Tariq Harb explains own legal consequences questioned Defense Minister

Expert Zealot Tariq Harb said the demonstrators in Tahrir Square in Baghdad on the afternoon of 05.08.2016 show they're with the minister of defense, it requires mention some legal issues interrogation and the corruption charges against the president of the parliament, and some lawmakers and others, and this requires stated the following: -

1. The leaders of the Shiite blocs statements in general and the statements of al-Maliki and al-Jaafari and Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim deduce they were against the defense minister, indirectly.

2. Sunni bloc between supporters of Minister of Defense and shows him and his support was split from the bloc united (conductivity) and the opposition was one of the Arab bloc because of accusations by some members of this bloc of corruption.

3. The Secretary of Defense when recording his statement before the competent judicial body said on 03/08/2016 All I know the truth and provided evidence and documents and recordings (CDs) on this subject.

4. The record briefing and the Secretary of Defense as a witness and was not complaining because the move was a complaint by the chief prosecutor due to get these words in a formal legal session of parliament and issued by the Minister to the Speaker of Parliament and some lawmakers.

5. no legal value for non-defense minister said the documents that support it at the mention of his words in Parliament because he is seen most clearly in front of the judiciary and legal value to the late defense minister said this type of corruption because it does not mean exemption was accused of corruption.

6. Since the Judiciary Committee identified the names of the accused and decided to prevent them from traveling, it means not to charge the high Nassif MP and MP Hanan al and the question is whether the high Nassif MP will give up questioning as long as the rules of procedure of the House of Representatives passed a prosecutor questioned waive questioning whether the MP Hanan al will set up a lawsuit against those who said that the receipt of a sum of money from the Minister of defense will lead to the cancellation of questioning the MP and that means Is that an MP Hanan al and MP Alia Nassif Stassiran at issue in the legal form confirms that Article 59 of the rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives I decided to grant the questioner withdraw his interrogation at any time and that the article (61 / VIII) of the Constitution necessitated submit a new application than fifty deputies to withdraw confidence from the Minister and required to vote later in the parliament to withdraw confidence.

7. where the President of the Parliament was able to get rid of what happened two months before the parliamentary reform group, will he be able to reach the same conclusion in the case and now own the charges against him.

8. current legal and constitutional issue away from the sectarian face so that some of the leaders of the Shiite alliance with Salim al-Jubouri, and that some of the leaders of the Sunni alliance against Salim al.

9. The judiciary, including the interrogation of the accused deputies approve decisions Article 63 of the Constitution so that the article was granted immunity by the House of Representatives arrest and trial, not the investigation.

10. considered filed by the Speaker of Parliament and some of the characters against the Minister of Defense Mstokhrh until the resolution of the main case in front of the judiciary because the suits in the Karkh district courts connected in the proceedings before the judiciary.

11. The prime minister was frank in his statement Andinma said he did not want Ascwab minister in the security conditions how we wish that the President of the Parliament understands the desire of the prime minister without incurring questioning the consequences of the President of the Parliament of multiple charges.

12. does not accept the Information Office of the Parliament to be a spokesman for the speaker of parliament so that the press office is of the parliament and their affairs and problems and not to the Speaker of Parliament Prime parliament can not be used for the specified media office has done to Parliament and not to any other personal while we found democracy, neutrality and impartiality summit at Information Office of the Ministry of defense, which did not intervene in these cases must be calendar of the parliament's media office, which violated the neutrality and the Information Office of the Ministry of defense, which moved away from everything to do with the defense minister's position in this case.