The New Abwehr Hypothesis of The Operation Trump: A Study In Political Psychology, Political Criminology, and Psychohistory, and as the aid for the General, Criminal and the Counterintelligence Investigations of Donald Trump - by Michael Novakhov, M.D. (Mike Nova): Web Research, Analysis, Hypotheses, and Opinions | Current News | Reviews of media reports | Selected reading lists | Site: http://trumpinvestigations.org/
Domestic tricksters are the biggest threat to our elections | Rudy Giuliani and Pavel Fuchs - 11:25 AM 2/5/2019
Is Authoritarianism Bad for the Economy?The QuintSeventy-one out of the world's 195 countries saw their democratic institutions erode in recent years, according to the 2018 year-end report by democracy ...
On January 24th, a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. convened by Special Counsel Robert Mueller returned an indictment of Roger Stone for false statements, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering. The indictment alleged that a very senior person in the Trump campaign — perhaps Donald Trump himself — directed subordinates in the summer of 2016 to contact Stone for information about Wikileaks’ plans for additional dumps of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton that had been stolen by Russian hackers. The public has an acute interest in knowing who that unidentified person is, especially if it is the man who is now president. However, for reasons I set out here, neither a guilty plea nor a contested trial in Stone’s criminal case will likely reveal that information. That lack of transparency further raises the stakes for public testimony and disclosure of Mueller’s findings. Intrigue in Stone’s Indictment
On page four of Stone’s indictment, Mueller unexpectedly shifted into the passive voice for one key sentence: “After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign.”
It’s clear from the context that “Organization 1” refers to Wikileaks. What is less clear is what is meant by the curious use of “was directed,” as in, “a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact Stone.” There are, of course, only a limited number of people who could have “directed” a senior Trump Campaign official, so there was immediate speculation that prosecutors had shifted to the passive voice to avoid having to say “President 1 directed” or some other phrasing that would have clearly identified Donald Trump.
That speculation will not die down any time soon.
The question is, will the public get a clean answer about the identity of the person who did the directing at some point, as the prosecution of Roger Stone works its way through the courts. The public is certainly curious. But are they, are we, entitled to have that curiosity satisfied? Are we a stakeholder that is entitled, in some way, to have its interests vindicated in this regard? The Grand Jury Knows but Secrecy Reigns
The public is not entitled to information about what goes on in front of a grand jury. That process is explicitly cloaked in secrecy by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provide that no one, other than a witness in the proceedings, may disclose what takes place. Prosecutors, grand jurors, court reporters –- anyone else who permitted in the room while the grand jury is investigating or considering an indictment is not permitted to discuss what happens, with limited exceptions for law enforcement to share information with colleagues who need the information to further their work. Public disclosure is forbidden.
There are three rationales for grand jury secrecy. First, it is an effort to preserve the reputation of an individual who may fall under investigation, but ultimately not be charged. This rationale says they should not be subjected to reputational damage unless and until a grand jury finds that probable cause exists to charge them. Although this is an imperfect protection – word of investigation can leak out through the use of other investigative techniques or from witnesses, it is deeply engrained. Nonetheless, belief that those who are not charged deserve protection runs so deep that the Justice Manual (formerly the US Attorneys’ Manual) prohibits disclosure in an indictment of the name or identifying information about an unindicted co-conspirator absent “significant justification” and encourages that filing a Bill of Particulars, which the defense could ask for to provide such details, under seal so that the identity of the individual does not become public.
Second, grand jury secrecy protects the integrity of ongoing investigations, cloaking them in secrecy so that those under investigation do not receive warning that causes them to curtail their conduct, destroy evidence, flee or tamper with witnesses.
Third, secrecy protects witnesses and ensures they feel free to testify truthfully before the grand jury even while the person they testify against remains free. As a result of the rules against public disclosure of grand jury material, details regarding the individual who directed a senior Trump campaign official to make inquiries of Stone regarding Wikileaks will not come to light in the form of grand jury transcripts or other disclosures by non-witnesses. The Transparency of Guilty Pleas and Public Trial, Compared
Given the absence of information learned in the grand jury, will the prosecution of Stone, as it proceeds, offer the public a better opportunity to learn the details?
To answer that question, we need to contemplate the two most likely outcomes of the case. First, Stone, like Cohen and other defendants in the Mueller probe before him, might decide his interests are best served by a plea of guilt, which can be entered with or without a cooperation agreement with the government. Second, Stone can maintain his plea of not guilty and proceed to trial. Scenario 1: Stone Pleads Guilty Stone entered a plea of not guilty, but he could change his mind over the coming weeks. As the gravity of the charges and weight of the evidence against him comes into focus, he and his lawyers may come the conclusion that there are not sufficient facts in doubt to justify the expense of a trial. Or, he might have something to offer Mueller in return for a charge reduction or a favorable sentencing mitigation. Thus, it is worth considering the transparency effects should Stone decide to switch course and enter a plea of guilty.
When a defendant pleads guilty, he or she must agree to what is often called a “statement of the offense” — a recitation of some of the evidence against the defendant, which is sufficient to establish guilt on all elements of the charge. The prosecution is not required to include all of the evidence against a defendant, and usually does not, for both practical, and sometimes for strategic reasons in an ongoing investigation. The August 2018 plea proceedings for Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen on charges brought by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York took an interesting turn in this regard. Cohen pleaded guilty to charges involving payments to women Trump allegedly had affairs with and identified Individual 1 — Donald Trump — as the person who directed his criminal conduct. He did this not because it was essential to establishing his guilt, but rather, in an apparent effort to establish his bona fides with prosecutors, with whom he had not reached a cooperation agreement. Cohen no longer wanted to be the man who would “take a bullet” for Trump.
It’s less likely we’ll see a repeat of this type of revelation in Stone’s proceedings. Should he, like Cohen, abandon his resolve and attempt to change his plea to guilty, the Judge will have to be convinced Stone made false statements, obstructed justice, and tried to tamper with a witness in order to accept the plea. But the identity of the individual who urged a senior staffer to reach out to Stone for more information on Wikileaks doesn’t appear essential to proving any of those charges. Strictly speaking, there is no reason this information has to become public during a guilty plea.
That is not to say it couldn’t come out, but there is no reason to suspect it will or that Stone, even if he decided to plead guilty, would enter into a cooperation agreement with prosecutors that might encourage him to divulge this type of information in the manner Cohen did. In sum, it’s unlikely that the public will learn much in this regard from a guilty plea. Scenario 2: Stone Goes to Trial
In trial, the posture of the parties is very different than it is when a defendant enters a plea. Stone’s lawyers’ strategy would be to minimize or exclude evidence that — even if not direct evidence of guilt — would make it easier for the jury to believe their client had engaged in wrongdoing. If the defense is to deny that Stone coordinated with Wikileaks, it seems unlikely that their strategy would involve revealing who in the Trump campaign encouraged Stone to do so.
That said, there can be “trial chaos” where witnesses make unexpected utterances or facts not previously believed to be in issue suddenly become germane.
But, on the face of this indictment, it seems likely Stone’s lawyers would move in limineto exclude any mention of the identity of the “director” at trial or even seek to strike this language from the indictment as surplusage.
Striking the language as surplusage would mean removing it from the indictment and, essentially, from the jury’s consideration. It would make it extraordinarily unlikely for further information to emerge at trial in this regard. But the standard for striking language from an indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(b) is rigorous, requiring proof the language is not relevant to the charges and also that is inflammatory and prejudicial to the defendant. Even if the language isn’t relevant to the charges, judges only exclude it where it is so prejudicial to a jury that even a jury instruction cannot cure it. It’s difficult to see how the language here could be prejudicial to Stone, and particularly given courts’ hesitance to strike language from indictments, it seems likely it would be permitted to remain.
But the mere presence of the language in the indictment doesn’t make it probable or even likely that a court would permit testimony in this regard.
The standard for admitting evidence involves balancing its probative value against the risk of undue prejudice. Here, Stone might argue that given the crimes with which he is charged, the issue of who directed a senior staffer to reach out to him has attenuated relevance but could run the risk of unfairly prejudicing him in the eyes of the jury. Prosecutors frequently point out that all good evidence is prejudicial against a defendant – in fact, that is, the point of presenting evidence at trial: establishing that a defendant engaged in criminal conduct. So the issue here would be one of balancing the relevance of the evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice, and that determination is left to the discretion of the trial judge. Should the issue come up at trial, she will determine what evidence the government may present to the jury, and by extension the public.
Should Stone be convicted through a plea or at trial, a sentencing hearing will take place. In a sentencing hearing, the judge is required to consider factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the “nature and circumstances of the offense.” It is possible that the government could offer more description at this stage, but in the absence of further developments, it’s unlikely the government would provide more information about unnamed participants in Stone’s crimes than what had previously come into the public record.
In short, the public doesn’t have an explicit right to know details that don’t become public during a criminal proceeding. And in a typical criminal case, that makes sense. Rules and longstanding practice set a balance designed to preserve the rights of the innocent, the guilty, and witnesses to crimes. Even in a corruption case involving a mayor, a senator or a governor, the rules against disclosure make sense, even if they are temporarily frustrating to people who want to know the details regarding their elected officials’ behavior. In those cases, the truth usually comes out at some point, because the public official is subject to prosecution.
The question here is whether it’s different when a president is involved.
We know that longstanding DOJ policy counsels against indictment of a president. Assuming, for the moment, that evidence would support charging the President, it is nonetheless unlikely an indictment would be sought from the grand jury. That policy has never been tested in court and it’s unlikely that it will be here. We would only see a challenge to the policy if a president were indicted despite it and challenged the “violation” of the policy in defending himself. If, as widely expected, Mueller decides against or is denied permission to indict Trump, there will be no vehicle, that is, no one with legal standing, to challenge that decision. There will not, in the context of the criminal justice system, be a trial where President Trump’s actions are the subject of the inquiry and actions committed directly by or on behalf of him are publicly dissected.
There has been much concern that this leads to a situation where, contrary to the rule of law, one man in our country –- the president –- is above the law. Concerns about DOJ’s policy may well be valid. We see the issue in focus here: a public indictment alleges someone high up enough in the Trump campaign to direct its senior officials to make an inquiry of now-defendant, then long time Trump pal, Roger Stone regarding a foreign entity that received information from Russia for use against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign. The public is interested in this detail and it has a right to know the identity of this person. DOJ’s policy against naming those who are not being charged in an indictment presumably prevented Mueller from naming this person. And there is no guarantee, perhaps a weak possibility at best, that the public will learn more as the Stone prosecution proceeds. So Where Does that Leave Us?
Does the public ever get to know the details, and if so, how and when? The answer, as with many details of the Mueller investigation, seems to hinge on Mueller’s final report and whether it will become public. There is a compelling argument for public release of Mueller’s findings, particularly where many details are already public through the auspices of the press or prior indictments and they involve the one person in our system of justice who cannot be indicted. Presumably, by the time Mueller releases his report, it will be clear who is being indicted, who he has concluded should not be, and that any risks to the integrity of the investigation will be muted. As Justice Brandeis once noted, “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” We need that here.
A final note. It is unlikely that Mueller buried such a bombshell detail within his latest indictment without intending that the identity of the individual identified through the passive voice, as “he directed,” should become public. Otherwise, why tantalize? The hint suggests that Mueller believes this is important information for the public to have. If Mueller is not ultimately in a position to provide it, he has signaled that others — whether on the Hill or in the public — should ensure it is revealed. This is not a typical case. Although normally the public is not a stakeholder with an established right to learn information that does not become public during court proceedings in criminal cases, here, it is the only acceptable outcome.
Image: Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to President Donald Trump, arrives at the courthouse to face charges from Special Counsel Robert Mueller that he lied to Congress and engaged in witness tampering January 29, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).
Sometimes complex policy issues are best captured in a simple question. If ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is captured alive tomorrow, who should prosecute him, where and for what crimes?
When I pose this question to policymakers – in Western capitals or in the Middle East – I am often met with a blank stare. Most expect al-Baghdadi to be killed instead of caught. But even if al-Baghdadi is not captured alive, what about the thousands of ISIS members – some of whom held key roles in ISIS – currently detained in Syria and Iraq?
Even though ISIS’s territorial control in Syria is collapsing, the international anti-ISIS coalition and local powers have yet to adopt a coordinated strategy to hold ISIS members accountable. What we have is a piecemeal approach that is deeply flawed.
ISIS members have been prosecuted solely within the framework of domestic counterterrorism laws. Terrorism offenses are convenient because authorities only have to prove a connection between the accused and a terrorist organization, and sentences are lengthy. But the approach fails to capture the full range of crimes committed by ISIS or judge members for specific actions. It also denies victims their day in court, and sheds no light on the inner workings of the group. It is a missed opportunity to create a judicial record of ISIS atrocities and bring individuals to justice for those crimes.
There are also serious fair trial and due process concerns with the current approach. In Iraq, trials of ISIS suspects have been rushed, with speedy convictions and many death sentences handed down. Victims of ISIS abuse, including Yezidis, say they have been ignored in court proceedings and that those who harmed them are not being charged with crimes like rape or murder. Iraq’s approach is so blunt that an ISIS cook can receive the same punishment as an ISIS member who may have raped or beheaded victims. Due process violations, including torture, have further undermined confidence in the process.
In northern Syria, the U.S.-backed Syria Democratic Forces (SDF) are holding thousands of local and foreign ISIS suspects. The local authorities have set up makeshift courts that have tried hundreds of Syrian ISIS members by applying a locally enacted counterterrorism law. But the proceedings are deeply flawed. There are no defense lawyers to represent suspects and no appeals process.
The SDF’s makeshift courts are not recognized by the Syrian government or the international community – including the group’s own international partners – raising doubts about the long-term impact and enforceability of the rulings. Meanwhile, hundreds of foreign ISIS members – from 46 countries – remain in custody with no legal process because the SDF would like their home countries to take them back – a request that most home countries have rejected so far.
Local and international initiatives to improve these efforts have been ill-conceived and some have been underfunded. Iraqi authorities announced in 2017 that they would set up a Judicial Investigation Board for Crimes Against the Yezidis to investigate ISIS crimes against them. But key Yezidi groups that provide support to people formerly enslaved by ISIS say they were never contacted and that the investigative body has not published any information about its work or how it will feed into criminal cases.
Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) also created a committee to investigate crimes against the Yezidis, but a recent report by the International Federation for Human Rights says the committee’s evidence does not currently feed into any prosecution system. Among the reasons for the absence of prosecution efforts for war crimes and crimes against humanity is the fact that international crimes, such as war crimes and genocide, are not currently incorporated into Iraqi law.
The United Nations has tried to assist Iraq, but its efforts have been limited and suffer from design flaws. The Security Council established a team to investigate ISIS crimes in Iraq, and the team began its work in late 2018. But the mandate of this team, known by the acronym UNITAD, is limited. For now, it only covers crimes committed in Iraq by ISIS members. It will not investigate ISIS crimes in Syria nor conduct investigations on the Syrian side of the border, nor will it look into grave crimes committed by groups that fought ISIS in Iraq despite overwhelming evidence of rampant abuses.
But even in Iraq, where the UN team will have a mandate to gather evidence, it is not clear how any UN evidence will be used in future trials. UN policy rightly prohibits supporting or assisting processes that could lead to the death penalty or that deny defendants a fundamentally fair trial. And death sentences and unfair trials are a common experience for those accused of ISIS affiliation in Iraq. So right now, it is not clear how this UN-effort will further prosecutions.
The absence of an international strategy to credibly prosecute ISIS members is particularly flagrant in northern Syria. The U.S.-led Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS never developed a plan to bring ISIS members held there to justice. Key members of the coalition have often repeated the mantra that foreign members of ISIS should be tried by the coalition’s local allies, yet the coalition has not assisted the local authorities in northern Syria to develop their courts.
With the United States announcing its withdrawal from Syria, the SDF finds itself holding hundreds of foreigners suspected of affiliation with ISIS with no capacity or strategy to investigate the crimes they are implicated in and prosecute them. One concern is that faced with no other options, the SDF may be tempted to eventually transfer these men to Syrian government custody – a troubling prospect given the rampant torture and lack of fair trials in areas under its control.
The UN – through the General Assembly – did establish in December 2016 an international mechanism (known as IIIM) to assist in investigating and prosecuting those responsible for the most serious international crimes committed in Syria since March 2011. Unlike UNITAD in Iraq, the IIIM can look at crimes by all parties in Syria. However, this impartial approach has come with an operational cost. Unlike the UN-mandated investigation in Iraq, which operates with the approval of Iraqi authorities and can dispatch teams to the country, the IIIM does not have the support of the Syrian government and cannot currently operate inside Syria.
While the IIIM and UNITAD are both rooted in the UN system, they are each confined to examining crimes in a particular country with no explicit system to exchange information or share evidence as there is no dedicated forum that currently has jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes. The IIIM is, in its own words, “neither a prosecutor’s office nor a court,” so it will have to find and transfer its evidence to a national, regional or international court that has – or may in the future have – jurisdiction.
Possible candidates for such transfers could be national courts with jurisdiction over the crimes because the suspects or the victims are nationals, or because these courts recognize universal jurisdiction over certain crimes. But so far, European countries have been reluctant to repatriate ISIS suspects to try them in their courts and some non-European countries that have repatriated their nationals have poor human rights records, raising torture and fair trial concerns.
This fragmented policy environment means that the question of how a hypothetical future trial of al-Baghdadi – or that of other senior ISIS member – will unfold has no clear answers to date. If the SDF detain him in Syria, what will they then do with him? Will the UN-created units be able to feed the information they have gathered into his prosecution given concerns around fair trial and the death penalty? Will he just be prosecuted for terrorism-related charges or will there be a way to prosecute him for war crimes and crimes against humanity?
While much time has been lost, it is not too late for the international community and key actors in Syria and Iraq to develop a more coherent response to bring ISIS members to account. Information sharing between the two UN teams and local mechanisms will be important, but there needs to be a clear process to ensure that such information is not used to violate key rights. More fundamentally, it is time to start thinking of possible venues that can provide fair trials, ensure victim participation, and prosecute senior ISIS members for the full range of crimes they may have committed.
If key international actors believe that such trials can be held locally – a proposition that seems far-fetched given the rampant abuses in Syria and Iraq – they should invest in beefing up local justice systems, ensure fair trial guarantees, eliminate the death penalty and encourage local authorities to amend their laws to allow prosecutions for international crimes. If the political will or context does not permit such efforts, then it is time to explore which other courts can assert jurisdiction. Hoping that these issues will solve themselves will not make the problems go away.
IMAGE: TIKRIT, IRAQ: Portraits of victims mark the memorial to the ISIS massacre of 1,700 Shiite Air Force cadets from Camp Speicher beneath a bridge where victims were shot and their bodies thrown into the Tigris River. (Photo by Scott Peterson/Getty Images)
Yesterday afternoon the House Intelligence Committee scheduled a vote to send all of its Trump-Russia testimony transcripts to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which will give Mueller the ability to imminently indict several people in Donald Trump’s orbit – including two of his family members – at any time. Then last night we learned that the SDNY is moving in on everyone in Trump’s orbit who participated in his crime-filled inauguration. This isn’t a coincidence.
Everything is happening at once now. The SDNY, which is taking its cues from Robert Mueller just as surely as Trump takes his cues from Putin, is clearly planning to sweep up Trump’s family and associates on fraud charges and worse. Mueller can now add perjury charges as an impossible-to-beat-at-trial cherry on top to the Trump-Russia criminal indictments he’s already been building against Trump’s family and associates. This is all happening at once because it’ll make for too many fires to Trump to put out.
Even as Donald Trump continues to cling to the feeble hope that Matthew Whitaker and/or William Barr will somehow be able to magically make Robert Mueller disappear, Trump appears to have no plan for dealing with SDNY. Trump likely doesn’t even understand that SDNY is federal, and for that matter, he probably has no understanding of the state charges that the new Attorney General will end up bringing, and no awareness that he can’t pardon state charges.
Fascinatingly, finally, forces are moving in against Donald Trump all at once now. Everyone involved has been steadily building unbeatable legal cases against Trump, his family, and his remaining henchmen for a long time. We’re seeing more evidence by the hour that it’s about to all pay off.
Already a target of the special counsel, the Trump Inaugural Committee ... The inauguration committee chairman was Thomas J. Barrack, the Trump ally who suggested Paul Manafort as a candidate for campaign manager. ... After CNN presented its findings, a US defense official confirmed there was an ...
Mobile police Chief Lawrence Battiste said Tuder and other officers attempted to ... RELATED Manhunt launched after Central California officer killed ... which has represented Thomas Barrack, a close friend of Trump who ... Sam Patten, an associate of ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, has ...
Trump had spent the day in his own meetings with White House staff at Camp ... Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who attended the sessions both days, ... Thomas Barrack, a close friend of Trump who oversaw the inaugural ... Sam Patten, an associate of ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, has ...
Southwest Chief Revenue Officer Andy Watterson told Beat of Hawaii ... which has represented Thomas Barrack, a close friend of Trump who ... Sam Patten, an associate of ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, has ...
The billionaire financier Tom Barrack was caught in a bind. ... that the candidate bring on Paul Manafort as campaign manager — and then tried ... with the same Persian Gulf contacts he introduced two years ago to Mr. Trump.
WASHINGTON — Paul Manafort's services did not come cheap. ... a mutual friend, Thomas J. Barrack Jr., who described Mr. Manafort to the candidate as “the most experienced and lethal of managers” and “a killer. ... But Mr. Manafort recognized that his work with the Trump campaign was worth something.
Manafort didn't join the Trump campaign until the following year, but Trump ... outsider to D.C. after meeting with Thomas Barrack, an adviser to Trump. .... by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, ...
Donald Trump has a new idea - a “Human Wall” to secure the southern border. Presumably such a “wall” would be made up of military troops.
Tremendous numbers of people are coming up through Mexico in the hopes of flooding our Southern Border. We have sent additional military. We will build a Human Wall if necessary. If we had a real Wall, this would be a non-event!
Democrats are spotlighting climate change with a number of their State of the Union guests, the Washington Post reports.
Longtime climate activist Bill McKibben was invited by Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin. Varshini Prakash, co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, will attend as the guest of Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey. University of Washington professor Lisa Graumlich, a pioneer in using tree rings to understand climate trends, was invited by Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, the Post reports.
The Trump administration has a plan in place to fight expected efforts by Congressional Democrats to get ahold of Donald Trump’s tax returns, Politico reports.
Federal law gives three Congressional committees - including the House Ways and Means Committee, now controlled by Democrats - the power to obtain the tax filings of any individual or business from the Internal Revenue Service. That includes Trump, who unlike every other presidential nominee in modern history refused to make his taxes public. A vote by the committee and the full House could then make the tax returns public.
Donald Trump is “as committed today as he’s ever been to border security”, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told CNN this morning.
Asked about the president’s State of the Union address tonight, Sanders said observers would have to wait and see on the content of the speech, but on border security she pledged that the president is “not gonna stop until we fix this problem”.
Donald Trump is expected to pick Treasury Department official David Malpass to head the World Bank, Politico reports.
The choice is a clear sign the Trump administration is looking to rein in international financial institutions, according to Politico. Malpass has been critical of the World Bank, global organizations like it “have grown larger and more intrusive” and “the challenge of refocusing them has become urgent and more difficult.”
A top aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told health insurance executives that Democratic leadership has deep reservations about single payer healthcare, the Intercept reports.
Wendell Primus, Pelosi’s top healthcare adviser, met with Blue Cross Blue Shield executives in December and told them Democrats were more focused on lowering prescription drug prices, rather than pushing for “Medicare for All” as some progressives would prefer.
Good morning. Donald Trump delivers his State of the Union speech tonight, where we’ll be listening to see if he makes any news on how he plans to force through a wall on the US-Mexico border. Will he declare a national emergency, or force another government shutdown when the current three week federal spending bill expires?
Trump will address a more hostile audience this year, with a Democratic-controlled House and a record number of female lawmakers. In the gallery overhead there will be two former employees of Trump’s New Jersey golf club, both immigrant women who have gone public about its hiring practices. A number of other lawmakers are bringing as guests immigrants who were separated from their families at the border, and other guests intended as shots across the bow at Trump.
Donald Trump is expected in his speech tonight to announce a push to end transmissions of HIV by 2030.
It’s one section of his agenda that could draw bipartisan support. Continue reading...
Photo: Ernst Urhlau, former chief of BND and later the "consultant on geopolitical risks" for the Deutsche Bank, and the political ally of Gerhard Schroeder. Uhrlau was the chief of the Hamburg police when the core group of 9/11 hijackers, the so called Hamburg Cell, lived and received training there. He was uncooperative and hostile towards 9/11 Investigationinquiries.
»German Intelligence Chief Wilhelm Franz Canaris 24/01/19 06:17 from Mike Nova’s Shared Newslinks Michael_Novakhov shared this story from Warfare History Network. Adolf Hitler’s spymaster, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, was actually a dedicated anti-Nazi who did everything he could to frustrate the Führer’s plans. by David…
»Canaris and Heydrich – Axis History Forum 24/01/19 06:16 from Mike Nova’s Shared Newslinks Michael_Novakhov shared this story . Canaris and Heydrich #1 Post by Ezboard » 29 Sep 2002, 21:37 GFM2001 Member Posts: 55 (8/20/01 12:32:55 pm) Reply Canaris and Heydrich ————————————————————…
»Service record of Reinhard Heydrich 24/01/19 05:43 from Mike Nova’s Shared Newslinks Michael_Novakhov shared this story . SS- service record cover of Obergruppenführer und General der Polizei Reinhard Heydrich The service record of Reinhard Heydrich was a collection of official SS documents maintained at the SS Pers…
»Heydrich’s homosexuality? – Axis History Forum 24/01/19 04:52 from Mike Nova’s Shared Newslinks Michael_Novakhov shared this story . Heydrich’s homosexuality? #1 Post by Ezboard » 29 Sep 2002, 19:03 HannahR New Member Posts: 1 (5/26/01 5:43:01 pm) Reply Heydrich’s homosexuality? ————————————————…
M. N.: The New Abwehr enjoys and employs the deep and intimate connections with the criminal Underworld which go back to the early 1920-s, the conditions after the Germany's defeat in the WW1 and the resulting "Restrictions" (I almost typed "Sanctions") which made the symbiotic and sometimes parasitic relations with Police and Criminals the matter of survival for the Abwehr which based itself at that time at the Military Police Stations. Money Laundering is another, related sub-specialty which was a matter of survival and necessity at that time, and the Abwehr under Canaris (which really is the Abwehr we are talking about) made both areas the traditional historical "fields of excellence". Money Laundering , from Deutsche Bank to Chabad dealers to Oligarchs, e.g. Lev Leviev and others, and most notably by our pretty laundry girls and boys from the Trump-Kushner Crime Family , was and is one of the truly heart felt activities for the Abwehr, and...
How did these 650,000 emails get into the Abedin -Weiner laptop? This question remains open for almost three years now, and no answer in sight. - 6:35 AM 2/17/2019 Lawyers: Teen girl Weiner sexted wanted to affect election – Bowling Green Daily News Michael Novakhov - SharedNewsLinks℠ hoax - Google Search Michael_Novakhov shared this story . Anthony Weiner: It was a hoax - Google Search Michael_Novakhov shared this story . Anthony Weiner: It was a hoax - Google Search Michael_Novakhov shared this story from "Anthony Weiner: It was a hoax" - Google News. A nude-photo hoax was supposed to silence Alexandria Ocasio ... Washington Post - Jan 10, 2019 Circulating nudes — real or fake — is one of the oldest and ... The Daily Caller changed the headline of its story to “ Anthony Weiner Mistress ... The Latest Smear Against Ocasio-Cortez: A Fake ...
Inoreader Trump Investigations News Review at 9 a.m. created by Michael Novakhov • Mar 25 2022 The Trump Investigations News Review at 9 a.m. EST Daily Review Of News And Opinions - Blog by Michael Novakhov The New Abwehr Hypothesis of The Operation Trump: A Study In Political Psychology, Political Criminology, and Psychohistory, and as the aid for the General, Criminal and the Counterintelligence Investigations of Donald Trump - by Michael Novakhov, M.D. (Mike Nova): Web...
Inoreader The Trump Investigations created by Michael Novakhov • Jan 23 2022 The Trump Investigations - Review Of News And Opinions - Blog by Michael Novakhov The New Abwehr Hypothesis of The Operation Trump: A Study In Political Psychology, Political Criminology, and Psychohistory, and as the aid for the General, Criminal and the Counterintelligence Investigations of Donald Trump - by Michael Novakhov, M.D. (Mike Nova): Web Research, Analysis, Hypotheses, and Opinions | Cu...
9:37 AM 7/19/2019 - Melania Knauss Trump is a lesbian Melania Trump poses naked for Max magazine | Daily Mail Online Friday July 19 th , 2019 at 9:31 AM News | Mail Online 1 Share Naked pictures from lesbian-themed photoshoot emerge of Donald Trump's wife Melania posing for a French men's magazine at the age of 25 Photos appeared in the January 1996 issue of now-defunct Max magazine One shows Mrs Trump just in heels with her hand over her private parts French photographer Alé de Basseville took the photos in Manhattan Slovenian-born Mrs Trump was then taking her modeling career to the US Appears under her stage name Melania K, short for maiden name Knauss By Daniel Bates In New York For The Daily Mail and Clemence Michallon For Dailymail.com Published: 00:27 BST, 1 August 2016 | Updated: 14:05 BST, 1 August 2016 e-mail 3.8k shares 3.9k ...
Inoreader Trump Investigations News Review at 9 a.m. created by Michael Novakhov • Feb 22 2022 The Trump Investigations News Review at 9 a.m. EST Daily Review Of News And Opinions - Blog by Michael Novakhov The New Abwehr Hypothesis of The Operation Trump: A Study In Political Psychology, Political Criminology, and Psychohistory, and as the aid for the General, Criminal and the Counterintelligence Investigations of Donald Trump - by Michael Novakhov, M.D. (Mike Nova): Web...
The Latest Posts - The Trump Investigations - Review Of News ____________________________________________________ Pages - The Trump Investigations - Review Of News Home Shared Links Links - On The Road... America On The Road To Dictatorship: Trump, Trumpism, FBI, and the New Abwehr - By Michael Novakhov - Last Update: 3:10 PM 5/1/2019 On The Road To Dictatorship: FBI + Facebook. "Like? No Like!" - By Michael Novakhov - Page The New Abwehr Hypothesis of The Operation Trump - Outline and Links The Operation Trump and The New Abwehr | Recent Tweets | Shared Links - Twitter - Facebook The Operation Trump and The New Abwehr The Manifesto Of The American Socialism: SOCIALISM IS HEALTH, SOCIALIST SOCIETY IS THE HEALTHY SOCIETY, in all respects; as the SOCIAL ORGANISM. Political Criminology - The Outline Trump Investigations News In 25 Posts Trump Investigations News In Brief All Saved Stories News Review - 25 Trump Investigations News Review - Saved Stories - 250 All Blogs ...
mikenov on Tuesday, February 5th, 2019 1:50pm
"Rudy Giuliani and Pavel Fuchs" - Google News.
"Pavel Fuchs" - Google News.
"Thomas Barrack introduced Paul Manafort as Trump campaign manager" - Google News.
Trump Investigations.
Comments
Post a Comment