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/
Just Security: The Early Edition: February 8, 2019 Lawfare - Hard National Security Choices: Department of Homeland Security Releases Its 'Remain in Mexico' Plan Politics: The Technology 202: Facebook controversy spurs momentum in Congress for privacy safeguards for kids and teens Matt Whitaker set to testify before House committee following dispute – live
Signup to receive the Early Edition in your inbox here.
Before the start of business, Just Security provides a curated summary of up-to-the-minute developments at home and abroad. Here’s today’s news. JAMAL KHASHOGGI KILLING Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (“MBS”) reportedly told a senior aide he would go after Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi “with a bullet,” a year before the dissident journalist was murdered inside the kingdom’s Istanbul consulate. U.S. intelligence understood that MBS was ready to kill the journalist, although he may not have literally intended to shoot him, Mark Mazzetti reports at the New York Times. The conversation was intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies, as part of routine efforts by the National Security Agency and other agencies to capture and store the communications of global leaders, including allied ones. Julian Borger and Bethan McKernan report at the Guardian. Evidence collected in Turkey indicates that Khashoggi was the victim of “a brutal and premeditated killing … planned and perpetrated by officials of the State of Saudi Arabia,” U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Agnes Callamard has found following her visit to Turkey from Jan. 28 to Feb. 3. “The murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the sheer brutality of it has brought irreversible tragedy to his loved ones,” Callamard commented, adding that the killing “is also raising a number of international implications, which demand the urgent attention of the international community including the United Nations.” The U.N. News Centre reports. The Kingdom “seriously curtailed and undermined” Turkey’s ability to investigate Khashoggi’s murder, Callamard claimed, finding in her preliminary report that it was 13 days before Turkish officials were allowed inside the Istanbul consulate, the BBC reports. Saudi Arabia quietly held a second court hearing for 11 people facing charges over the killing, Callamard disclosed, criticizing the kingdom for its lack of transparency in the proceedings over the slaying. “Given the importance of the case, we should be expecting a greater presence of representatives of the media, of civil society, of a range of other governments, not just those hand-picked by the Saudi authorities,” Callamard commented, Jamey Keaten reports at the AP. A bipartisan group of U.S. senators is renewing an effort to penalize Saudi officials for Khashoggi’s death, yesterday reintroducing a bill that would require sanctions on those responsible. “Seeing as the Trump administration has no intention of insisting on full accountability for Mr. Khashoggi’s murderers, it is time for Congress to step in and impose real consequences to fundamentally reexamine our relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and with the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen,” Senate Foreign Relations committee ranking member Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said in a statement. Rebecca Kheel reports at the Hill. TRUMP-RUSSIA Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has given in to the wishes of acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker that a subpoena is not issued while Whitaker testifies before the committee as scheduled for today. Yesterday, the Department of Justice (D.O.J.) sent the committee a letter demanding a commitment in writing that any subpoena would not be used during the hearing, a promise that Nadler was initially not prepared to give; after evening negotiations, however, the committee agreed verbally and in writing not to issue a subpoena on or before Feb. 8, according to D.O.J. spokesperson Kerri Kupec, Katie Benner and Charlie Savage report at the New York Times. Democrats have pledged to press Whitaker about a number of issues – namely whether he has revealed anything about special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian electoral interference and alleged collusion with the Trump campaign. “Based upon today’s action, it is apparent that the Committee’s true intention is not to discuss the great work of the D.O.J., but to create a public spectacle,” Whitaker said yesterday in a statement that accompanied a five-page letter to Nadler, arguing that the acting attorney general has no legal obligation to discuss his conversations with the president. Sadie Gurman reports at the Wall Street Journal. Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) yesterday said his panel has still found no evidence to suggest that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. Burr told C.B.S. news that “based on the evidence” his committee has seen so far, there is no reason to suggest that members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government were working together during the election, John Bowden reports at the Hill. Mueller’s team has accused former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort of continuing to try to minimize the conduct of an associate with alleged ties to Russian intelligence, even after Manafort agreed last year to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors, according to a newly released court transcript. The partially redacted transcript suggests that when Manafort was debriefed by prosecutors and F.B.I. agents, he seemed to be trying to avoid providing information that could be damaging to Kremlin-linked associate Konstantin Kilmnik; “I think Mr. Manafort went out of his way in this instance … to not want to provide any evidence that could be used with respect to Mr. Kilimnik,” deputy special counsel Andrew Weissmann told U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson during a court session yesterday, Josh Gerstein reports at POLITICO. Mueller is reportedly focused on a meeting at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign between Manafort and Kilimnik. Kilimnik, indicted last year on charges of witness tampering in Manafort’s case, has denied having ties to Russian spy agencies, Reuters reports. A legal analysis of today’s Whitaker hearing, unpicking the difficult issues around subpoenas and executive privilege, is provided by Founding Editor and Senior Fellow Andy Wright at Just Security. VENEZUELA The head of U.S. Southern America Command (Southcom) yesterday said the military is prepared to protect Americans and U.S. diplomatic facilities in Venezuela “if necessary,” with the Latin country in the midst of turmoil as incumbent president Nicolás Maduro faces a challenge from leader of the opposition Juan Guaidó. “Southcom is supporting diplomatic efforts, and we are prepared to protect U.S. personnel and diplomatic facilities if necessary,” Navy Adm. Craig Faller stated in his opening remarks during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Ellen Mitchell reports at the Hill. Trucks bearing aid are poised at Colombian frontier, with the food delivery rejected by Maduro and summoned by Guaidó. Dylan Baddour provides an account of the situation at the border at the Wall Street Journal.
“What appeared to be a carefully calibrated policy to outst … Maduro was actually a big gamble by a small group of opposition leaders acting on a hastily assembled plan,” David Luhnow, Juan Forero and José de Córdoba comment at the Wall Street Journal, in an analysis of how the group managed to take control of the country’s opposition. SYRIA The Pentagon is preparing to pull all U.S. forces out of Syria by the end of April, even though the Trump administration has yet to come up with a plan to protect its Kurdish partners from attack when they leave, according to current and former U.S. officials. With U.S.-backed fighters set to seize the final Syrian sanctuaries held by Islamic State group in the coming days, the U.S. military is turning its attention toward a withdrawal of forces in the coming weeks, Dion Nissenbaum and Nancy A. Youssef report at the Wall Street Journal. Iraq’s Kurdish Peshmerga leaders claim that Islamic State group still presents a genuine threat and the U.S. must not withdraw its forces from Syria. Jennifer Glasse provides an account at Al Jazeera. “We don’t get to choose when the war ends … but we do get to choose where it is fought,” Marc A Thiessen comments at the Washington Post, arguing against a U.S. withdrawal from Syria. The war, Thiessen claims, “can either be fought over there, in the deserts of Syria and the mountains of Afghanistan, or it can be fought over here — on American streets and in American cities, as it was on Sept. 11, 2001 … it’s up to us.” U.S.-led airstrikes continue. U.S. and coalition forces carried out 645 airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria between Jan. 13 and Jan. 26. [Central Command] OTHER DEVELOPMENTS Yemen’s warring parties reached a preliminary compromise on a plan for the redeployment of opposing forces from the key port of Hodeidah, the U.N. announced yesterday. U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the preliminary accord was reached by representatives of Yemen’s government-in-exile and the Iran-aligned Shi’ite Houthi rebels, who met on a U.N. vessel in Hodeidah’s inner harbor during U.N.-mediated talks between Feb. 3-6, Edith M. Lederer reports at the AP. Top Russian diplomat Zamir Kabulovm has met with Taliban representatives and expressed Moscow’s support for the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. The meeting came after two days of talks between prominent Afghan figures and Taliban representatives in Moscow and contradictory statements about an immediate U.S. forces withdrawal from the country, Al Jazeera reports. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has defended the fact that “Death to America” chants are commonplace at anti-U.S. rallies across Iran, although he qualified that the chanting is aimed at U.S. leaders and not its people. Khamenei’s website today quoted him as saying the chant means “death to U.S. leaders, death to [President] Trump and [national security adviser] John Bolton and [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo,” the AP reports. The choice of Vietnam as the venue for a second U.S.-North Korea summit later this month highlights the possibility of moving beyond conflict and division towards a thriving partnership, the U.S. State Department said yesterday. State Department spokesperson Robert Palladino told a news briefing that U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun is in Pyongyang to prepare the Feb. 27-28 summit and seeking progress on commitments made at the first meeting between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore last June, Reuters reports. Navy and intelligence veteran and former television news correspondent Lea Gabrielle will take up a key position at the State Department to tackle foreign propaganda efforts, reportedly as a plank of the U.S. government’s response to Russian disinformation, terrorist group messaging, and Chinese propaganda. Robbie Gramer and Elias Groll report at Foreign Policy. “Counting the bodies in conflicts is a necessary … confusing and too often sordid business,” Peter Beaumont writes at the Guardian, explaining that although necessary, body counting “becomes sordid … when the process becomes political and weaponized for a purpose; that is, when it is in hock to competing agendas.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently released memos roughly outlining its plan to make asylum seekers wait in Mexico for immigration court hearings, which it calls the Migrant Protection Protocols. On Jan. 25, Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen released her initial memo directing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to publish implementation guidance. Those agencies obliged her on Jan. 28, with twoseparate documents issued from CBP and another from the USCIS. For now, implementation is limited to the San Ysidro border crossing between Tijuana and San Diego.
Taken together, the memos describe a policy that gives CBP officials broad discretion to refer people who are in removal proceedings under Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for deportation to Mexico, pending their immigration court dates. Those non-Mexican nationals who do not want to be involuntarily removed to Mexico based on a fear of return to that country will receive a limited screening from a USCIS asylum officer, during which applicants will have to clear an unprecedentedly high burden of proof to show they are “more likely than not to face persecution or torture in Mexico.”
Current Procedures
A bit of background on the current framework may be helpful for understanding what exactly DHS is changing with this plan. DHS deports most people under two different processes: expedited removal proceedings under Section 235 of the INA and removal proceedings under Section 240 of that statute. Section 235 proceedings apply to those whom CBP officials apprehend without valid documentation at a port of entry or who are apprehended within 100 miles of the border within 14 days of entering the United States. In most cases, someone who is placed in Section 235 expedited removal proceedings will be summarily deported without a hearing. Most other undocumented people who entered more than 14 days earlier are subject to Section 240 proceedings—meaning they are ordered to appear in an immigration court where applicants will be able to present defenses and pursue forms of relief such as asylum. Section 240 proceedings are formal and adversarial, with the government represented by a DHS prosecutor. Either party can appeal an immigration court decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
If during the course of the expedited removal process a person expresses a fear of returning to their home country, Section 235 requires USCIS to screen them in a process called a credible fear interview (CFI). During a CFI, an asylum officer determines whether there is a “significant possibility” that the person could “establish eligibility for asylum.” In other words, the asylum officer should find that the person has a credible fear of persecution—which, for the purposes of asylum, must be on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group—if there is a significant possibility that an immigration judge would grant that person asylum.
If the officer finds that the applicant has a credible fear of persecution, DHS then moves the applicant to a Section 240 proceeding and orders him or her to appear in immigration court. In court, applicants receive a full hearing on the merits of their asylum claims where they can present evidence of a “well-founded fear” of persecution, a burden that the Supreme Court has stated can be satisfied by demonstrating a “10% chance” of persecution.
In some cases, DHS places asylum seekers directly into Section 240 proceedings, without a CFI, and then paroles them into the United States to await their court dates. This typically happens because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lacks bed space to detain asylum seekers while they wait for their CFIs to be scheduled.
In addition to asylum, the government affords two other forms of humanitarian protection: withholding of removal under INA Section 241(b)(3) and protection under the Convention against Torture or other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment (CAT). These options are available to people otherwise ineligible for asylum, perhaps because of prior criminal activity or because they were deported previously. They simply provide a guarantee that the United States won’t deport the individuals, without providing any path to full legal status. These forms of relief are available in order to ensure that the United States complies with its obligation of non-refoulement, a French term from the original treaty language of Article 33 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and Article 3 of the Torture Convention that refers to the rule that no contracting states shall “expel or return” a refugee to a country where they may face persecution or torture.
The standard for establishing eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the Torture Convention is higher than that for asylum. To receive these protections, applicants must show that it is “more likely than not” that their life or freedom would be in danger because of a protected ground (in the case of withholding) or that they would be tortured (in the case of the Torture Convention).
In the expedited removal setting, these forms of relief usually come into play with refugees who were previously removed from the United States and then later are apprehended crossing the border again. If these individuals express a fear of return, they are eligible only for withholding protection or protection under the Torture Convention, and are referred to USCIS for a reasonable fear interview (RFI), during which they must show that there is a “reasonable possibility” that they would be persecuted or tortured upon return to their home country. This standard is more demanding because it looks to the probability of persecution occurring in the applicant’s home country rather than the possibility that an applicant can persuade an immigration judge that persecution is likely to occur. Moreover, USCIS officers are instructed to treat the “reasonable possibility” standard applied in initial screenings as a lower one than the “more likely than not” bar that applicants must clear to receive withholding or CAT protection.
The Remain in Mexico Policy
The guidance issued by CBP says that the agency may deport people to Mexico while they await Section 240 proceedings, with specific exceptions: unaccompanied minors, Mexican nationals, those who have been processed for expedited removal, anyone who is “more likely than not to face persecution or torture in Mexico,” and several smaller groups. Immigrants will be given a “specific court date” in immigration court (a detail that has proved a major stumbling block for DHS in the past) and eventually paroled into the United States for their hearing date. Those who express a fear of returning to Mexico to CBP officers upon apprehension will be referred to USCIS for an interview with an asylum officer who will evaluate whether it is “more likely than not” that they will face persecution in that country. If applicants pass this screening, CBP retains discretion to process them for removal under Sections 235 or 240 and to either detain them or grant parole into the United States. Applicants who fail the screening remain in Mexico.
All of this, including the interview with an asylum officer, may well happen during “primary or secondary inspection.” Primary inspection occurs the first time anyone encounters a CBP officer upon crossing at a port of entry or arriving at an airport, and involves basic checking of documents and limited questioning. Secondary inspections happen afterward, when CBP pulls someone aside for further questioning, physical searches, and verification against antiterrorism and law enforcement databases. Currently, initial screenings with asylum officers happen after people have been sent from CBP’s secondary inspection to ICE detention, where they typically wait for several days or weeks until an asylum officer is available to interview them. It’s difficult to know whether the Trump administration is serious about screening people for humanitarian protection during these relatively quick encounters with CBP, since they already have difficulty getting people in front of asylum officers under the current processes and staffing constraints, and it’s hard to imagine USCIS performing asylum interviews immediately upon someone’s seeking admission at a port of entry.
Since the policy does not distinguish between the various types of people placed in Section 240 proceedings—for example, between those who have passed a credible fear screening under Section 235 and those who are placed directly into Section 240 proceedings for various reasons—it seems that anyone placed in Section 240 proceedings would be eligible for removal to Mexico, including those whom U.S. officials have found to have a credible asylum claim after a credible or reasonable fear interview. The CBP memo excludes from the policy those who have received a final expedited removal order without saying anything about those who are merely in the process.
The Trump administration points to Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA as the legal basis for its plan, which provides that foreign nationals “arriving on land ... from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States” may be deported to that contiguous territory pending a proceeding under Section 240. Applying this provision to asylum seekers is not straightforward because of the non-refoulement obligation mentioned earlier.
The policy targets only non-Mexican nationals, likely because the Trump administration is aware that deporting Mexican nationals who fear persecution in Mexico would run afoul of the non-refoulement principle. Should a Mexican national express a fear of return to Mexico, deporting that person to Mexico to wait years for a hearing, either after a positive CFI finding or without conducting a CFI at all, would be a plain violation of this duty.
With respect to non-Mexican nationals who fear persecution in other countries, USCIS says it will honor non-refoulement by granting those who affirmatively claim a fear of return to Mexico an interview to establish whether it is “more likely than not” that they would be persecuted or tortured. This is the same standard used for establishing eligibility for withholding or CAT protection, and a higher one than has previously been applied for humanitarian relief screenings at the border. This echoes a previous attempt by congressional Republicans to limit access to asylum by requiring that applicants in CFI and RFI screenings show that it is “more probabl[e] than not” that their statements about persecution are true.
It is likely that far fewer people will pass this screening process than the roughly 76 percent who ultimately passed their CFIs in fiscal 2018. The standards of proof for CFIs and RFIs—“a significant possibility of establishing eligibility” in the former and a “reasonable possibility” of persecution” in the latter—are lower than those required for obtaining eventual relief because they are conducted on the basis of testimony alone. The purpose is to screen for potentially valid claims in a detention setting where those seeking humanitarian protection do not have the ability to gather and present evidence. This new interview scheme would require that applicants, on the basis of their testimony alone, satisfy a preponderance of the evidence standard.
This standard has until now been applied only in interviews or hearings in which immigrants can be expected to present more robust evidence, such as witness statements and country conditions reports. And, unlike CFIs and RFIs, in which applicants have a limited ability to consult with a lawyer at no expense to the government, applicants subject to the new policy may have no such access. Because USCIS envisions that these new screenings will take place during initial CBP inspections, they declare that they are “currently unable to provide access to counsel.”
As the Trump administration begins executing this plan, the public will, it is hoped, learn more about how DHS is going to exercise the broad discretion it’s claiming. Will it in fact turn back people who have landed in Section 240 proceedings because they established a credible fear of persecution during the course of expedited removal proceedings? Or will DHS stop performing CFI screenings altogether and try to send all asylum officers to conduct assessments under the “remain in Mexico” policy alongside CBP, in secondary inspection areas where there is no access to counsel? The policy assumes that Mexico is willing and able to hold up its end of the deal and protect asylum seekers who are turned back. Reportssuggest that it might not be, which could doom the legality of this plan, if it becomes obvious that Central Americans are in danger of persecution or torture while they wait in Mexico.
Ivanka Trump has said she knew ‘almost nothing’ about the prospective Trump Tower project in Moscow that her father was pursuing during 2016 presidential election.
“We were an active business,” Trump said during an interview that aired Friday on ABC’s Good Morning America, while adding her knowledge of the project amounted to “literally almost nothing”.
Donald Trump’s acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, will testify before the House judiciary committee on Friday following a dispute between the panel’s Democrats that left his appearance in doubt.
Whitaker will be the first Trump cabinet official to be brought before a House committee led by Democrats, who are eager to ask the controversial acting attorney gneral about his views on the special counsel investigation and his interactions with the president.
Good morning everyone and happy Friday! (Fri-yay.) Sabrina Siddiqui here, taking you through the events of what promises to be another action-packed day.
All eyes are on Donald Trump’s acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, who is poised to testify before the Democratic-led House judiciary committee. Continue reading...
Last month we all learned that when Paul Manafort was running Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, he gave Trump’s private internal polling data to the Kremlin. The big question at the time was how the Feds found out. Now we’re getting the official answer from Robert Mueller’s team: it was Rick Gates who told them. While this was somewhat predictable, it’s nonetheless a big deal, and it tells us a lot.
Rick Gates was a longtime sidekick and business partner to Paul Manafort. But Gates was also a key Donald Trump 2016 campaign adviser, and he was loyal enough to the campaign that he stayed on even after Manafort was fired. Gates also had close ties to the Republican National Committee which went beyond Trump or Manafort. Yet despite all this, Manafort didn’t try to hide from Gates the fact that he was giving the Trump campaign’s internal data to the Kremlin.
This tells us that Manafort didn’t care if Donald Trump, or even the RNC, knew he was doing it. This means they either already knew about it, or they were so knee deep in the Trump-Russia plot, they wouldn’t have been fazed to learn about it. In other words, this wasn’t merely Manafort taking a flyer by forking over this data on his own; it was an official move by the Trump campaign. Why does this matter?
Back when the news first broke a month ago, Palmer Report laid out the only logical reason for the Kremlin wanting the Trump campaign’s internal polling data: it made it easier for the Kremlin’s hackers to know precisely which states and precincts to hit. The Senate Intel Committee has already confirmed that these hackers got into voter registration databases before election day, and are suspected of having deleted voter registrations in order to prevent targeted people from being able to vote.
This meant that Paul Manafort and the Kremlin were conspiring to rig the outcome of the election, not just with disinformation, but with targeted hacking. Now that we know Rick Gates was also in on it, it’s a strong hint that the entire Donald Trump campaign – and maybe even the RNC – were part of the plot to use Russian hackers to alter the election’s outcome. We’re now well past the threshold for espionage and/or treason charges against everyone involved. Read more here.
Does Michael Cohen Have More to Tell Mueller?Vanity FairThe trials and misfortunes of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's one-time fixer and all-time snitch, have been placed on hold once again. On Wednesday ...
The 7 big investigations of Trump, explainedThe Washington PostNews broke Monday night that federal prosecutors issued a subpoena in the burgeoning investigation of the Trump inaugural committee. And we can add that ...
What Robert Mueller Knows—and Isn't Telling UsWIREDThe special counsel's indictments have so far stopped short of tying Trump and his associates to a broader conspiracy, blanks that will eventually get filled in.
Schiff unveils new Russia inquiryArkansas OnlineThe House intelligence committee will launch a broad new investigation looking at Russian interference in the 2016 election and President Donald Trump's ...
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 Thursday, February 7th, 2019 11:20pm
Trump Investigations.
Comments
Post a Comment