties retain discretion to refuse to 
grant transit of their own nationals, however.
    Article 13 requires the Requested State to use its best 
efforts to ascertain the location or identity of persons or 
items specified in a request.
    Article 14 obligates the Requested State to use its best 
efforts to effect service of any document relating, in whole or 
in part, to any request for assistance under the Treaty. A 
request for the service of a document requiring a person to 
appear in the Requesting State must be transmitted a reasonable 
time before the scheduled appearance. Proof of service is to be 
provided in the manner specified in the request.
    Article 15 obligates the Requested State to execute 
requests for search, seizure, and delivery of any item to the 
Requesting State if the request includes the information 
justifying such action under the laws of theappropriate. The 
Central Authority of the State receiving such information is required 
to inform the Central Authority that provided the information of any 
action taken.
    Article 17 also obligates the Contracting States to assist 
each other to the extent permitted by their respective laws in 
proceedings relating to forfeiture of the proceeds and 
instrumentalities of offenses, restitution to victims of crime, 
and collection of fines imposed as sentences in criminal 
prosecutions. This may include action to temporarily immobilize 
the proceeds or instrumentalities pending further proceedings. 
The Contracting State having custody over proceeds or 
instrumentalities of offenses is required to dispose of them in 
accordance with its laws. Either Contracting State may transfer 
all or part of such assets, or the proceeds of their sale, to 
the extent permitted by the transferring State's laws and upon 
such terms as it deems appropriate.
    Article 18 states that assistance and procedures provided 
in the Treaty shall not prevent either Contracting State from 
granting assistance to the other Contracting State through the 
provisions of other applicable international agreements or 
through the provisions of its national law. The Contracting 
States may also provide assistance pursuant to any bilateral 
arrangement, agreement, or practice which may be applicable.
    Article 19 provides that the Central Authorities of the 
Contracting States shall consult, at times mutually agreed, to 
promote the most effective use of the Treaty, and may agree 
upon such practical measures as may be necessary to facilitate 
the Treaty's implementation.
    Article 20 provides that the Treaty is subject to 
ratification and the instruments shall be exchanged at 
Washington as soon as possible. The Treaty enters into force 
upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. Article 20 
further provides that either Contracting State may terminate 
the Treaty by written notice to the other Contracting State, 
with termination to be effective six months following the date 
of notification.
    A Technical Analysis explaining in detail the provisions of 
the Treaty is being prepared by the United States negotiating 
delegation, consisting of representatives from the Departments 
of Justice and State, and will be transmitted separately to the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
    The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in 
favoring approval of this Treaty by the Senate as soon as 
possible.
    Respectfully submitted,
                                                    Strobe Talbott.

Source: Congress online