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/
Mueller report - Google Search Thursday March 14th, 2019 at 11:32 AM
Democrats used the resolution, sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, to put pressure on Attorney General William Barr to make Robert Mueller’s highly anticipated findings public. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images
The House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the Justice Department to make special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings and full report public and available to Congress.
The 420-0 vote came after a fiery debate on the House floor, during which some Democratic lawmakers were admonished for their criticisms of President Donald Trump.
Story Continued Below
Republicans said the resolution was unnecessary and a waste of time, but ultimately joined Democrats to approve it. Four Republicans — Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Paul Gosar of Arizona, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky — voted “present.”
Democrats used the resolution to put pressure on Attorney General William Barr, who during his Senate confirmation hearings did not commit to making Mueller’s highly anticipated findings public.
“A vote for this resolution will send a clear signal to both the American people and to the Department of Justice that Congress believes transparency is a fundamental principle necessary to ensure that government remains accountable to the public,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the lead sponsor of the effort.
Some Democratic lawmakers went after the president in ways that violated House rules, causing the presiding officer to warn them. At one point, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, called out Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) for similar criticisms of Barr, which did not violate House rules.
Collins backed the resolution but said it “basically re-states the regulations that are currently in place” at the Justice Department. Collins said he believes Barr will be “truthful to his word” to make as much of the report public as possible.
Democrats have argued that the only acceptable redactions are grand jury material, classified information, and national security sources and methods. Republicans have largely deferred to Barr’s judgment, but they have publicly backed the idea that Mueller’s report should be released given the overwhelming public interest in it.
Nadler has threatened to issue a subpoena for the Mueller report if Barr does not release it to Congress and the public. He and other Democrats have said the Justice Department’s policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted would amount to a “cover-up” of Trump’s alleged wrongdoing if Congress is unable to view the underlying evidence contained in Mueller’s report.
Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and other matters, including obstruction of justice and collusion between Trump associates and Russian operatives.
It is unclear whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will vote on a measure related to the Mueller report, though he has in the past resisted attempts to protect Mueller’s job in the face of threats from Trump.
The Political Empire of the News Corporation Chairman
Starting out with running the family newspaper company, “News Limited” at the young age of 21, Rupert Murdoch would build up his media empire to the point of controlling the majority of news outlets in the world and becoming the proud owner of the FOX News Company in 1984. (Wikipedia) But how did he get to the point of controlling so much and what effect will it have on the people that use sources media outlets as their only source of information? Can too much control over the airways be dangerous to society? The answer being, that control of the flow of information through a single man can distort the general opinion of society greatly.
Born in the City of Melbourne Australia in the 1931, Rupert Murdoch “never really excelled in school or at sports, but always seemed interested in the newspaper business” (Folkenflik). Son of a World War 1 reporter, he knew his calling was going to relate to the news industry. Acquiring his father’s company, “News Limited” in 1952 was his first big step towards creating his media empire. From this moment onward, Murdoch well established himself in Australia by launching The Australian newspaper in 1964, which was the country’s first national daily newspaper which gave him free and uninterrupted reign in Australia. It was essentially an information monopoly in Australia. He slowly gained political influence in Australia due to The Australian until he decided to expand to Europe with the purchase of British tabloid The News of the World. Having already amassed great wealth and influence with his activities in Australia, Murdoch quickly made his way up the news industry and bought The Sun in 1969. Like in Australia, Murdoch was quick to use his newspapers for political purposes and personal gain. The most notably activity was helping Margaret Thatcher succeed in her political campaigns by giving her a good image, reputation and belittling her opponents.
With all that being said, the United States got its first major taste of Murdoch after he bought out 21st Century Fox for “$250 million” in 1985 (Wikipedia), thus giving him a stable foothold in America. Since then, he began expanding his news empire even further by acquiring various news corporations. In total his possessions to this day sum up to “9 TV satellites, 100 cable Channels, 175 newspapers, 100 cable channels, 40 book imprints, 40 TV stations and 1 movie studio” (Greenwald). Like in Australia and in the United Kingdom, Rupert Murdoch would be known as a man who had enormous political influence in the United States by using FOX News as his main tool for influencing the people.
The importance of news media in our day and age is more important than it has ever been in history. There are more people living in our planet, the majority of the population now has access to at least one form of information be it radio, TV, newspaper or the internet and, the former, changing the way we acquire information. No longer are people subjected to a sole outlet of information thanks to the internet. However, media bias and “agenda pushing” can still be found in all forms of information though it is more commonly found in larger companies rather than in small, independently run outlets. Due to this, “the effects of bias can be more prominent and common in the population” (Wikipedia), especially if the event that is being covered is of enormous concern to the population. An example of this were the events of 9/11 and the American War in Afghanistan. In these two events, the people demanded information and the news outlets gave it to them, but at times the message could be distorted as we will see soon enough. In an era in which people are more connected and less willing to criticize and question new information, entire control of news outlets centered on one man will lead to many problems concerning credibility, but how can anyone really know the difference between what is true and what is false?
Murdoch, even before the acquisitions in the United States, had already built a reputation of swaying news opinion in his favor. This occurred on two occasions in his home country of Australia in 1972 and in 1975. He used his media power to undermine the political campaigns of two liberal Prime Ministers whom he “previously supported, Billy McMahon and Gough Whitlam.” (Manne). His reputation for targeting people he did not like grew so large that essentially “every journalist in Australia knew” (Manne). Frankly many news corporations were scared of being acquired by him as they knew that they would be subject to no longer reporting “real news” (Greenwald)
The news station considered Murdoch as "the Flu"
Rupert Murdoch’s acquisition of the FOX News Company was an unexpected one for the people who worked at the WTTG 5 News station in Washington D.C. Before his acquisition of the company, WTTG 5, a small independent news station found in D.C., was “so successful and prosperous” (Greenwald) because they were reporting actually objective news. The workers liked working at the station and the people we satisfied by the quality of news. However after the ownership passed hands to Murdoch, the previous success of the news station temporarily protected them from Murdoch’s intervention. The news station considered Murdoch as the “flu” and their previous success and reputation as “vitamins against the flu” (Greenwald). This unfortunately lasted for 3 years, until they finally got direct orders from one of Murdoch’s “apparatchiks” to “cut away from the current news cast and start airing right wing propaganda aimed towards Ronald Reagan” The news station was stunned at this point, because they knew that Murdoch was a prominent supporter of the Reagan administration and up until that point the news station was no longer able to do “legitimate news” (Greenwald). This marked the transition of the WTTG News Station from a respectable source of information into the propaganda tool of a single person, “they were a proponent of a point of view” (Greenwald). The way agendas were pushed were by memos sent by high directors to the news stations. Each memo stated what the news station was going to focus on and what they were going to say. There was no choice but to follow the memos to the exact letter or else the news anchors would be “suspended for not following the memo” (Greenwald).
Due to the events of 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan, it was natural that the American people wanted someone to point their fingers. The whole country cried for blood and revenge and war was inevitable at this moment. People grew restless and ready to fight for the loved ones they had lost. It was a point in U.S history where many could see eye to eye in what needed to be done to stop terrorism. The news outlets knew this and Murdoch was not going to let the opportunity to gain a bigger following pass. So they gave the people what they wanted: a clear and defined enemy. Giving the people the satisfaction of knowing the enemy lead FOX News on a “propaganda spree” (Greenwald). At this point FOX News was almost dedicated to reporting on the war and giving political leaders who approved of war a spotlight on The O’Reilly Factor (Greenwald).Every once and a while they would invite Democrats who offered different views only to destroy their arguments. By constantly repeating the same ideas time and time again in support of the war, the people of America began to somewhat accept it. It was FOX’s intention to feed into the people’s emotions and desire for revenge that led to this.
The American people wanted someone the point their fingers
News ranging from “false reports concerning American deaths in Afghanistan after 9/11” to “denying the issue of greenhouse gases and creating unlimited space on his newspaper for Anti-Greenhouse crazies” (Folkenflik). Rupert Murdoch and his news companies are no strangers and bias and to news manipulation. A popular example of this came in the form of a “logistical mistake” that FOX’s then War Correspondent Geraldo Rivera made in 2001 when he reported that he witnessed a friendly fire incident that killed three American soldiers. His reported position was Tora Bora, when in actuality he was reporting a different event that occurred Kandahar and that did not involve any American troops. However, the Kandahar event did not occur until a week later after the report, making his excuse a lie as well. Thus fabricating the death of American soldiers and calling the mistake a “confusion caused by the Fog of War” (Folkenflik).
However, how can we call this a true confusion and not a deliberate act of media manufacture? An event that ties into this “mistake” is the declaration of bias made by FOX’s 2003 news anchor Neil Cavuto when he responded to a professor that questioned his journalistic practices of being objective. His response was “Am I slanted and biased? You damn well bet I am, professor. I’m more in favor of a system that lets me say what I’m saying rather than one who would be killing me for doing the same thing over there.”(Folkenflik). Cavuto also makes the argument that it is better to accept that one is biased than simply “show it in their work” (Folkenflik) and deny that they are. The slogan “Fair and Balanced” is ironic in the sense that the news anchors are limited in saying only what the directors want them to say through the use of memos and “if you go against their thought or challenge them, you’re history” (Folkenflik). The level of professionalism in fairly low and it was no surprise that the employees of WTTG 5 and the rest of the Australian newspapers were scared of being acquired by him as it would mean the end of an honest career.
For the full documentary: youtu.be/P74oHhU5MDk
We are at the mercy of a single man
As Murdoch grew in power and in size so too grow his influence on society and how they would view the world. Continuously repeating the same thing over and over again can make people believe that something is true. This is done through the promotion of right politicians who support the growth of Murdock’s overall interests and the disembodiment of left wing politicians who are against such interests. “The point, always, is to assure that those with power are pro-business in general and pro-Murdoch” (Nichols). This leads to the whole point of manipulating news and limiting what the news anchors can say and what the guests on Fox News can say. If the people can believe that the party that is supporting Murdoch, the republicans, is always in the right and doing the right thing, then the people will vote for them thus giving more power to Murdoch and more room to spread his wings. This is why they do not even report left wing news that is even remotely positive, because for Murdoch, they are the bad guys who can limit his influence.
Combining this with the fact that the Democrats were heavily against the war in Afghanistan, promoting right wing ideals in the form of supporting the war effort would ensure that the people would also be in favor of the war, thus in favor of right wing politics which greatly benefits Rupert Murdoch. In the end every one of us, even the news anchors who adhere so much to their conservative ideology like Bill O’Reilly are being played by Murdoch in his search for more power using the airways as his mean. Murdoch does not really care who wins in the elections or who gets the top administrative position in the government just as long as he wins at his own game. That being said, if the leftwing offered more benefit to Rupert Murdoch than the Rightwing, than FOX News reports of the war would be very different and the people’s view would also change. We are essentially at the mercy of a single man.
Fallows, James. "The Age of Murdoch." The <a href="http://Atlantic.com" rel="nofollow">Atlantic.com</a>. The Atlantic Monthly Group. September 2003. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
Folkenflik, David. Murdoch's World. New York: Public Affairs, 2013. Print
Greenwald, Robert. “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism.”. Moveon.org. 2004.
Fox News has previously reported on strong indications that Mueller’s office was behind the case, although neither his office nor lawyers for the unnamed overseas company would provide confirmation.
The proceedings are believed to be linked to attempts by Mueller's team to secure information to present to an empaneled grand jury in the special counsel's Russia investigation. Mueller is looking into not only whether members of President Trump's inner circle improperly colluded with Russia, but also a range of other matters pertaining to foreign activities by high-ranking Americans.
Court proceedings have been closed to the public, and court documents have redacted the name of the corporation. During oral arguments in the case late last year, court officials shuttered an entire floor of the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., from the public and the press.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has doggedly pursued a subpoena against an unnamed foreign corporation.
“Earlier this year, Special Counsel Robert Mueller served a grand jury subpoena on is a 'foreign state' as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act defines the term," the unsealed filing, written by lawyers for the unknown corporation, reads. "From the outset, argued that it is immune under the FSIA from complying with, a criminal subpoena because American courts lack criminal jurisdiction over foreign states. The Special Counsel has argued from the outset that the FSIA does not apply to criminal proceedings and that, if it does, the statute's exceptions can support criminal jurisdiction over a foreign state.”
In January, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned order refusing to dismiss a contempt citation from a federal judge against the corporation for failure to comply with Mueller's subpoena.
The unnamed company -- listed cryptically in court records as owned by "Country A" -- had challenged the subpoena from a federal grand jury in Washington, including daily fines, after it refused to turn over requested documents to U.S. investigators.
The corporation argued that complying with the subpoena would violate the laws of its country and thus constitute an undue hardship. But in December, a three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held otherwise.
The judges ruled "that text of the foreign law provision the Corporation relies on does not support its position" and found that the country's counsel -- and a regulator from the country -- offered only an "atextual" contrary interpretation that lacked "critical indicia of reliability."
The appellate panel also rejected the corporation's argument that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act rendered it immune from prosecutors' request.
An interpretation of federal law that "would completely insulate corporations majority owned by foreign governments from all criminal liability," the judges wrote, "seems in far greater tension with Congress’s choice to codify a theory of foreign sovereign immunity designed to allow regulation of foreign nations acting as ordinary market participants."
The panel found "that text of the foreign law provision the Corporation relies on does not support its position" and found that the country's counsel -- and a regulator from the country -- offered only an "atextual" contrary interpretation that lacked "critical indicia of reliability."
Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its order upholding the contempt citation, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a separate, partially redacted opinion upholding its earlier ruling against the company. The opinion noted that the company is facing a $50,000-per-day fine for failure to turn over the documents. The papers in question are kept overseas, though the company does have an office in the U.S.
The opinion also noted that prosecutors have been trying to obtain the information since at least this past summer, and the three-judge panel determined it could get involved in the dispute because "there is a reasonable probability the information sought through the subpoena here concerns a commercial activity that caused a direct effect in the United States."
MYSTERY MUELLER CASE REVEALED: Documents filed with the Supreme Court and unsealed on Wednesday revealed definitively, and for the first time, that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is the party seeking a grand jury subpoena and subsequent contempt citation against an unnamed, government-controlled foreign corporation that has resisted prosecutors' efforts at every turn ... The proceedings are believed to be linked to attempts by Mueller's team to secure information to present to an empaneled grand jury in the special counsel's Russia investigation.
Abwehr After WW2: Operations “Trump Card”, “Call 9/11”, and “MuckCart-hy” | The Open Letter to the World Leaders – By Michael Novakhov 7:09 AM 9/24/2018 – Maassen and Manafort – Google Search | Russia News M.N.: One is out, the scores to go. Investigate and Purge. Purge and Investigate. Not a single fact, detail or occurrence of the “Trump – Russia Affair”, Manafort – Ukraine – Hapsburg Group Affair”, “Salisbury Poisoning Affair”, and most likely many others were unknown to the German Intelligence. Investigate them in the UTMOST DEPTH, their connections with the Abwehr after the WW2, and all the other relevant issues raised in this and other blogs and posts which address them. This reality show is performed in the genre of cabaret, with The Demiurge playing the role of the invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, obsessive-compulsive, meticulous, artistic, pedantic Master of Ceremonies. And he left his signature too, as usually. The latest of them are: “Boshirov” and “Petrov”: Boshi (the Germ…
"Blue and White also noted in the three days since the initial Thursday report that if it was accurate, the information could only have come from intelligence agencies or the civilian National Cyber Directorate, all of which are under the Prime Minister’s Office." Gantz demands AG probe whether Netanyahu leaked Iran phone hack claimsSunday March 17th, 2019 at 4:51 AM
The Blue and White party has asked the attorney general to investigate a report last week that claimed Iran had hacked into party leader Benny Gantz’s cellphone and collected purportedly compromising information on him.
Gantz, a former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, has roundly denie
The Broidy - Manafort Ring From the raw thoughts and the random associations: Iz ziz zi German, European, Leftist, New Abwehr Plot to expose the U.S. deep political corruption, extending to the party machines, "fundraisers", operatives, and operators, etc., and also the corrupt aspects of the global arms trades, very much including the featured, exemplified, and demonized, to a degree, arms sales, by the corrupt Trump Administration, to the no less corrupt Saudi Desert Monarchy? Zo muz cor-r-rupZion, zo little Time. Zi, Zi. Zo. M.N. 11:02 AM 7/7/2019
I think that Comey is correct. It looks like Trump is engaged in (possibly deliberate) hostile, anti-English Speaking Alliance (see his recent anti-UK & anti-Australia remarks about the subjects of "Barr Investigation", with the Ukraine thrown in, for the good deceptive measure), PROPAGANDA; with overtly and/or covertly expressed "pro-Axis": pro-Germany and pro-Japan sentiments, and also some pro-Nazi racial hints, from his symbolic perspectives of the USS WASP, and other dubious optics of his Memorial Day 2019 Japan visit. I think humbly, realizing all the seriousness of this statement, that Mr. Trump might be the "unwitting" or "witting" (this has to…