|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 24, 2020 17:57:21 GMT -6
Interesting development: dailycaller.com/2020/06/24/doug-collins-whistleblower-trump-impeachment/GOP Lawmaker Forces DOJ Whistleblower To Admit He Sought Job With Democrats During Trump Impeachment A Justice Department official turned whistleblower appeared caught off-guard Wednesday when Republican Rep. Doug Collins pressed him in a House Judiciary Committee hearing about his efforts in 2019 to work for House Democrats during the Trump impeachment saga. John Elias, a chief of staff to the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general in the antitrust division, reluctantly conceded at the hearing that he sought a position on the Democratic side of the House Judiciary Committee. Elias was one of three witnesses who accused Attorney General William Barr of abuse of his authority at the Judiciary hearing. Elias alleged that Barr improperly ordered investigations into mergers of 10 small cannabis companies. He testified that he submitted a complaint to the Justice Department’s inspector general. During his round of questioning, Collins sought to portray Elias as having political motivations in blowing the whistle on Barr. (RELATED: Top Mueller Prosecutor To Testify As Whistleblower In Roger Stone Case) The Georgia Republican began his line of questioning by asking Elias if he considers himself to be nonpartisan. “When I go into the Justice Department every day as a career employee, I leave my politics at home,” Elias said. “Did you ever attempt to get detailed to this committee’s majority staff?” Collins asked. Elias appeared unprepared for the question, replying after a brief pause: “I, like people, over time have explored various career options.” WATCH: He then told Collins that he had a “very preliminary conversation” with Democrats about a job on the Judiciary panel. Elias initially told Collins that he wanted to work on antitrust policy. But after a follow-up question, he said that he might have also asked to work on oversight matters during the impeachment probe. “Did you not ask to be detailed to the committee’s work on oversight during impeachment, is that not correct? Refresh your memory,” Collins said. “I may have also asked for oversight at one point,” Elias answered. Elias then said that he sought the position in early 2019. New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary committee, stepped in to defend Elias. “Mr. Elias’s political inclinations and job prospects obviously have absolutely no bearing on whether the serious allegations that he is making about the attorney general are true,” he said, appearing to read from a written statement. He panned Collins’s questions as a “personal attack and a distraction
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 24, 2020 18:02:57 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/political/appeals-court-orders-flynn-judge-dismiss-caseCourt-Appointed 'Hit-Judge' Scrambles To File Flynn Condemnation After Case Dropped Like a liquid-metal terminator with half its head blown apart, the case against Michael Flynn just won't die. Hours after the US Court of Appeals for DC ordered Judge Emmett Sullivan to grant the DOJ's request to drop the case, the retired 'resistance' judge hired to defend Sullivan's actions has filed a motion requesting an extension to file his findings against Flynn. In a major victory for Michael Flynn, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan to grant the Justice Department's request to dismiss the case against the former Trump National Security Adviser. Upon consideration of the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, the responses thereto, and the reply, the briefs of amici curiae in support of the parties, and the argument by counsel, it is ORDERED that Flynn's petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part; the District Court is directed to grant the government's Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss; nd the District Court's order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date," reads the order. In their decision, the appeals court wrote: "Decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges - no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring - lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion." "The Judiciary's role under Rule 48 is thus confined to "extremely limited circumstances in extraordinary cases."" Hence, no dice for Judge Sullivan. Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his conversations with former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, during the presidential transition following the 2016 US election. He later withdrew his plea after securing new legal counsel, while evidence emerged which revealed the FBI had laid a 'perjury trap' - despite the fact that the agents who interviewed him in January, 2017 said they thought he was telling the truth. Agents persisted hunting Flynn despite the FBI's recommendation to close the case. Once the FBI's malfeasance was uncovered, the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case after Attorney General William Barr tapped an outside prosecutor to examine the FBI's conduct. Judge Sullivan rejected the DOJ's request - instead calling on an outside lawyer to make arguments against the DOJ's move to drop the case. In their Wednesday decision, the Appeals court noted that "the government's motion includes an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting Flynn's guilt into doubt." Specifically, the government points to evidence that the FBI interview at which Flynn allegedly made false statements was "untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn." -US Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 24, 2020 20:09:35 GMT -6
FBI Director Christopher Wray sat down with Fox News political anchor Bret Baier in a wide-ranging interview that aired Wednesday evening.
Bret Baier asked Wray if he was personally responsible for hiding exculpatory evidence from General Flynn and Congress.
Wray danced around the question and refused to answer.
Very telling.
“Were you responsible for holding back from Congress some of that stuff?” Bret Baier asked Wray referring to documents exonerating Flynn.
“I think we’ve tried very, very hard to be transparent and cooperative with all the relevant congressional committees,” Wray said dodging the question
FBI Director Chris Wray was previously accused of withholding evidence in the General Michael Flynn case.
FBI Attorney Dana Boente was also accused.
In April, the FBI denied Director Wray withheld exculpatory evidence in the Flynn case, but the FBI said nothing about Boente’s actions.
The Appeals Court on Wednesday upheld the Justice Department’s request to drop the criminal case against General Flynn.
Wray’s refusal to answer Bret Baier directly if he was personally responsible for withholding documents from Flynn’s case is very telling.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 25, 2020 7:46:44 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/06/24/fbi-christopher-wray-michael-flynn-investigation/Wray Has ‘Serious Concerns’ About Comey FBI’s Investigation Of Michael Flynn FBI Director Christopher Wray said in an interview aired Wednesday that he has “serious concerns” about how the bureau handled the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. “I will say….the Flynn investigation, which took place before I started, and by the time I started was in the hands of the special counsel’s office, is something that has in my view raised serious concerns and questions,” Wray told Fox News anchor Bret Baier. Wray noted that he has appointed the FBI’s inspection division to “take a look at whether or not the FBI’s policies and procedures need to be changed and if there are any current employees left to may bear any responsibility for misconduct.” Wray’s remarks are his most pointed criticism to date of the FBI’s investigation of Flynn, which started when Jim Comey served as director. Wray gave the interview before a federal appeals court directed a federal judge to comply with the Justice Department’s request to drop charges against Flynn. The Justice Department filed a motion on May 7 to withdraw charges against Flynn for making false statements to the FBI during a Jan. 24, 2017 interview regarding his contacts weeks earlier with Sergey Kislyak, who then served as Russian ambassador to the U.S. (RELATED: FBI Recommended Closing Flynn Probe, And Then Peter Strzok Intervened) Attorney General William Barr appointed U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen to review the Flynn investigation after the retired general’s lawyers accused prosecutors of withholding exculpatory evidence in the case. Jensen’s review turned up an FBI memo from Jan. 4, 2017 that recommended closing a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn over possible links to Russia. Peter Strzok, the former deputy chief of counterintelligence at the FBI, intervened to keep the investigation open. Strzok was fired from the FBI in August 2018, during Wray’s tenure. Wray also approved the firing of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who played a key role in the Flynn investigation. McCabe was fired after the Justice Department inspector general and FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility determined that he displayed a lack of candor regarding his authorization of media leaks in October 2016 regarding an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 26, 2020 6:59:02 GMT -6
www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barr-doj-has-500-investigations-into-rioters-and-destruction-of-statuesAttorney General William Barr said the Justice Department had “scores of indictments” filed against people who committed violence during a wave of protests across the country. During Thursday’s episode of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s podcast, Verdict, which is co-hosted by conservative commentator Michael Knowles, Barr said his agency was using 35 joint terrorist task forces across the country to investigate criminal activity, which has taken place since the Memorial Day death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man. “When the real violence started around May 25, 26, and so forth, we started using our joint terrorist task forces around the country. And there are 35 of them around the country,” Barr said. “And now they are starting to go full bore, cranking out investigations, indictments against the people who are involved in this violence. So we’ve had scores of indictments already for such things as arson, destruction of federal property, things like that. And we have, right now, about 500 investigations underway,” he added. Barr told Cruz and Knowles that groups of “provocateurs and agitators” appeared to be well-coordinated and often call upon anarchist groups to carry out violent criminal activity.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 26, 2020 9:59:54 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/06/25/fbi-christopher-steele-primary-sub-source/FBI Refuses To Disclose Records On Source Who Undermined Steele Dossier The FBI declined a public records request for information regarding Christopher Steele’s primary dossier source, saying that the materials are classified and could jeopardize national security. Steele’s source provided the FBI with information that “raised significant questions about the reliability” of Steele’s dossier, according to a Justice Department report released last year. In a rejection letter to The Daily Caller News Foundation, the FBI said that releasing information risks identifying a confidential FBI source. The FBI is refusing to release documents related to the primary source for dossier author Christopher Steele, saying in response to a public records request that the information is classified and risks identifying a confidential FBI source. The source, whose identity remains a mystery, holds key information that could shed light on apparent inaccuracies in Steele’s dossier, which the FBI cited extensively in applications for surveillance orders against Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The decision, which the FBI made in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by The Daily Caller News Foundation, comes as Republican lawmakers have increasingly accused the FBI and its director, Christopher Wray, of withholding documents relevant to the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. The DCNF sought all FBI records for an individual identified as “Primary Sub-Source” in a Justice Department inspector general’s report released on Dec. 9. According to the IG report, the source undercut key allegations that Steele made in his dossier, which the FBI used to obtain four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Carter Page. (RELATED: Primary Dossier Source Remains Elusive Months After Release Of Scathing IG Report) The FBI tracked down the source and interviewed him for the first time in January 2017. The source provided information directly to Steele that he collected from a network of sub-sources. The IG report says the source said that Steele misrepresented information that ended up in the dossier. The source said he shared “rumor and speculation” with Steele, but the retired spy presented it as fact. The source’s statements to the FBI “raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele reporting,” the IG report said. Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, blasted the FBI for failing to disclose the bombshell information in its final two FISA applications against Page. The Justice Department deemed the two FISA orders to be invalid because of the FBI’s omission of information about Steele’s source. The IG report said that an FBI case agent who has been identified in the media as Stephen Somma took part in the interview with the source. David Laufman, who served at the time as the Justice Department’s chief of counterintelligence and export control, arranged and attended the interview. The report faults Somma for being “primarily responsible for some of the most significant errors and omissions” in the FISA applications. Steele, who investigated the Trump campaign on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, said in a court deposition in London in March that the source had worked with his firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, for several years. Steele said he paid the source a retainer of up to $5,000 per month. The FBI has disclosed information about Steele, who had been a confidential human source, or CHS, for the FBI since 2013. The bureau did not address the disparity in the handling of information about Steele versus information about Steele’s dossier source. In its letter to the DCNF, the FBI cited three exemptions under FOIA to deny releasing the documents about the source. The bureau also indicated for the first time that it considers the Steele source to be a confidential source for the FBI. “The nature of your request implicates records the FBI compiles pursuant to its national security and foreign intelligence functions,” Michael G. Seidel, the acting section chief for the FBI’s information management division. Seidel said that disclosing the information “would trigger harm to national security interests…and/or reveal intelligence sources and methods.” Seidel also rejected the request, saying that the information would reveal the “identity of confidential sources and any information furnished by such sources in criminal law enforcement and national security investigations.” “Disclosing source related records about an individual or entity could reasonably be expected to undermine the use of confidential sources as it would discourage cooperation with the FBI in the future.” “Therefore, your request is closed.” It is unclear if the FBI considers the Steele source to be a CHS. While little is known about Steele’s source, the former spy reportedly told his business partners at the firm Fusion GPS that the source was “well known to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.” Republicans digging into the origins of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign have recently accused Wray of being too slow in releasing documents about the probe. Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, has led the charge in accusing Wray of obstinance in producing the documents. Wray addressed some of those concerns in an interview Wednesday with Fox News anchor Bret Baier. “I think we’ve tried very, very hard to be transparent and cooperative with all the relevant congressional committees. We’ve produced all sort of information to try to really lean forward,” Wray said. Congress typically has greater leverage than the media in obtaining documents from federal agencies. Some lawmakers have indicated that they want information related to the dossier source. “The Primary Sub-source substantially undercut Steele’s election reporting, calling into question the accuracy and reliability of any of Steele’s reports,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote Attorney General William Barr on April 20. Graham is seeking all documents and communications related to the FBI’s interviews with the source, including FBI reports written about the individual. Steele has said little about the IG report or the statements attributed to his dossier source. A day after the IG report was released, Steele’s lawyers issued a statement disputing the claims attributed to the source, and said that Steele had “meticulously documented and recorded” his interactions with the source. Steele revealed in court testimony in March that he no longer has documents related to the source. He said his computers were “wiped” in December 2016 and January 2017. The FBI did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 26, 2020 21:11:31 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/06/26/george-nader-mueller-child-sex-crime-sentence/Mueller Witness Gets 10 Years In Prison On Child Sex Crime Charges A federal judge in Virginia sentenced George Nader, a key witness in the special counsel’s investigation, to 10 years in prison on Friday on child sex crime charges. Nader, 61, pleaded guilty on Jan. 13 to trafficking a 14-year-old boy from the Czech Republic for sex in 2000. He faced numerous other charges for other sex crimes, as well as for helping a business associate funnel illegal campaign contributions to Democrats and the Clinton campaign in order to advance their political and business interests. Nader’s sex crimes were discovered in connection with the special counsel’s probe. The Lebanese-American businessman served as a key witness in the investigation, providing statements to prosecutors about his interactions with Trump campaign advisers, and with the Trump transition officials. Nader, a longtime adviser to Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, met with Trump officials Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner. Prosecutors were particularly interested in a January 2017 meeting that Nader attended in the Seychelles between Erik Prince, an informal Trump adviser and the head of a Russian investment fund.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2020 8:15:22 GMT -6
Strzok brags: And because I am so awesome CRS piece on the Logan Act from 2015. All the legislative history they cite does not involve incoming administrations.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 30, 2020 11:15:28 GMT -6
This seems rather important: Sidney Powell was on the Vicki McKenna radio show and she dropped another bomb. Per a report from Lifezette, General Michael Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell shared the following: newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/vicki-mckenna/www.lifezette.com/2020/06/before-takedown-of-general-flynn-he-was-planning-to-audit-john-brennan-for-running-billions-off-the-books/He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan. Powell began her interview noting at the 1:00 mark that when she took over the Flynn case three things were very, very troubling and egregious: One – he was not properly informed of what the government had even disclosed to his defense lawyers prior to the plea. Secondly, the government didn’t disclose a fraction of what it should have disclosed (i.e. the whole case was made up). Advertisement - story continues below And three, he was prosecuted and threatened with the prosecution of his son. That’s how they coerced the guilty plea. It was just unconscionable conduct to threaten to indict him and his son the very next day and give them the Manafort treatment if he didn’t enter his plea right then, and I’m convinced it’s because they knew right then the press was going to explode with the Strzok-Page text messages and everything. Then Powell drops the bomb at the 5:50 mark where she discloses that Flynn was going to audit the Intel agencies because he knew about the billions former CIA Director John Brennan was running off the books.[/i][/u] Courtesy of link above: Before ‘takedown’ of General Flynn, he was planning to audit John Brennan for running billions ‘off the books’ All roads lead back to John Brennan. BY POLIZETTE STAFF Sidney Powell, attorney for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, said her client, in his duties as the White House national security adviser, was prepared to “audit” the U.S. intelligence community. That, according to the former federal prosecutor, is partly why federal agents “set up” Flynn. Powell, who took over Flynn’s defense last summer, told the “Vickie McKenna Show” on 1310 WIBA Madison that her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration. “He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan. Flynn was picked by former President Barack Obama to serve as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2012, but he was pushed out of the position after clashing with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and others. He retired from the Army in 2014, a year before his stint was supposed to end. In his 2016 book, “The Field of the Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies,” Flynn wrote, “I was fired as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency after telling a congressional committee that we were not as safe as we had been a few years back.” The future Trump national security adviser was openly critical of the intelligence community prior to joining Trump’s campaign as a foreign policy adviser in February 2016. They’ve lost sight of who they actually work for,” Flynn said of the CIA to The New York Times in October 2015. “They work for the American people. They don’t work for the president of the United States… It’s become a very political organization.” Clearly, the Deep State wanted to use Flynn to try to kick off this whole “Russia collusion” nonsense. But if what Flynn’s lawyer says is accurate, then there was another very serious reason why the swamp wanted to get Flynn out of the picture. What’s with the “billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” and why aren’t the Republicans investigating? Now that Flynn is free, he can start talking and sharing his side of the story and hopefully help John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr sort out this entire #SpyGate mess.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 2, 2020 4:42:09 GMT -6
Federal agents on Tuesday arrested four members of the Toledo City Council after a 2-year bribery investigation. That makes a total of six Democrat officials to be charged within the last week. Two Democrat Patterson councilmen were charged with voter fraud a couple days ago. WTVG reported (emphasis our own): www.13abc.com/content/news/Four-Toledo-City-Council-members-arrested-on-bribery-charges-571562741.htmlFour members of the Toledo City Council have been accused of accepting bribes while in office, according to court documents obtained by 13abc on Tuesday. At least three of those council members have been placed into federal custody. 13abc crews were on the scene as council members Larry Sykes and Yvonne Harper were placed into custody. Federal documents also implicate council members Gary Johnson and Tyrone Riley. According to a criminal complaint filed with the U.S. District Court, Councilman Sykes faces complaints of “Reciept of Bribe by Agent of Organization Receiving Federal Funds” and “Hobbs Act Extortion Under Color of Official Right.” In the affidavit filed along with the complaint, council members Harper, Riley, and Jonson are also named as subjects. The documents reveal an unnamed source who owns several commercial properties, primarily gas stations and convenience stores in Toledo, pointed the finger at councilman Tyrone Riley. The alleged pay for votes scheme then unraveled over the next two years and according to the feds involved Yvonne Harper, Larry Sykes, and Gary Johnson. The court documents detail how each of the council members allegedly accepted payments in the range of five hundred to five thousand dollars for ‘yes’ votes on zoning requests to internet cafes. If convicted the council members could face 10 years for bribery and 20 years for extortion along with 250-thousand dollars in fines.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 9, 2020 12:05:08 GMT -6
So, the SCOTUS punts the case back to the lower court so the President can use a different argument & then the decision,(whichever way it goes), will be appealed & brought back to the SCOTUS.
CNBC still going with the lie:
Vance’s office is investigating the hush money payments that Trump allegedly facilitated to two women ahead of the 2016 election, though the purpose for his subpoenas is relatively opaque.
Should Trump's Tax Records Remain Private? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Gateway Pundit news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The women have claimed to have had sexual relationships with the president that he has denied. Vance hasn’t said whether Trump is a suspect in his investigation, and he has not indicated any potential charges. Trump’s attorneys have pushed for an expansive view of presidential immunity in the case.
In one lower court hearing in New York, an attorney for the president said that Trump would theoretically be immune from investigation even if he shot someone on New York’s Fifth Avenue. During the 2016 campaign, Trump claimed that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”
However, the SCOTUS rules that Congress is not allowed access to his financial records, but the DA could be,(both booted back to lower court)?
So, in other words, they know it will be “leaked by unanimous official sources” to the NYTimes & WaPo. In other words, Russiagate version 3.0.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 9, 2020 12:09:56 GMT -6
Mark Levin with three great points:
Continuing on:
Basically, we can now get the tax returns of Pelosi, Chief Justice Roberts, Schumer, Newsome, etc. Hello Pandora’s box.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 9, 2020 14:17:43 GMT -6
Ok, Judges like this need to be permanently disbarred:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 10, 2020 1:28:24 GMT -6
www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/supreme-courts-rulings-on-trump-subpoenas-ho-hum/Supreme Court’s Rulings on Trump Subpoenas — Ho Hum By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY July 9, 2020 3:01 PM A New York prosecutor may pursue the president’s financial information. Congress, though, must relitigate its case in lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decisions Thursday on two separate cases involving subpoenas for the president’s personal financial information are legal defeats for the presidency. Politically, they are a win for Donald Trump. Both opinions were authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and were ostensibly resounding 7–2 defeats for the president’s position. But there’s less here than meets the eye. The State Grand Jury Subpoena One case involves a subpoena issued by a New York state grand jury conducting a criminal investigation led by the office of Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan district attorney. That investigation is believed to be focused, at least in part, on the payment of hush money to women who claim to have had liaisons with Donald Trump about a decade before he became president, including how the reimbursement for those payments was allegedly booked by the Trump real-estate organization. The subpoena, issued to Trump’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars, is believed to be sweeping, seeking voluminous financial information (including tax-return information), over a number of years. The Court’s ruling against the president is emphatic. It was expected that the president would lose. This seemed obvious during the oral argument, when the Court focused intently on the fact that, while the president was making a broad immunity claim, he was not arguing that he had immunity from being investigated; just that he had immunity from complying with subpoenas — indeed, subpoenas addressed to a third-party agent of his, not to the president himself. This was an untenable position. Logically, it was foreclosed by Clinton v. Jones, in which the Court permitted Paula Jones’s civil sexual-harassment suit to proceed against President Clinton, including discovery. Moreover, as Chief Justice Roberts recounts in his opinion, it has been the law of the United States since the 1807 Aaron Burr treason trial that a president — Thomas Jefferson, in that case — may be subpoenaed in a criminal investigation. The Court observes that presidents from Monroe to Clinton have all accepted this ruling by the iconic John Marshall (then the circuit justice for Virginia, later the most consequential Supreme Court chief justice in American history). While few expected that the justices would be hospitable on the broad immunity claim by President Trump’s personal counsel, they did seem more sympathetic during oral argument to the middle position staked out by the Trump Justice Department. The solicitor general had proposed that the state prosecutor be required to show a heightened need for production of evidence or testimony by a president — a demonstration that there was some objective basis for the investigation, and a reasonable probability that the subpoena would lead to relevant information. NOW WATCH: 'Supreme Court Abortion Decision Is Not a ‘Victory for Women's Health Care’' WATCH: 9:13 Supreme Court Abortion Decision Is Not a ‘Victory for Women's Health Care’ In the end, however, the Court rejected this gambit, too. Roberts, joined by all justices except the dissenting Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, concluded that the president enjoys plenty of protections already. State grand juries may not engage in “arbitrary fishing expeditions.” If there is evidence they are acting in bad faith, the president may seek intervention by the federal courts. Moreover, the Constitution’s supremacy clause has been construed to prohibit state officials from interfering in the president’s official duties, attempting to pressure the president into policy decisions, or retaliating against a president for his official acts. Thus, along with the due-process protections available to all citizens, the president, again, has the prerogative of seeking intervention by the federal court if state prosecutors or judges act abusively. The justices deemed it unnecessary to craft additional safeguards. The Congressional Subpoenas The other case involved subpoenas issued by three Democrat-controlled committees that were part of the House impeachment effort, though the subpoenas were not directly (or at least explicitly) part of the impeachment investigation. The Oversight and Reform Committee subpoenaed financial records (including tax returns) from Mazars for its investigation of adequacy-of-government ethics laws. The Financial Services Committee and Intelligence Committees subpoenaed financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One, two big lenders to Trump’s business empire, for their investigation into foreign influence in American elections. Or at least, these were the stated rationales for the information demand. In reality, of course, Democrats have been screaming for Donald Trump’s tax information even since the 2016 campaign, during which he first agreed to produce it, then reneged. Consequently, the issue, depending on your perspective, is whether Congress is abusing its nigh-unlimited power to gather information for purposes of legislation and oversight in order to achieve a political advantage; or whether the president is flouting legitimate congressional demands for information in order to stave off political embarrassment. That is, it’s a political dispute between the political branches. Those are not generally the Court’s business. Thus did the justices marvel that they’d been asked to wade into such a dispute for the first time in 233 years of American constitutional governance. That ought to be a clue. As we noted many times during the impeachment kerfuffle, in which the House alleged that the president was obstructing its investigation, courts should and normally do stay out of such conflicts between the executive and the legislative branches. The Constitution mutually arms those political branches with several means of punishing the other for abuse and noncompliance. The result is that these conflicts are generally worked out by compromise and accommodation, not by lawsuits. The Court was being asked to impose legal rules on political combat. The justices agreed to take up the challenge, but their ruling is not definitive, and it will lead to extensive litigation in the lower courts. To summarize, the Court ruled that the lower courts, which had upheld the subpoenas as within Congress’s broad authority, were in error because they did not take account of the significant separation-of-powers concerns raised by the president. Nevertheless, the majority ruled that Congress was acting within its legitimate authority in seeking private information from the president. The question was one of balance — which, of course, is what the political disputes always come down to. The Court sent the cases involving the House subpoenas back to the lower courts, with instructions to do a better job sorting out the competing interests. To be sure, neither the president in his personal capacity nor the Justice Department on behalf of the presidency claimed that the president’s personal financial information was covered by executive privilege (such a claim would have been frivolous). Nevertheless, it cannot be gainsaid that numerous, continuous, extensive demands for private information would palpably threaten a president’s capacity to carry out his unparalleled duties. Hardly groundbreaking stuff: The Court acknowledged that the House has extensive information-gathering authority, but the president has a big job to do. The majority did not give the lower courts exhaustive guidance about how to work that out. There are a few guidelines. For example, courts should ask whether Congress’s asserted legislative purpose really requires involving the president and his personal papers. Congress should not be permitted to burden the president if it can reasonably obtain the information it seeks from other sources. Courts should ask for subpoenas to be narrow. But the Court declined to tick off all the potential considerations, lamenting that “one case every two centuries does not afford enough experience” for that. I phrased that last sentence intendedly. The Court seems ticked off to be dragged into this controversy. Thus the justices resolved it by kicking it to the lower courts. Between trying to apply the Court’s Delphic guidance and developing their own standards, those judges could take forever to resolve things. In other words, we’re effectively at square one: a political dispute in which the political branches’ incentive should be to compromise, because the alternative possibility is a breakdown in cooperation, mutual damage, and even impeachment (again!). The not-so-subtle message is that the Supreme Court was not happy to be entangled in this, and not in any hurry to stick the federal judiciary’s neck out to resolve it. Conclusion President Trump argued in both cases that he had immunity from subpoena compliance, and the Court flatly rejected those claims. To the extent, moreover, that the Court recognized a legitimate congressional interest in the president’s personal papers, that is a setback for the presidency, though I doubt it is much of one. Few doubted that there are at least some instances when congressional demands for the president’s personal information would be justifiable. What stops Congress from being unreasonable in this regard are political rather than legal restraints — restraints that worked well for over two centuries before the Trump presidency. As a practical matter, although these cases go down as legal losses for the presidency, the Court’s remand back to lower courts ensures that the wrangling will go on for months — until long after Election Day. That’s a big political win for the president. The Trump legal team will undoubtedly go back to Manhattan federal court and argue that the district attorney is abusing his authority in ways that the Supreme Court hypothesized would be offensive and might call for federal-court intervention. When the congressional committees press their demands, the president’s counsel will go back to the D.C. district court (and, probably later, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals) and tell the judges that the Supreme Court says they must start all over because they failed in the earlier rounds to give due weight to the president’s constitutional interests. In other words, President Trump’s personal financial information is not going to be an issue in the 2020 campaign. In fact, it will probably be even less of an issue than it was in the 2016 campaign, since the president can now say that the Supreme Court recognized the dangers of interference in his daunting duties . . . and hope that voters won’t care that he could release his financial information voluntarily, just as he could have four years ago. For all the anticipation, the Supreme Court’s term ends with a whimper, not a bang.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 10, 2020 11:39:14 GMT -6
More nails in the coffin of the Russia hoax: Newsmax reported on the Steele court case in the UK: www.newsmax.com/us/steele-dossier/2020/07/08/id/976334/A central allegation by a former British spy in his dossier about alleged ties between Moscow and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was “inaccurate and misleading,” a London judge ruled. Christopher Steele stated in his report that Mikhail Fridman and his fellow Alfa Group billionaire Petr Aven arranged for the delivery of “large amounts of illicit cash” to Vladimir Putin in the 1990s. But Judge Mark Warby ruled Wednesday that Steele’s intelligence firm “failed to take reasonable steps to verify the allegation” as he awarded 18,000 pounds ($22,600) in compensation to each man. “Ever since these odious allegations were first made public in January 2017, my partners and I have been resolute and unwavering in our determination to prove that they are untrue, and through this case, we have finally succeeded in doing so,” Fridman said in a statement. What Svetlana next tweets is that Steele was hired in May 2016, months before the Trump – Russia investigation supposedly started. The FBI knew at least by July 5, 2016, that the Steele dossier was created for the corrupt Hillary campaign. It is clear from the court that the ultimate client of the Steele dossier was the Hillary Clinton campaign!
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 10, 2020 13:42:41 GMT -6
On Friday, the Justice Department unsealed the January 30, 2017 memo and it revealed the Obama coup cabal KNEW Flynn wasn’t lying and wasn’t an “agent of Russia.” www.scribd.com/document/468702127/US-v-Flynn-DOJ-July-2020-ProductionNotes from the now fired top FBI general counsel Dana Boente from his March 30, 2017 meeting with fired FBI Director James Comey: Michael Flynn: “Do not view as source of collusion.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 10, 2020 13:44:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2020 9:21:47 GMT -6
Leftists meltdown over Roger Stone.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2020 9:24:18 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/07/10/pelosi-commuting-stones-sentence-appalling-and-a-terrible-idea/1:13 During an interview that took place before it was formally announced that President Trump is commuting Roger Stone’s prison sentence broadcast on Friday’s edition of CNN’s “AC360,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated that giving Stone clemency is “a terrible idea” and “appalling.” Pelosi also stated that Congress should pass legislation so that presidents are legally restricted from pardoning anyone who commits a crime “that is caused by protecting the president, which this was.” Pelosi said, “I think it’s a terrible idea. Just look at this administration, the president and his henchmen, so many of his friends, advisers, campaign chairman, etc. are in jail. And for the president to be able to issue a pardon on the basis of a crime that the person committed assisting the president is ridiculous. And we have — there ought to be a law, and I’m recommending that we pass a law that presidents cannot issue a pardon if the crime that the person is in jail for is one that is caused by protecting the president, which this was. It’s appalling
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2020 19:33:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2020 14:23:49 GMT -6
Mueller's op-ed claimed Roger Stone committed federal crimes, including he made false statements to congress.
Now Republicans can question Mueller about his report which MADE false statements to congress such as:
1. "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping and systematic fashion." 2. "Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016." 3. "Releases of hacked materials—hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month." 4. "Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government..." 5. "That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities." 6. " That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government “directed recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including US political organizations,” 7. "The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign."
Based on Special Counsel Mueller's investigation he indicted 12 Russian individuals & entities, including Concord Management and Consulting, LLC.
On May 29, 2019 Mueller held a press conference where he made a 9 minute statement.
In the hastily arranged 9-minute press conference, Mueller announced that he was ending his investigation -- which was not news -- and concluded it without taking any questions. He made a point, however, to stress that the Russians he had indicted were “private” entities and "presumed innocent."
On May 28, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich...agreed with one defendant’s claims that Mueller had overstated the evidence when he implied in his report to Congress that the trolls were controlled by the Russian government and that the social media operations they conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign were directed by Moscow.
Concerned that Mueller’s words could prejudice a jury...Friedrich ordered the special prosecutor to stop making such claims and “to minimize the prejudice moving forward” — or face sanction.
“The government shall refrain from making or authorizing any public statement that links the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government,” Friedrich stated in her ruling, which was private at the time. “Willful failure to do so in the future will result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.”
The judge explained that Mueller’s report improperly referred to the defendants’ “social media operations” as one of “two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections” carried out by the Russian government.
To date, the charges against Concord Management and Consulting, LLC have been DROPPED and the remaining defendants have NOT been convicted.
Since Mueller has NOT proven the 'Russian government' interfered in the 2016 election, released hacked materials, coordinated with the Trump Campaign or there were ANY links with the Trump Campaign, HIS report contains MULTIPLE 'False Statements to Congress'.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 13, 2020 5:56:31 GMT -6
Someone is getting nervous, wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 13, 2020 7:20:01 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/13/steele-told-fbi-clinton-knew-he-was-compiling-the-dirty-dossier/U.K. Court documents released on Wednesday reveal that as early as July 5, 2016, the FBI was aware that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele had acknowledged that then-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton personally knew that he was commissioned to compile the now thoroughly discredited Trump-Russia dossier. Notes taken by the FBI indicate that Steele was told that Clinton herself was aware that he was commissioned to create the Trump-Russia dossier which alleges collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 election, amongst various other wild allegations. Three months later, the FBI would conceal this critical information from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in order to obtain a warrant to spy on Trump’s tangential campaign adviser, Carter Page. On Wednesday, a London judge ordered Steele to pay damages to two Alfa Bank partners for publishing “inaccurate or misleading” material in his infamous dossier, including claims that the banks funneled “illicit cash” to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The 57-page court ruling reveals that the FBI recorded notes of the July 5th meeting they held with Steele at his London Orbis Business office, where he handed the FBI the documents containing his unsubstantiated, largely-discredited anti-Trump charges. The FBI noted that Steele had told them that his Orbis Business Intelligence firm was contracted by Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS and “Democratic Party Associates” to produce the dossier, but that he knew “the ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign.” Steele is also documented alerting the FBI that he was aware that Clinton herself knew he was commissioned to create the dossier. One section of the court documents reads as follows (emphasis added): Mr Steele’s evidence is that he now believes the Ultimate Client was the Democratic National Committee. Mr Millar submits that the Ultimate Client was the Clinton election campaign, “Hillary for America”. This is in line with the FBI Note of 5 July 2016, which records Mr Steele telling the FBI that Orbis had been instructed by Mr. Simpson of Fusion and “Democratic Party Associates” but that “the ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign.” The FBI Note also indicates that Mr. Steele had been told by that stage that Mrs. Clinton herself was aware of what Orbis had been commissioned to do. The explosive FBI notes undermine the representation that it would make in an error-ridden Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application three months later, in order to spy on Page. In late October 2016, then-FBI director James Comey signed the first of three successful FISA applications to obtain warrants to spy on Page. The second and third were renewal applications, since a FISA warrant requires a renewal every 90 days. A footnote in Carter Page’s October 21st FISA application (and two subsequent renewals submitted to the FISC), omitted the key fact that the FBI had documented Steele’s knowledge of Clinton’s role in the dossier, as well as her awareness that he was tasked to compile it. Instead, the FBI footnote makes no mention of Steele’s awareness of his ultimate clients, which would have undermined the credibility of the dossier which the FBI relied on in large part in it’s FISA application against Page. The footnote in all three of the FISA application read (emphasis added): Source #1 [Steele], who now owns a foreign business/financial intelligence firm,was approached by an identified U.S. person [Simpson] who indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. person and Source #1 have a long-standing business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign The deceptive phraseology that the FBI “speculates” on possible bias when it knew Steele was aware that the ultimate clients were not Simpson but Clinton herself, demonstrates that the FBI–which is obligated to add any exculpatory evidence in applying for FISA warrants–was intentionally deceiving in its representations in the FISA application and renewals. Breitbart News previously reported how Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz found “at least 17 significant errors and omissions” in the Carter Page federal surveillance application that enabled the investigation into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. The dossier would eventually set in motion the entire Russia hoax narrative, leading to the appointment of a special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller, to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” After nearly two years, the investigation concluded that it “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Breitbart news previously reported that during a Capitol Hill testimony following the release of his report, Mueller said he was “not familiar” with Fusion GPS — the firm whose opposition research included allegations of President Trump’s connections to Russia in the run-up to his two-year investigation. On Saturday, in response to the U.K. court’s findings against Steele, President Trump tweeted his abhorrence: This man should be extradited, tried, and thrown into jail. A sick lier who was paid by Crooked Hillary & the DNC!” he wrote. The newly revealed information contained in the U.K. court document adds yet another avenue for U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is currently investigating the origins of the Russian hoax, to explore.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 13, 2020 12:58:16 GMT -6
Judge Amy Berman Jackson is now ordering the parties to clarify the scope of President Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone. Because Judge Jackson hasn’t abused Roger Stone enough. Judge Jackson asked parties to address whether President Trump’s commutation applies to only Stone’s prison term and she asked for a copy of the executive order. President Trump commuted Roger Stone’s sentence on Friday and the Democrat-media complex has been out in full force attacking Stone. Mueller even lashed out at Roger Stone after the president commuted the political operative’s sentence. Roger Stone was charged with process crimes since Mueller, Weissmann and the crooked Democrat lawyers on the special counsel’s team had NOTHING on Stone. CNBC reported: www.cnbc.com/2020/07/13/judge-asks-if-roger-stones-probation-still-applies-after-trumps-commutation.htmlA federal judge ordered the parties in Roger Stone’s criminal case Monday to clarify the “scope” of President Donald Trump’s executive action commuting the prison sentence of his longtime ally. Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s request came in response to “questions raised by the U.S. Probation Office,” especially the question of whether Trump’s clemency applies to “the sentence of incarceration alone or also the period of supervised release,” she said in an order on Stone’s case docket. Jackson, a U.S. district court judge in Washington, D.C., also asked for a copy of Trump’s executive order. The White House’s announcement of the commutation proclaimed, “Roger Stone is now a free man!” – but it apparently left unclear the question of whether the 24-month term of probation from Stone’s sentence still applied. Those two years of supervised release were set to take effect after Stone completed his 40 months behind bars for lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering. Stone was also sentenced to pay a $20,000 fine. The copy of Trump’s executive order and the requested clarifications are due to be handed to Jackson on Tuesday – the day Stone was scheduled to enter prison.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 13, 2020 13:06:29 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/07/13/mueller-prosecutor-andrew-weissmann-mistakes-memoir/Top Mueller Prosecutor Admits ‘We Made Mistakes’ In Upcoming Memoir A former prosecutor in Robert Mueller’s special counsel will release a memoir detailing the “hard truth” surrounding the investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia. The Justice Department’s former head of criminal fraud division, Andrew Weissmann, announced the release of his new book “Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation” for September 29, according to the Associated Press. The memoir will detail the special counsel’s clashes with the White House, and shines light on some of the choices made.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 14, 2020 7:26:41 GMT -6
Roger Stone was on Hannity last night and he discussed the commutation that President Trump gave him last Friday night.
Below is a summary of his comments and a video of the discussion, the first on FOX News since his commutation.
Sean Hannity introduced Stone by mentioning his concerns for the country after watching the Trump and Roger Stone witch hunt take place over the past few years. That’s when Stone stepped in and began by thanking many individuals who have helped him along the way. He expressed deep appreciation for Tucker Carlson, Representative Matt Gaetz from Florida, who he said will some day be in the White House, and the General Mike Flynn family.
Stone the shared that he was against the massive Federal government and these “really sadistic, arrogant and politically motivated prosecutors”. He said he “had a biased judge. I had a stacked jury and a corrupt jury forewoman. As my friend Tucker Carlson said, my trial was over before it started”.
TRENDING: BREAKING: Former Missouri Governor Eric Greitens and Friend Rush to Perform Life-Saving Measures on Shooting Victims in St. Louis! -- Eric Greitens Just Spoke with The Gateway Pundit
He was being sent to a COVID infested prison where he felt he was “facing a near death sentence”. He thanked Hannity for helping him get back to God as a result of this experience.
As they got closer to publishing the Mueller report, the US Attorney with a clear bias who “has all the charms of a North Korean prison guard”, Jeannie Rhee, pressured him to make up lies about President Trump.
There is much more below:
Via Hannity:
Stones attorney mentioned, President Trump was right to commute Stone’s case because:
The Mueller team was rotten to the core, An unfair trial where Stone was prevented to address corruption and lies in Mueller team, and Because the President saved Stone’s life.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 14, 2020 13:37:03 GMT -6
www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-durham-should-take-a-hard-look-at-top-mueller-prosecutor-former-trump-lawyer-saysAndrew Weissmann, one of special counsel Robert Mueller’s top prosecutors, should be investigated by the U.S. attorney conducting a criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation, according to a former lawyer to President Trump. After Trump commuted the prison sentence of Roger Stone, a target of Mueller’s special counsel operation, Weissmann tweeted that the longtime Trump associate should be put “in the grand jury to find out what he knows about Trump but would not tell.” John Dowd, who was Trump’s attorney during the Russia investigation, dismissed the suggestion. “Weissmann and his dream team failed in their first attempt to manufacture a crime and want to further abuse the process when their sorry effort has been exposed,” Dowd told the Washington Times. “The Stone indictment did not allege a crime by President Trump. So why further abuse the process except more sour grapes. Mr. Durham ought to take a hard look at Mr. Weissmann’s conduct on the dream team.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 14, 2020 13:38:23 GMT -6
Uber liberal George Stephanopoulos urged Rep. Adam Schiff to try to impeach President Trump again, saying in an interview with the California Democrat and gadfly that he seems to have grounds to do so. Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, appeared Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” once again playing the old saw of Trump and Russia. During the interview, Stephanopoulos, a former top adviser and press secretary for President Bill Clinton turned TV anchor, quoted Founding Father James Madison’s speech from the 1788 Constitutional Convention in an effort to sway Schiff to impeach Trump for commuting Roger Stone’s sentence. “If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him, they can remove him if found guilty,” Stephanopoulos quoted from Madison. Then he asked Schiff: “Is this an impeachable offense?” “Stephanopoulos also referenced a quote from Schiff’s colleague Hakeem Jeffries claiming that ‘the President and Stone can still be indicted once Donald Trump leaves office” before asking Schiff “should Joe Biden ask his Attorney General to take that step if he indeed does become president?'” NewsBusters reported. newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ryan-foley/2020/07/13/ex-democratic-hack-stephanopoulos-pushes-democrat-schiff-support
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 14, 2020 15:29:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 15, 2020 16:14:02 GMT -6
Backstory: Papadopoulos was in an interview with former Secret Agent and author Dan Bongino when he shared this – themarketswork.com/2018/11/05/bonginos-papadopoulos-interview-with-transcript/Bongino: I want to get right to it. I have a list of questions for you. I guess the easiest question to ask is why did you meet with Mifsud?
Papadopoulos: Professor Mifsud is a Maltese professor. Just so everybody understands – he’s not a Russian.
I was working at this organization in London – the London Center for International Law Practice (LCILP) – that unbeknownst to me at the time was apparently some sort of front group for ex-western diplomats and ex-western intelligence types of personalities.
As well, the legal counsel for the FBI in the UK, Arvinder Sambei, just happens to also be a director at this organization I used to work for. I tell this organization ‘Look, I’m joining the Trump Campaign, I’m leaving. I’m going back to the U.S. I’m leaving London’.
But they all of a sudden tell me, ‘before you leave, you really need to come to Rome with us. We want to introduce you to some people there.’ So, I say, ‘that’s fine. I’ll go to Rome. It’s a three-day holiday before I get back to Washington.
They introduce me to Joseph Mifsud at this university in Rome called Link Campus. This isn’t any normal university in Rome. At the time I had no idea what this place was. But apparently, it’s a training ground for western intelligence operatives in Rome. The CIA has held symposiums there. David Ignatius from the Washington Post has actually written extensively about this place. They have connections to the FBI and other groups.
I also saw many Italian diplomats there. The ex-foreign minister of Italy was the director of this university, so things started to pop in my mind that this isn’t just a random event – a random meeting.
They tell me it’s very important for you to meet Josef Mifsud. I had no idea who this person was. He came up to me, presented himself as this mid-fifties, former diplomat, who knew the world.Which brings us to today:
|
|