DOCSLIB.ORG

Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP Jay Alan Sekulow Pat A. Cipollone Stuart Roth Counsel to the President Andrew Ekonomou Patrick F. Philbin Jordan Sekulow Michael M. Purpura Mark Goldfeder Devin A. DeBacker Benjamin Sisney Trent J. Benishek Eric J. Hamilton Counsel to President Donald J. Trump Office of White House Counsel January 20, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 STANDARDS............................................................................................................................... 13 A. The Senate Must Decide All Questions of Law and Fact. .................................... 13 B. An Impeachable Offense Requires a Violation of Established Law that Inflicts Sufficiently Egregious Harm on the Government that It Threatens to Subvert the Constitution. .................................................................. 13 1. Text and Drafting History of the Impeachment Clause ............................ 14 2. The President’s Unique Role in Our Constitutional Structure .................. 17 3. Practice Under the Impeachment Clause .................................................. 18 C. The Senate Cannot Convict Unless It Finds that the House Managers Have Proved an Impeachable Offense Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. .................. 20 D. The Senate May Not Consider Allegations Not Charged in the Articles of Impeachment. ................................................................................................... 21 PROCEDURAL HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 21 THE ARTICLES SHOULD BE REJECTED AND THE PRESIDENT SHOULD IMMEDIATELY BE ACQUITTED. ........................................................................................... 24 I. The Articles Fail to State Impeachable Offenses as a Matter Of Law. ............................. 24 A. House Democrats’ Novel Theory of “Abuse of Power” Does Not State an Impeachable Offense and Would Do Lasting Damage to the Separation of Powers. ........................................................................................... 24 1. House Democrats’ Novel Theory of “Abuse of Power” as an Impeachable Offense Subverts Constitutional Standards and Would Permanently Weaken the Presidency. ........................................... 24 (a) House Democrats’ Made-Up “Abuse of Power” Standard Fails To State an Impeachable Offense Because It Does Not Rest on Violation of an Established Law. ........................................................................... 25 (b) House Democrats’ Unprecedented Theory of Impeachable Offenses Defined by Subjective Intent Alone Would Permanently Weaken the Presidency. .................... 27 2. House Democrats’ Assertions that the Framers Particularly Intended Impeachment to Guard Against “Foreign Entanglements” and “Corruption” of Elections Are Makeweights that Distort History. ............................................................ 33 B. House Democrats’ Charge of “Obstruction” Fails Because Invoking Constitutionally Based Privileges and Immunities to Protect the Separation of Powers Is Not an Impeachable Offense. ......................................... 35 1. President Trump Acted Properly—and upon Advice from the Department of Justice—by Asserting Established Legal Defenses and Immunities to Resist Legally Defective Demands for Information from House Committees. ................................................ 37 (a) Administration Officials Properly Refused to Comply with Subpoenas that Lacked Authorization from the House. ........................................................................................... 37 (i) A Delegation of Authority from the House Is Required Before Any Committee Can Investigate Pursuant to the Impeachment Power. ............. 37 (ii) Nothing in Existing House Rules Authorized Any Committee to Pursue an Impeachment Inquiry. .............................................................................. 39 (iii) More Than 200 Years of Precedent Confirm that the House Must Vote to Begin an Impeachment Inquiry. .............................................................................. 40 (iv) The Subpoenas Issued Before House Resolution 660 Were Invalid and Remain Invalid Because the Resolution Did Not Ratify Them. ............................... 41 (b) The President Properly Asserted Immunity of His Senior Advisers from Compelled Congressional Testimony. .................................................................................... 43 (c) Administration Officials Properly Instructed Employees Not to Testify Before Committees that Improperly Excluded Agency Counsel. ........................................................... 46 2. Asserting Legal Defenses and Immunities Grounded in the Constitution’s Separation of Powers Is Not an Impeachable Offense. ..................................................................................................... 47 (a) Asserting Legal Defenses and Privileges Is Not “Obstruction.” ............................................................................... 47 (b) House Democrats’ Radical Theory of “Obstruction” Would Do Grave Damage to the Separation of Powers. .............. 48 (c) The President Cannot Be Removed from Office Based on a Difference in Legal Opinion. ................................................ 54 II. The Articles Resulted from an Impeachment Inquiry that Violated All Precedent and Denied the President Constitutionally Required Due Process. ................. 55 A. The Purported Impeachment Inquiry Was Unauthorized at the Outset and Compelled Testimony Based on Nearly Two Dozen Invalid Subpoenas. ............................................................................................................ 56 ii B. House Democrats’ Impeachment Inquiry Deprived the President of the Fundamentally Fair Process Required by the Constitution. ............................ 57 1. The Text and Structure of the Constitution Demand that the House Ensure Fundamentally Fair Procedures in an Impeachment Inquiry. ............................................................................... 58 (a) The Due Process Clause Requires Fair Process. ........................... 58 (b) The Separation of Powers Requires Fair Process. ........................ 60 (c) The House’s Sole Power of Impeachment and Power to Determine Rules of Its Own Proceedings Do Not Eliminate the Constitutional Requirement of Due Process. ......................................................................................... 61 2. The House’s Consistent Practice of Providing Due Process in Impeachment Investigations for the Last 150 Years Confirms that the Constitution Requires Due Process. ............................................. 62 3. The President’s Counsel Must Be Allowed to Be Present at Hearings, See and Present Evidence, and Cross-Examine All Witnesses. ................................................................................................. 66 4. The House Impeachment Inquiry Failed to Provide the Due Process Demanded by the Constitution and Generated a Fundamentally Skewed Record that Cannot Be Relied Upon in the Senate. ................................................................................................. 67 (a) Phase I: Secret Hearings in the Basement Bunker ........................ 67 (b) Phase II: The Public, Ex Parte Show Trial Before HPSCI ........................................................................................... 69 (c) Phase III: The Ignominious Rubber Stamp from the Judiciary Committee ..................................................................... 70 C. The House’s Inquiry Was Irredeemably Defective Because It Was Presided Over by an Interested Fact Witness Who Lied About Contact with the Whistleblower Before the Complaint Was Filed. ................................... 74 D. The Senate May Not Rely on a Factual Record Derived from a Procedurally Deficient House Impeachment Inquiry. .......................................... 75 E. House Democrats Used an Unprecedented and Unfair Process Because Their Goal to Impeach at Any Cost Had Nothing To Do with Finding the Truth. ................................................................................................. 75 III. Article I Fails Because the Evidence Disproves House Democrats’ Claims. ................... 80 A. The Evidence Refutes Any Claim That the President Conditioned the Release of Security Assistance on an Announcement of Investigations by Ukraine. ............................................................................................................ 81 1. The July 25 Call Transcript Shows the President Did Nothing Wrong. ...................................................................................................... 81 iii 2. President Zelenskyy and Other Senior Ukrainian Officials Confirmed There Was No Quid Pro Quo and No Pressure on Them Concerning Investigations. ............................................................. 84 3. President Zelenskyy and Other Senior Ukrainian Officials Did Not Even Know that the Security Assistance Had Been Paused. ............. 85 4. House Democrats Rely Solely on Speculation Built on Hearsay. ................................................................................................................... 87 5. The Security Assistance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Media As a Mirror of Putin's Evolving Strategy in Ukraine
    Tomila Lankina and Kohei Watanabe ‘Russian Spring’ or ‘Spring betrayal’? The media as a mirror of Putin’s evolving strategy in Ukraine Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Lankina, Tomila V. and Watanabe, Kohei (2017) ‘Russian Spring’ or ‘Spring betrayal’? The media as a mirror of Putin’s evolving strategy in Ukraine. Europe-Asia Studies. pp. 1526- 1556. ISSN 0966-8136 DOI: 10.1080/09668136.2017.1397603 © 2017 University of Glasgow This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68226/ Available in LSE Research Online: January 2018 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. 1 Tomila Lankina* and Kohei Watanabe** ‘Russian Spring’ or ‘Spring Betrayal’? The Media as a Mirror of Putin’s Evolving Strategy in Ukraine Abstract We develop a novel Russian-language electronic content analysis dictionary and method to analyse Russian state media’s framing of the Euromaidan protests.
    [Show full text]
  • Not the King's Bench Edward A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2003 Not the King's Bench Edward A. Hartnett Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Hartnett, Edward A., "Not the King's Bench" (2003). Constitutional Commentary. 303. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/303 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT THE KING'S BENCH Edward A. Hartnett* Speaking at a public birthday party for an icon, even if the honoree is one or two hundred years old, can be a surprisingly tricky business. Short of turning the party into a roast, it seems rude to criticize the birthday boy too harshly. On the other hand, it is at least as important to avoid unwarranted and exaggerated praise.1 The difficult task, then, is to try to say something re­ motely new or interesting while navigating that strait. The conference organizers did make it easier for me in one respect: My assignment does not involve those ideas for which Marbury is invoked as an icon. It is for others to wrestle in well­ worn trenches with exalted arguments about judicial review and its overgrown descendent judicial supremacy, while trying to avoid unseemly criticism or fawning praise. I, on the other hand, am to address more technical issues involving section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and its provision granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus.
    [Show full text]
  • Extradition Law at the Crossroads: the Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States
    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 19 Issue 3 1998 Extradition Law at the Crossroads: The Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States Lis Wiehl University of Washington Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Lis Wiehl, Extradition Law at the Crossroads: The Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States, 19 MICH. J. INT'L L. 729 (1998). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol19/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXTRADITION LAW AT THE CROSSROADS: THE TREND TOWARD EXTENDING GREATER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS TO FUGITIVES FIGHTING EXTRADITION FROM THE UNITED STATES Lis Wiehl* PROLOGUE ............................................................................................. 730 INTRODUCrION ................... ....................... 730 I. BACKGROUND: THE LIMITED NATURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS IN THE U.S. LAW OF INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony Before Thehouse Ofrepresentativescommittee on Foreign Affairs, Permanentselect Committee on Intelligence, and Committee on Oversight
    Testimony before theHouse ofRepresentativesCommittee on Foreign Affairs, PermanentSelect Committee on Intelligence, and Committee on Oversight Amb . Kurt Volker Former U . S. SpecialRepresentative for UkraineNegotiations October 3, 2019 Thank you very much for theopportunityto provide this testimony today. Allow meto begin by stressing that you and the American people can bereassured andproud thatthe DepartmentofState andthe DepartmentofDefense, andthe professionalsworking there civil and foreign serviceandmilitary have conducted themselveswith thehighest degree ofprofessionalism , integrity, anddedicationto thenationalinterest. That is a testamentto the strength ofour people, our institutions, andour country. As a formermemberof theSeniorForeign Service, andin conductingmyrole as U .S . Special Representativefor UkraineNegotiations, I have similarly acted solely to advance U . S . national interests, which included supportingdemocracy and reform in Ukraine; helpingUkrainebetter defend itself and deter Russian aggression; and leading U . S . negotiatingefforts to endthewar andrestoreUkraine' s territorialintegrity. Throughoutmy career, whether as a career diplomat, U . S. Ambassador to NATO , or in my other capacities, have tried to be courageous, energetic, clear-eyed and plain -spoken - always acting with integrity, to advance core American values and interests. Myefforts as U . S. Special Representativefor UkraineNegotiationswere no different. In carrying outthis role, at somestage foundmyself faced with a choice: to be aware of a problem and to ignore it, or rather to accept that itwasmyresponsibility to try to fix it. I wouldnothavebeen true to myself,my duties, ormy commitmentto the people of the UnitedStatesor Ukraine, if I did notdive in and try to fix problemsas best could. There are five keypoints I would like to stress in this testimony , and I would like to submit a longer version and timeline of events for the record .
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony Before the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Committee on Oversight
    Testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Committee on Oversight Amb. Kurt Volker Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations October 3, 2019 Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide this testimony today. Allow me to begin by stressing that you and the American people can be reassured and proud that the Department of State and the Department of Defense, and the professionals working there—civil and foreign service and military—have conducted themselves with the highest degree of professionalism, integrity, and dedication to the national interest. That is a testament to the strength of our people, our institutions, and our country. As a former member of the Senior Foreign Service, and in conducting my role as U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, I have similarly acted solely to advance U.S. national interests, which included supporting democracy and reform in Ukraine; helping Ukraine better defend itself and deter Russian aggression; and leading U.S. negotiating efforts to end the war and restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Throughout my career, whether as a career diplomat, U.S. Ambassador to NATO, or in my other capacities, I have tried to be courageous, energetic, clear-eyed and plain-spoken—always acting with integrity, to advance core American values and interests. My efforts as U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations were no different. In carrying out this role, I at some stage found myself faced with a choice: to be aware of a problem and to ignore it, or rather to accept that it was my responsibility to try to fix it.
    [Show full text]
  • Impeachment Witnesses Defy Subpoenas
    Impeachment Witnesses Defy Subpoenas Bacteriostatic and puisne Millicent placed almost shriekingly, though Harmon raved his Keynes regenerating. Lovelier and ministrant Richie battles her phanerogam disturb justly or scans thin, is Emil phraseological? Is Sergei permissive when Johny rephotograph orderly? In office on inferences where. Of subpoenas issued a subpoenaed by authorizing and defy their bids to? Some witnesses defied subpoenas, impeachment witness makes sense. Trump impeachment inquiry Who has been subpoenaed. He sends along with an article that other. Members have subpoenaed witness to subpoena a trump impeached on that impeachable offenses, defying a general grant him for? It impeachable abuse. You break, the Ukrainians at this point, to know, you looking at my White House meeting or looking use a meeting with the President of the United States as a recognition of their legitimacy as a country state. Residents are witnesses defied under conversation to defy impeachment managers wrote: ukraine was incompetent for ukraine was not ask him of. General Thomas was reading into testimony upon the managers and they argued, I discuss in people opening, than they had proved it, that that process what prevented General Thomas using force who take possession of bush War Office. In reference particular point of? And silver if subpoenaed in the Senate impeachment trial then his father boss. Do all witnesses have to go high court? What happens if eye witness doesn't come from court? Lawyer Charles Kupperman Fears Lawmakers Will ReIssue. Later on day, Dr. General Thomas declared that wood was amount to scope the War Office mortgage force? White House's Mulvaney to study over House impeachment subpoenas.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ukrainian Weekly, 2020
    INSIDE: l Thousands participate in online protest in Ukraine – page 4 l Ukrainians prohibited from owning land in Crimea – page 7 l Bishop uses social media to connect with U.K. faithful – page 9 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY Published by the Ukrainian National Association Inc., a fraternal non-profit association Vol. LXXXVIII No. 14 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, APRIL 5, 2020 $2.00 NEWS ANALYSIS Verkhovna Rada dismisses two crucial ministers Breakthrough in Ukraine’s and approves their replacements amid pandemic land privatization saga by Bohdan Nahaylo The World Bank and others viewed this ban as an unduly conservative and unwar- KYIV – On March 30 and 31, the ranted impediment to Ukraine realizing its Ukrainian Parliament finally delivered on economic potential. It estimated that the two crucial issues set as preconditions by moratorium has deprived Ukraine’s econo- the International Monetary Fund in order my of billions of dollars in land taxes and for the country to receive financial support investment in agriculture. of up to $8 billion to help offset the effects Furthermore, in May 2018 the European of the coronavirus pandemic and its devas- Court of Human Rights declared that the tating impact on Ukraine’s fragile economy. moratorium on farmland sales violated The first involved the adoption in its first Ukrainians’ human rights as Ukrainian reading of the so-called “banking” or “anti- farmers – an estimated 7 million of them – Kolomoisky” bill named after the notorious because they were not allowed to manage billionaire oligarch who wants to recover their property freely. Ukraine’s largest bank, PrivatBank. It was In 2018, a coalition of 39 companies and nationalized in 2016 after he allegedly over 1,500 agricultural producers peti- embezzled $5.5 billion from it.
    [Show full text]
  • Trial Memorandum of President Trump (Without Appendix)
    IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP Jay Alan Sekulow Pat A. Cipollone Stuart Roth Counsel to the President Andrew Ekonomou Patrick F. Philbin Jordan Sekulow Michael M. Purpura Mark Goldfeder Devin A. DeBacker Benjamin Sisney Trent J. Benishek Eric J. Hamilton Counsel to President Donald J. Trump Office of White House Counsel January 20, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 STANDARDS............................................................................................................................... 13 A. The Senate Must Decide All Questions of Law and Fact. .................................... 13 B. An Impeachable Offense Requires a Violation of Established Law that Inflicts Sufficiently Egregious Harm on the Government that It Threatens to Subvert the Constitution. .................................................................. 13 1. Text and Drafting History of the Impeachment Clause ............................ 14 2. The President’s Unique Role in Our Constitutional Structure .................. 17 3. Practice Under the Impeachment Clause .................................................. 18 C. The Senate Cannot Convict Unless It Finds that the House Managers Have Proved an Impeachable Offense Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. .................. 20 D. The Senate May Not Consider Allegations Not Charged in the Articles of Impeachment. ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S1184
    S1184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 27, 2020 bomb components, repair and return of weap- get. Laser designation for the LGB can be ests above the interests of the United States. ons, weapons training equipment, practice provided by a variety of laser target markers The House Impeachment Managers have bombs, TTU–595 Test Set and spares, fin as- or designators. proven that the President’s abuse of power semblies, rocket motors, training aids/de- 4. Mk–82 General Purpose (GP) bomb is a and congressional obstruction amount to the vices/spare parts, aircraft spare parts, sup- 500 pound, free-fall, unguided, low-drag weap- constitutional standard of ‘‘high Crimes and port equipment, clothing and textiles, publi- on usually equipped with the mechanical Misdemeanors’’ for which the sole remedy is cations and technical documentation, travel M904 (nose) and M905 (tail) fuzes or the conviction and removal from office. expenses, medical services, construction, air- radar-proximity FMU–113 air-burst fuze. The II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS craft ferry support, technical and logistical Mk–82 is designed for soft, fragment sen- On December 18, 2019, the United States support services, major modifications/class sitive targets and is not intended for hard House of Representatives passed H. Res. 755,1 IV support, personnel training and training targets or penetrations. The explosive filling ‘‘Impeaching Donald John Trump, President equipment, U.S. Government and contractor is usually tritonal, though other composi- of the United States, for high crimes and program support, and other related elements tions have sometimes been used. misdemeanors.’’ H. Res. 755 contains two Ar- of logistics and program support.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................2 I. THE GOP INVESTIGATION ADVANCED RUSSIA’S ELECTION INTERFERENCE EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP ..................................................................5 A. Putin and the Kremlin Support the GOP’s Ukraine Conspiracy Theories .......................6 B. GOP Allegations Originate From Sources Closely Tied to Kremlin and Promoting Russian Interests .....................................................................................................................9 1. GOP Investigation is Outcome of Derkach’s Election Interference Efforts .................9 2. Star Witness Telizhenko Has Close Ties to Derkach and Causes National Security Concerns ........................................................................................................................... 12 3. GOP Chairmen Repeatedly Cite Discredited Reporter’s Opinion Columns as Findings of Fact ............................................................................................................................... 16 4. Derkach Ally Giuliani Provided Biden Dirt to GOP Sources.................................... 19 C. Republicans Admit Purpose of Investigation is to Attack Vice President Biden’s Candidacy for President ........................................................................................................ 20 D. No GOP Interest In Hunter Biden Allegations Until Impeachment and 2020 Presidential
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present
    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Outdated Construction Fleet in Nord Stream 2 May Lead to Catastrophe
    Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 04/16/2021 10:30:16 AM Translate » — COVID-19 in numbers: Ukraine Worldwide Cases: 1,921,244 Deaths: 39,096 Recovered: Cases: 139,860,708 Deaths: 3,002,788 Recovered: 1,465,820 118,916,354 Report: Russia's outdated construction fleet in Nord Stream 2 may lead to catastrophe By Alexander Query. Published April 2 at 4:48 pm * r- E2] The Russian pipe laying vessel Akademik Cherskiy is moored in the port of Mukran near Sassnitz on the Baltic Sea island of Ruegen in Germany, on Sept. 7, 2020, as it waits to continue work on the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. Russia's use of outdated vessels to build its controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline could lead to a catastrophe, according to a report by Ukraine's Foreign Intelligence Service published on April 2. Photo by AFP Russia's use of outdated vessels to build its controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline could lead Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 04/16/2021 10:30:16 AM Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 04/16/2021 10:30:16 AM to a catastrophe, according to a report by Ukraine's Foreign Intelligence Service published on April 2. Russia is forced to use its decaying fleet because economic sanctions against the project discouraged other participants. This creates an ecological disaster risk, the intelligence service stated. 'The use of technologically obsolete vessels and equipment in the future increases the likelihood of a man-made disaster with environmental consequences on a regional scale at any peak load," the report reads.
    [Show full text]