#Michael Mifsud

[dspronews]

L’audio del presunto Mifsud sotto esame a Washington, mentre Durham potrebbe tornare in Italia

A rischio la nostra sicurezza nazionale e la vita del professor Mifsud: non è ora che qualche procura decida di indagare?

La stessa Adnkronos che li ha pubblicati nella giornata di mercoledì era molto incerta sull’autenticità dei due file audio del presunto Mifsud arrivati alle redazioni dell’agenzia di stampa e del Corriere della Sera da un sistema di posta elettronica anonimo e criptato. Il procuratore Usa John Durham, che sta indagando sulle origini del Russiagate e sul presunto coinvolgimento di alcuni Paesi alleati, tra cui l’Italia, avrebbe acquisito i file per esaminarli, secondo quanto riferisce all’Adnkronos l’avvocato Stephan Roh, che avrebbe parlato direttamente con il procuratore, “interessato a capire che fine abbia fatto uno dei protagonisti del Russiagate e anche di chi sia la voce femminile che per un breve istante si può ascoltare alla fine del secondo file audio”.

Dagli Stati Uniti, intanto, rimbalza l’indiscrezione secondo cui il procuratore Durham avrebbe in programma una nuova visita in Italia, dopo quella del 27 settembre scorso insieme a Barr per incontrare i vertici dei nostri servizi, e arriva la notizia di un incontro non programmato, nello studio ovale della Casa Bianca, tra il presidente Trump e l’Attorney General. Un incontro per fare il punto sul rapporto dell’ispettore generale del Dipartimento di Giustizia, Michael Horowitz, sui presunti abusi dell’FBI nella sorveglianza della Campagna Trump nel 2016, la cui pubblicazione “so che è imminente”, ha dichiarato Barr, spiegando che “alcune persone menzionate nel rapporto stanno avendo proprio adesso l’opportunità di rilasciare una dichiarazione su come vengono citate nel rapporto e, una volta terminato questo processo, che dovrebbe essere molto breve, il rapporto verrà pubblicato”. La scorsa settimana, il senatore Lindsey Graham, presidente della Commissione Giustizia del Senato, ha riferito di essere stato “aggiornato” da Barr sul rapporto dell’IG Horowitz e dichiarato a Fox News che sarà “scioccante”, “incriminante”. “Penso che dimostrerà che il sistema è uscito dai binari e abbiamo bisogno di azioni correttive”.

Nel frattempo, in Italia, si moltiplicano i dubbi sulla voce dell’uomo che nell’audio arrivato all’Adnkronos si qualifica come Joseph Mifsud. Gli unici ad essere certi “al 100 per cento” che si tratti proprio del professore sono i vertici della Link Campus, che però sono parte in causa, venendo infatti scagionati dalle dichiarazioni contenute nei file.

L’audio ha già fallito un primo test. Roberto Vivaldelli, di InsideOver, si è rivolto ad un “esperto in discipline forensi, uno dei più importanti in Italia in questo ambito”, il quale dopo aver messo a confronto il file audio inviato dal presunto Mifsud con due video del professore maltese su YouTube, ha concluso che si tratta di un “falso” e che la persona che parla non è Joseph Mifsud. L’esperto è stato in grado di fornire altri particolari interessanti. L’uomo a cui appartiene la voce che si sente nei file ha “presumibilmente una ventina di anni in meno rispetto al professore (che ne ha quasi 60, ndr) e sta leggendo qualcosa di scritto”, la sua voce mostra “i difetti tipici degli italiani che parlano inglese” e “non ha la stessa cadenza del vero Mifsud dei video, che trascinava le vocali per via del suo respiro. Questa cosa nel file audio non c’è mai e sono abbastanza convinto che sia un falso”. Inoltre, deve averlo registrato “con un microfono attaccato al colletto della camicia, in un ambiente molto ampio, collegato direttamente al computer, c’è molto eco”. E conferma anche che si sente la voce di una donna, verso la fine, che direbbe “22”. Non solo: secondo l’esperto contattato da InsideOver, il file sarebbe stato “lavorato successivamente con qualche programma, è stata aggiunta della compressione”.

Altre cose sembrano non tornare dell’audio, come abbiamo già avuto modo di notare. Perché mai registrare in lingua inglese, quando Mifsud parla un ottimo italiano, dichiarazioni indirizzate a organi di stampa italiani, la cui finalità è di tutta evidenza rispondere a recentissime inchieste e interviste uscite sui media italiani?

Se, come afferma la voce nell’audio, “assolutamente” non ha alcun contatto con amici e famigliari e non ne ha avuti per mesi, non ha nemmeno potuto “leggere le notizie”, come ha potuto “recentemente” essere stato “informato in maniera affidabile” delle accuse rivolte alla Link?

E perché, dopo aver ribadito più volte di non aver mai ricevuto “pressioni” ma solo “un consiglio”, alla fine, in un drammatico appello, chiede che gli sia “data la possibilità di tornare alla vita”, che “qualcuno, da qualche parte, decida” di farlo “respirare di nuovo”?

Secondo l’esperto contattato dal quotidiano La Verità – che proprio nel giorno in cui spuntava l’audio del presunto Mifsud trovava significative conferme alla versione fornita dall’avvocato Roh – c’è “un’altissima probabilità” che la voce dell’audio sia effettivamente quella del professore, risultato a cui sarebbe giunto anche il sito investigativo Bellingcat, ma come abbiamo detto ora i file sono nelle mani delle autorità Usa…

Se fossimo in presenza di un audio fake, se cioè qualcuno avesse impersonato Mifsud, le implicazioni sarebbero diverse e molto gravi.

Innanzitutto, ci troveremmo non più di fronte ad una negazione del coinvolgimento del nostro Paese nelle origini del Russiagate e nella sparizione del professore, ma ad un deliberato tentativo di depistaggio dell’indagine Durham. Una cialtronata che faticherebbe (e sta già faticando) a reggere all’urto di approfondimenti giornalistici, figurarsi alla prova di un’analisi condotta con i potenti mezzi delle agenzie Usa. A Washington questa ipotesi viene valutata con preoccupazione e un esito negativo degli esami sui file audio non potrebbe che essere preso molto seriamente.

Inoltre, come abbiamo già osservato, se non fosse la sua voce ma quella di un impostore, ci sarebbe da preoccuparsi davvero per la sorte del professore maltese: chi rischierebbe, infatti, di registrare un falso audio di una persona sapendola in vita – e libera in qualsiasi momento di ricomparire, smentire, denunciare? Ma anche se fosse il vero Mifsud a parlare in quei file, non sembrano le parole di un uomo libero, bensì di un prigioniero esausto che potrebbe aver ricevuto pressioni per registrare e diffondere proprio ora queste dichiarazioni.

Insomma, considerate le possibili ripercussioni sui nostri rapporti con gli Usa, quindi sulla nostra sicurezza nazionale, di un’ipotesi di depistaggio dell’indagine Durham, e le fondate preoccupazioni per le condizioni di salute e l’incolumità del professor Mifsud, che nel caso di un falso audio potrebbe anche non essere più in vita, non è forse giunto il momento che qualche procura decida di iniziare a indagare? Se non ora, quando?

Un’altra strana circostanza è stata notata ieri su Twitter da Giulio Occhionero, che come abbiamo riportato nel nostro speciale ha presentato diversi esposti alle procure di Roma e Perugia denunciando le connessioni tra l’inchiesta Eyepyramid che lo vede coinvolto e il caso Russiagate: non è più accessibile sul sito della Link Campus la pagina del master in Scientific Intelligence al quale era stato invitato come relatore, il 9 settembre 2016, l’agente dell’FBI Preston Ackerman, assistente legale all’ambasciata Usa di Roma, come il suo collega di ufficio Michael Gaeta, che dalla capitale italiana gestiva i contatti con l’ex agente britannico Christopher Steele, firma dell’omonimo dossier anti-Trump commissionato dalla Fusion GPS, società incaricata dalla Campagna Clinton. Non è più visibile quindi che nel comitato scientifico di quel master c’erano Vincenzo Scotti, Vanna Fadini e Paola Giannetakis. In cattedra, “i migliori esperti nazionali ed internazionali, professionisti, accademici, appartenenti alle FFPP, Arma dei Carabinieri, Polizia Postale e delle Comunicazioni, Guardia di Finanza, Polizia di Stato, CIOC, SMD”. Tra questi, uno dei protagonisti del caso Eyepyramid, l’allora direttore della Polizia Postale Roberto Di Legami e, appunto, Ackerman.

E troviamo sia Ackerman che Di Legami ad un convegno del 13 giugno 2016, a Roma, organizzato da Stefano Mele, avvocato e fondatore di Moire Consulting Group, lo stesso organizzatore di una conferenza, nell’aprile 2017, in cui il pm del caso Eyepyramid Eugenio Albamonte, oggi sotto inchiesta a Perugia, sosteneva che le presidenziali Usa del 2016 erano state truccate dagli hacker, solo pochi mesi dopo il voto e ancor prima che venisse nominato il procuratore speciale Mueller.

[whenpraxisbecomesunbearable]

In-Niggieża tan-Narrattiva: Il-Proża Politika

Konferenza dwar il-letteratura u l-politika li se ntellgħu bi sħab bejnietna tal-Public Policy at UM u Il-Malti fl-UM. Miftuħa għal kulħadd u d-dħul huwa b’xejn. Is-Sibt 27 ta' April fil-University of Malta - Valletta Campus. Kull min jiġi dakinhar se jingħata kopja b'xejn tal-ktieb bid-diskorsi li saru fil-konferenza li tellajna flimkien is-sena l-oħra dwar ir-retorika politika. Aktar dettalji dwar il-programm u l-kelliema fl-istampi t'hawn isfel.

Ħerqan biex nisma' d-diskorsi ta' sħabi u kollegi: Justine Somerville, Romario Sciberras, Michael Spagnol, Luke J. Buhagiar, Immanuel Mifsud; kif ukoll riflessjoni dwar il-politika tar-reżistenza kif riflessa f'ċerti films, immexxija minn Marie Louise Mangion. Id-diskors tiegħi se jkun dwar il-politika tal-ġeneru f'𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑎 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑎 ta' Loranne Vella.

Biex tirreġistra, kemm timla din il-formola! Narawkom!

[sportinggijnponferradina]

¿Cuáles fueron los alineaciones de Coventry City F.C. vs Leicester City en el último partido?

🎰🎲✨ ¡Obtén 500 euros y 200 giros gratis para jugar juegos de casino con solo un clic! ✨🎲🎰

¿Cuáles fueron los alineaciones de Coventry City F.C. vs Leicester City en el último partido?

Alineaciones de Coventry City F.C

El Coventry City F.C. es un club de fútbol inglés con una larga historia y una base de seguidores leales. Las alineaciones de este equipo han variado a lo largo de los años, con jugadores legendarios que han dejado su huella en la historia del club.

Durante su temporada en la Football League Championship, el Coventry City F.C. ha presentado alineaciones sólidas y competitivas. Con un enfoque en el juego de equipo y la táctica, han logrado enfrentarse a equipos fuertes y mostrar un fútbol de alta calidad.

Entre los jugadores destacados que han formado parte de las alineaciones del Coventry City F.C. se encuentran figuras como Michael Mifsud, Gary McSheffrey y Carl Baker. Estos talentosos futbolistas han sido fundamentales en el éxito del equipo y en la conquista de importantes logros a lo largo de los años.

Las alineaciones del Coventry City F.C. han sido cuidadosamente seleccionadas por sus entrenadores, quienes han trabajado arduamente para encontrar la combinación perfecta de jugadores que puedan llevar al equipo a la victoria. Con una base de seguidores apasionados y un legado rico en historia, el Coventry City F.C. continúa siendo un equipo emblemático en el fútbol inglés.

Alineaciones de Leicester City en el último partido

En el último partido del Leicester City, el entrenador optó por una alineación táctica que despertó gran interés entre los aficionados. Con un enfoque estratégico, el equipo salió al campo con una formación que buscaba maximizar sus fortalezas y contrarrestar las tácticas del equipo rival.

En la defensa, se mantuvo una línea sólida liderada por experimentados defensores centrales, que buscaban asegurar la portería y evitar cualquier peligro proveniente del ataque contrario. En el centro del campo, se desplegó un entramado de jugadores versátiles que buscaban controlar el juego y distribuir el balón con precisión hacia los jugadores de ataque.

En el ataque, se destacó la presencia de delanteros rápidos y habilidosos, capaces de desequilibrar la defensa rival y crear oportunidades de gol. Además, el entrenador también optó por incluir jugadores creativos en la media cancha, que aportaron imaginación y visión de juego para desarticular la defensa contraria.

La alineación del Leicester City en el último partido reflejó una combinación equilibrada de experiencia y juventud, así como una clara estrategia táctica diseñada para obtener un resultado positivo. Aunque el resultado final del partido puede variar, la alineación seleccionada demuestra la dedicación del cuerpo técnico por buscar el éxito en cada encuentro.

Los aficionados del Leicester City están ansiosos por ver cómo evolucionará la estrategia de alineación en los próximos partidos, confiando en que el equipo seguirá compitiendo con determinación y pasión en cada encuentro.

Jugadores titulares de Coventry City F.C

El Coventry City F.C., un club de fútbol con sede en Coventry, Inglaterra, cuenta con una selección de jugadores titulares que destacan en el terreno de juego. Estos jugadores representan la columna vertebral del equipo y son fundamentales para sus logros en la temporada.

Entre los jugadores titulares del Coventry City F.C. se encuentra su portero titular, quien se encarga de resguardar la portería con habilidad y destreza. Además, la defensa está compuesta por jugadores sólidos que se destacan por su capacidad para interceptar los ataques rivales y proteger la zona defensiva.

En el centro del campo, el equipo cuenta con jugadores creativos y habilidosos que se encargan de distribuir el juego y generar oportunidades de gol para el equipo. Estos centrocampistas son piezas clave en el esquema táctico del entrenador y contribuyen tanto en labores defensivas como ofensivas.

En la delantera, el Coventry City F.C. cuenta con atacantes rápidos y letales que son capaces de desequilibrar las defensas rivales y marcar goles decisivos. Estos jugadores son la principal arma del equipo en busca de la victoria.

En resumen, los jugadores titulares del Coventry City F.C. forman un equipo equilibrado y competitivo que busca destacar en cada partido. Con su talento y dedicación, son la clave para alcanzar los objetivos del club en la temporada y mantener la ilusión de sus seguidores.

Suplentes de Coventry City F.C

La importancia de los suplentes en un equipo de fútbol como el Coventry City F.C. no debe subestimarse. Aunque no siempre son los jugadores que inician en la alineación titular, su contribución al equipo es fundamental para lograr el éxito en la temporada.

Los suplentes son jugadores que están listos para entrar en el terreno de juego en cualquier momento para reemplazar a un compañero lesionado, cansado o simplemente para aportar un nuevo impulso al equipo. Es crucial que estos jugadores se mantengan en buena forma física y mental, ya que su participación puede marcar la diferencia en un partido.

Además, la competencia saludable entre los titulares y suplentes impulsa a todos los jugadores a dar lo mejor de sí mismos en cada entrenamiento y partido. Los suplentes deben estar preparados para demostrar su valía en cualquier momento y ganarse un lugar en la alineación titular.

En muchos casos, los suplentes tienen la oportunidad de mostrar su talento y potencial cuando entran en el campo de juego, lo que puede cambiar el rumbo de un partido. Su dedicación y compromiso con el equipo son esenciales para mantener un ambiente de trabajo positivo y unido en el Coventry City F.C.

En resumen, los suplentes son una parte fundamental de cualquier equipo de fútbol, incluido el Coventry City F.C. Su trabajo duro, determinación y disposición a contribuir al éxito del equipo son aspectos clave que no deben pasarse por alto.

Alineación táctica de Coventry City F.C

La alineación táctica del Coventry City F.C es crucial para el desempeño del equipo en el campo de juego. Este club inglés, con sede en Coventry, ha utilizado diversas formaciones tácticas a lo largo de su historia para adaptarse a diferentes rivales y situaciones de juego.

Una de las formaciones más comunes que el Coventry City F.C ha empleado es el clásico 4-4-2. Esta alineación táctica se caracteriza por tener cuatro defensores, cuatro centrocampistas y dos delanteros. Con esta disposición, el equipo busca equilibrar la defensa y el ataque, manteniendo una estructura sólida en el centro del campo y aprovechando las oportunidades de gol en el área rival.

Sin embargo, el entrenador del Coventry City F.C también ha optado por otras formaciones tácticas según las circunstancias del juego. Por ejemplo, en partidos contra rivales más fuertes, podría optar por un sistema defensivo como el 5-3-2, que agrega un defensor adicional para reforzar la línea trasera y dificultar las oportunidades de gol del oponente.

Por otro lado, en encuentros donde se necesita una mayor presencia en el mediocampo, el entrenador podría elegir un esquema más ofensivo como el 4-3-3, que añade un delantero adicional para aumentar la presión sobre la defensa contraria y crear más opciones de ataque.

En resumen, la alineación táctica del Coventry City F.C varía según las necesidades del equipo y las características del rival. Ya sea utilizando un 4-4-2 clásico o experimentando con otras formaciones, el objetivo siempre es maximizar el rendimiento del equipo en el campo de juego.

[lovelyballetandmore]

Mantraa Rane | Michael Braun | Isabella Mifsud-West | Melbourne Academy of the Arts | Photo by Ron Fung

[phroyd]

Well of course he doesn’t, he’s nothing more than a coward sycophant Trump lap dog! - Phroyd

Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department’s inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report — that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, is due to release his long-awaited findings in a week, but behind the scenes at the Justice Department, disagreement has surfaced about one of Horowitz’s central conclusions on the origins of the Russia investigation. The discord could be the prelude to a major fissure within federal law enforcement on the controversial question of investigating a presidential campaign.

Barr has not been swayed by Horowitz’s rationale for concluding the FBI had sufficient basis to open an investigation on July 31, 2016, these people said.

Barr’s public defenses of President Trump, including his assertion that intelligence agents spied on the Trump campaign, have led Democrats to accuse him of acting like the president’s personal attorney and eroding the independence of the Justice Department. But Trump and his Republican allies have cheered Barr’s skepticism of the Russia investigation.

It’s not yet clear how Barr plans to make his objection to Horowitz’s conclusion known. The inspector general report, currently in draft form, is being finalized after input from various witnesses and offices that were scrutinized by the inspector general. Barr or a senior Justice Department official could submit a formal letter as part of that process, which would then be included in the final report. It is standard practice for every inspector general report to include a written response from the department. Barr could forgo a written rebuttal on that specific point and just publicly state his concerns.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department, the inspector general and the FBI all declined to comment.

The Russia investigation was opened after the FBI was told of statements made by a then-Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, that the Russians possessed hacked Hillary Clinton emails. Papodopoulos’s alleged comments were key because they were made well before any public allegation that Russian intelligence operatives had hacked the Democratic National Committee.

The attorney general has privately contended that Horowitz does not have enough information to reach the conclusion the FBI had enough details in hand at the time to justify opening such a probe. He argues that other U.S. agencies, such as the CIA, may hold significant information that could alter Horowitz’s conclusion on that point, according to the people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Barr has also praised the inspector general’s overall work on the matter, according to one person familiar with the matter. The inspector general operates independently of Justice Department leadership, so Barr cannot order Horowitz to change his findings.

But the prospect of the nation’s top law enforcement official suggesting the FBI may have wrongly opened an investigation into a presidential campaign, even after the inspector general announces they were justified in doing so, will probably generate more partisan battles over how the Justice Department and the FBI operate.

It is not unusual for an attorney general or the Justice Department to disagree with some of an inspector general’s findings. However, typically those disagreements occur because senior leaders at the department believe the inspector general has been too critical. In this case, Barr has conveyed to others his belief that Horowitz has not been critical enough, or is at least reaching a conclusion prematurely.

People familiar with the draft language of Horowitz’s report said while it is critical of some FBI employees, and found some systemic problems in surveillance procedures, it overall does not agree with Trump’s charge that the investigation was a “witch hunt” or a politically motivated attack on him first as a candidate and then as president.

Instead, the draft report found that the investigation was opened on a solid legal and factual footing, these people said.

Part of Barr’s reluctance to accept that finding is related to another investigation, one being conducted by Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, into how intelligence agencies pursued allegations of Russian election tampering in 2016. Barr has traveled abroad to personally ask foreign officials to assist Durham in that work. Even as the inspector general’s review is ending, Durham’s investigation continues.

Barr’s disagreement with Horowitz will probably spark further criticism from Democrats, who have already accused Barr of using his position to protect the president and undermine federal law enforcement.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) charged in September that Barr had “gone rogue.”

In recent weeks, Democrats have charged that Barr’s Justice Department was too quick to decide not to investigate Trump over his efforts to convince Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to announce an investigation of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. The Ukraine controversy has led to an impeachment inquiry.

Criticism of Barr previously centered on his handling of the Russia investigation. The case that began in 2016 was taken over in May 2017 by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. After a nearly two-year investigation, Mueller filed a lengthy report of his findings to Barr, by which point he had charged 34 people with crimes, including 26 Russian nationals. Those charged and convicted included Trump’s former campaign chairman, former personal attorney, former deputy campaign chairman and former national security adviser.

After receiving the Mueller report, Barr released a short letter summing up its main points, including that there was insufficient evidence to accuse any Trump associates of conspiring with the Russians. Barr also said Mueller had made no determination about whether Trump had sought to obstruct the investigation, but Barr and his then-deputy concluded he had not.

When the full report was released, Democrats protested that Barr had improperly skewed the findings to be more favorable to Trump.

Barr has dismissed such criticism, and charged it is Democrats who are abusing legal procedures and standards in their quest to drive Trump out of the White House.

“In waging a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred war against this administration, it is the left that is engaged in shredding norms and undermining the rule of law,” Barr said in a speech earlier this month.

In his first months on the job this year, Barr made clear he had serious concerns about how the FBI had conducted the investigation into possible collusion between Trump associates and Russia.

The attorney general declared in April that the Trump campaign was spied on, though aides later said he used that term not in a pejorative sense but in the more general meaning of surveillance.

“I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Barr told lawmakers. “I think spying did occur, but the question is whether it was adequately predicated and I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.” He also criticized former leaders of the FBI, saying, “I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there in the upper echelon.”

Current and former law enforcement officials have said that, when presented with information about a possible plot to undermine the U.S. election, they had a duty to investigate, and it would have been wrong not to have launched an investigation.

In the months since, Barr, through Durham, has pursued information related to a onetime associate of Papodopoulos, a European academic named Joseph Mifsud.

Mifsud was publicly linked to Russian interference efforts in late 2017, when Mueller revealed Papodopoulos had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the details of his interactions with Mifsud.

Shortly after his name surfaced publicly, Mifsud told Italian media he did not work for Russia. “I never got any money from the Russians: my conscience is clear,” Mifsud told La Repubblica. “I am not a secret agent.”

Since then, the professor has disappeared from public life, leading to a host of theories about him and his whereabouts. While court papers filed in Mueller’s investigation suggested Mifsud operated in Russia’s interests, Papadopoulos, conservatives and conspiracy theorists have suggested he was working for Western intelligence agencies.

Phroyd

[political-fluffle]

The report from Justice Dept. Inspector General Michael Horowitz is due out Dec. 9.

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog is expected to find in a forthcoming report that political bias did not taint top officials running the FBI investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, while at the same time criticizing the bureau for systemic failures in its handling of surveillance applications, according to two U.S. officials.

The report due out Dec. 9 from Inspector General Michael Horowitz will allege that a low-level FBI lawyer inappropriately altered a document that was used as part of a controversial application for electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser, the officials said. The inspector general referred that finding to U.S. Attorney John Durham, so that he may investigate it as a possible crime, they said.

But Horowitz will conclude that the application still had a proper legal and factual basis, according to the officials, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive report. (...)

According to the two officials, Horowitz is expected to conclude that opening of Crossfire Hurricane was legally and factually justified. His report will not provide fodder for several conservative conspiracy theories surrounding the case — particularly the notion that Papadopoulos was set up as part of a nefarious western intelligence operation.

Inspector general investigators scrutinized that allegation aggressively, looking particularly at the record on Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor who was critical to the opening of the case. Mifsud boasted to Papadopoulos about having “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails” — before Russia’s hacking of Democrats was publicly known. When the FBI learned of that conversation some months later, it felt it had to open an investigation.

The investigation regarding the 2016 campaign “fundamentally was not about Donald Trump but was about Russia — full stop,” former FBI General Counsel James A. Baker said at a Brookings Institution event in May. “It was always about Russia. It was about what Russia was, and is, doing and planning. ”

Justice Department and FBI officials have long defended their decision to initiate the investigation. Rosenstein said in remarks which he posted online earlier this year that, “Based on what I knew in May 2017, the investigation of Russian election interference was justified.”

The inspector general also is expected to find that the application and subsequent renewals to monitor Page’s communications was proper and observed relevant guidelines, the officials said. (...)

[dragoni]

Republicans, this is why Mueller’s Trump Russia Investigation is taking so long!

🇷🇺 trump/russia 🇺🇸 -  The Blacklist Declassified

Key People: Roman Abramovich, Aras Agalarov, Emin Agalarov, Rinat Akhmetov, Rinat Akhmetshin, Yulya Alferova, Anatoly Antonov, Andrii Artemenko, Arron Banks, Andrey Baronov, Vitaly Bespalov, Leonid “Len” Blavatnik, Anna Bogacheva, David Bogatin, Wm Browder, Mariia Butina, Carole Cadwalladr, Michael Caputo, Yuri Chaika, Igor Chekunov, Michael Cohen, George Cottrell, Oleg Deripaska, Igor Divyekin, Kirill Dmitriev, Aleksandr Dugin, Arkady Dvorkovich, Paul Erickson, Oleg Erovinkin, Nigel Farage, Dmitri Firtash, John Fotiadis, Gene (Evgeny) Friedman, Daniel Gelbinovich, Rob Goldstone, Sergei Gorkov, Henry Greenberg, Andrew Intrater, Bidzina Ivanishvili, Mikhail Kalugin, Vladimir Kara-Murza, Saak Karapetyan, Eugene Kaspersky (Kaspersky Lab), Denis Katsyv, Irakly (“Ike”) Kaveladze, Konstantin Kilimnik, Sergey Kislyak, Artem Klyushin, Konstantin Kosachev, Aleksandra Krylova, Elena Khusyaynova, Alexander Litvinenko, Simona Mangiante, Alexander Mashkevich, Viktor Medvedchek, Josef Mifsud, Semion Mogilevich (Don Semyon), Konstantin Molofeev, George Nader, Eduard Nektalov, Konstantin Nikolaev, Vyacheslav Nikonov, Yevgeniy Nikulin, Alexander Nix, Isabel Oakeshoff, George Papadopoulos, Sam Patten, Alexander Perepilichnyy, Dmitry Peskov, Igor Pisarsky, Yevgeny Prigozhin, Vladimir Putin, George Ramishvili, Dmitry Rogozin, Alexander Rovt, Giorgi Rtskhiladze, Dmitry Rybolovlev, Konstantin Rykov, Mikheil Saakashvili, Felix Sater, Igor Sechin, Christopher Steele, Ruslan Stoyanov, Oleg Solodukhin, Peter Strzok, Taiwanchik (aka Alimzhan Tokhtakhunov), Alimzhan Tokhtakhunov (aka Taiwanchik), Aleksandr Torshin, Yulia Tymoshenko, Viktor Vekselberg, Natalia Veselnitskaya, Vyacheslav Volodin, Curt Weldon, Andy Wigmore, Alexander Yakovenko, Viktor Yanukovych, Ivan Yermakov, Viktor Yushchenko, Aleksandr Zakharchenko, Maria Zakharova, Joel Zamel

#RussiaGate #RussiaCoverup Trump #MuellerIsComingForYou in 2019

[findabanana]

Npm install from github commit

NPM INSTALL FROM GITHUB COMMIT INSTALL

NPM INSTALL FROM GITHUB COMMIT FULL

NPM INSTALL FROM GITHUB COMMIT DOWNLOAD

Note on Patches/Pull RequestsĬheck out our Contributing guide CopyrightĬopyright (c) 2015 Andrew Nesbitt.

NPM INSTALL FROM GITHUB COMMIT FULL

You can find a full list of those people here. We Michael Mifsud – Project Lead (Github / Twitter). This module is brought to you and maintained by the following people: If any tests fail it will build from source. Install runs only two Mocha tests to see if your machine can use the pre-built LibSass which will save some time during install. These parameters can be used as environment variable:Īs local or global. Following parameters are supported by node-sass: Variable name

NPM INSTALL FROM GITHUB COMMIT DOWNLOAD

Node-sass supports different configuration parameters to change settings related to the sass binary such as binary name, binary path or alternative download path. Node scripts/build -f Binary configuration parameters Node-sass includes pre-compiled binaries for popular platforms, to add a binary for your platform follow these steps: There is also an example connect app here: Rebuilding binaries scss files using node-sass: Metalsmith has created a metalsmith plugin based on node-sass: Meteor has created a meteor plugin based on node-sass: Mimosa has created a Mimosa module for sass which includes node-sass: Example App scss files using node-sass: Duo.js has created an extension that transpiles Sass to CSS using node-sass with duo.js Grunt has created a set of grunt tasks based on node-sass: Gulp has created a gulp sass plugin based on node-sass: Harp web server implicitly compiles. This functionality has been moved to node-sass-middleware in node-sass v1.0.0 DocPad wrote a DocPad plugin that compiles. scss files automatically for connect and express based http servers. Brunch pluginīrunch’s official sass plugin uses node-sass by default, and automatically falls back to ruby if use of Compass is detected: Connect/Express middleware The extension also integrates with Live Preview to show Sass changes in the browser without saving or compiling. When editing Sass files, the extension compiles changes on save. Brackets has created a Brackets extension based on node-sass. Listing of community uses of node-sass in build tools and frameworks. Having installation troubles? Check out our Troubleshooting guide.

NPM INSTALL FROM GITHUB COMMIT INSTALL

Follow the official NodeJS docs to install NodeJS so that #!/usr/bin/env node correctly resolves.Ĭompiling on Windows machines requires the node-gyp prerequisites.Īre you seeing the following error? Check out our Troubleshooting guide.** Some users have reported issues installing on Ubuntu due to node being registered to another package. scss files to css at incredible speed and automatically via a connect middleware.įollow on twitter for release updates: Install Node-sass is a library that provides binding for Node.js to LibSass, the C version of the popular stylesheet preprocessor, Sass. We will open a single issue for interested parties to subscribe to, and close additional issues.īelow is a quick guide for minimum and maximum support supported version of node-sass: NodeJS

New node release require minor internal changes along with support from CI providers (AppVeyor, GitHub Actions).

We will stop building binaries for unsupported releases, testing for breakages in dependency compatibility, but we will not block installations for those that want to support themselves.

Node versions that hit end of life, will be dropped from support at each node-sass release (major, minor).

Supported Node.js versions vary by release, please consult the releases page.

[classyfoxdestiny]

Former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos slams original Russia probe as 'master class in deception' #ٹاپسٹوریز

New Post has been published on https://mediaboxup.com/former-trump-campaign-aide-george-papadopoulos-slams-original-russia-probe-as-master-class-in-deception/

Former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos slams original Russia probe as 'master class in deception'

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, reacting to Special Counsel John Durham’s latest filing, told Fox News in an exclusive interview that the original Trump-Russia probe was about “manufacturing a situation” around Donald Trump and his associates in an effort to tie them to the Kremlin, calling activities surrounding the origins of the investigation a “masterclass in deception.”

Durham, in a Feb. 11 court filing, first reported by Fox News, alleged “Tech Executive-1,” now identified as Rodney Joffe, and his associates, including a lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Michael Sussmann, “exploited” internet traffic pertaining to a “particular healthcare provider,” Trump Tower, Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and the Executive Office of the President of the United States in order to “establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’” to then bring to federal government agencies tying Trump to Russia.

HILLARY CLINTON REACTS TO DURHAM FILING, SAYS TRUMP, FOX NEWS ‘DESPERATELY SPINNING UP A FAKE SCANDAL’

“This was literally about manufacturing a situation around Trump and his people that made it seem as if all of them, including the president and his family, were somehow colluding or in the works with the Russians,” Papadopoulos told Fox News Wednesday.

“What we’re witnessing was a masterclass in deception, propaganda and trade craft,” Papadopoulos said. “In this case, I think there were so many vested interests in a Hillary Clinton presidency—that’s why you see all of these actors activated the way they were.”

FILE – In this Oct. 25, 2018, file photo, George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign adviser who triggered the Russia investigation, arrives for his first appearance before congressional investigators, on Capitol Hill in Washington. On Tuesday, Dec. 22, 2020, President Donald Trump pardoned 15 people, including Papadopoulos, his 2016 former campaign adviser whose conversation unwittingly helped trigger the Russia investigation that shadowed Trump’s presidency for nearly two years. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

Papadopoulos was referring to Durham’s latest filing, as well as the unverified anti-Trump dossier which was authored by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign through law firm Perkins Coie.

The now-discredited anti-Trump dossier contained claims about alleged ties between Donald Trump and Russia that served as the basis for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

“This wasn’t just about collecting dirt. It was about planting dirt,” Papadopoulos said of the steps leading up to the opening of the FBI’s original Trump-Russia probe. “This is what people have to understand.” 

“I was set up,” Papadopoulos told Fox News.

Papadopoulos was referring to events leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

In March 2016, as an aide to the Trump campaign focusing on foreign policy, Papadopoulos met with Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud in London, who told him that the Russians had dirt in the form of emails that could damage Clinton’s presidential campaign.

This Nov. 12, 2014 photo made available by the Organization of American States shows Maltese academic Joseph Mifsud during a meeting in Washington. It was Mifsud who allegedly dropped the first hint that the Russians were interfering into the 2016 U.S. presidential election and he has not been seen publicly for nearly a year. An Associated Press investigation published Monday, Oct. 22, 2018, shows it isn’t the first time Mifsud has gone to ground. (Juan Manuel Herrera/OAS via AP)

Papadopoulos then told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer of the new information. Downer reported Papadopoulos’ comments to him to the FBI.

FLASHBACK: DOJ’S RUSSIA PROBE REVIEW FOCUSING ON ‘SMOKING GUN’ TAPES OF MEETING WITH TRUMP AIDE: SOURCES

Papadopoulos was charged in former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation with making a false statement to the FBI. The charging document said the false statement was about the timing of his meeting with Mifsud, and about his knowledge of Mifsud’s connections to Russia. The charging document also claimed he “impeded” the investigation by making his false statement.

“When the FBI came to talk to me, they asked if I ever heard anything about the Russians. I told them Mifsud came to me, and they said I messed up the dates of the meeting,” Papadopoulos recalled during the interview with Fox News Wednesday.

Mueller’s investigation yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election.

FILE – In this May 29, 2019, file photo, Special counsel Robert Mueller speaks at the Department of Justice in Washington, about the Russia investigation. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File) (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

But Papadopoulos did not only meet with Mifsud and Downer while overseas. He met with Cambridge professor and longtime FBI informant Stefan Halper and his female associate, who went under the alias Azra Turk. Papadopoulos told Fox News that he saw Turk three times in London: once over drinks, once over dinner and once with Halper.

Papadopoulos, in 2019, told Fox News he always suspected he was being recorded.

DECLASSIFIED TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE DOCS TO DATE: WHAT TO KNOW 

It is unclear which of these individuals, if any, may have recorded conversations with Papadopoulos.

But Papadopoulos’s meetings overseas resurfaced in 2019 as part of Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, sources told Fox News at the time.

Fox News reported in 2019 that Durham’s review was zeroing in on transcripts of recordings made by at least one FBI confidential human source who met with Papadopoulos overseas in 2016, specifically looking at why certain “exculpatory” material from them was not presented in subsequent applications for FISA warrants against Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

A source, in 2019, told Fox News that the “exculpatory evidence” that could be included in those transcripts, which were declassified and released in April 2020, was Papadopoulos denying having any contact with the Russians to obtain the supposed “dirt” on Clinton.

Fox News obtained the declassified transcript of the secretly recorded meeting in April 2020. The transcript revealed the confidential human source pressed Papadopoulos on whether the Trump campaign was involved in Russian election meddling—something, the transcript shows,  Papadopoulos emphatically denied.

FLASHBACK: TRUMP AIDE DENIED CAMPAIGN RIGGING IN PRE-ELECTION CONVERSATION WITH FBI SECRET SOURCE: TRANSCRIPT

The transcript is of a more than 4-hour long conversation between Papadopoulos and a confidential human source for the FBI on Oct. 31, 2016. According to the obtained transcripts, the confidential human source (CHS) met with Papadopoulos and asked whether he thought Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) ahead of the Democratic National Convention.

“No,” Papadopoulos replied.

The comments made by Papadopoulos were noteworthy because, according to officials, they were never provided or included in evidence to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) when seeking warrants and warrant renewals to surveil Page over suspicion of Trump campaign ties to Russia.

Former Trump adviser Carter Page. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A Justice Department official in April 2020 confirmed the authenticity of the transcripts. The official, at the time, told Fox News the transcript was just one of a series of productions that the Justice Department made in the wake of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on his review of misconduct of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Horowitz wrote in his report, released in December 2019, that “the FBI did not inform of these conversations at the time they occurred” and the “FISA renewal applications on Carter Page did not include these statements.”

The transcripts had been classified, but were declassified under former President Trump’s May 2019 move to approve declassification of documents related to the surveillance of his campaign during the 2016 election.

Trump, during an exclusive interview with Fox News this week, demanded that the Justice Department release any remaining records related to the original Trump-Russia probe. 

TRUMP SAYS DOJ SHOULD ‘ABSOLUTELY’ DECLASSIFY REMAINING TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE RECORDS, AFTER DURHAM FILING 

“We all know now it was all fake, and nonsense, and it all makes sense now,” Papadopoulos said in the interview with Fox News Wednesday. “This entire thing was manipulated with two goals in mind—to prevent Trump from winning, and 2, if he won, to handcuff him from being able to govern the country properly.” 

Papadopoulos said he believes “there are no coincidences in this entire saga,” and said it will be “important” for Durham to present his findings to the American public at the completion of his investigation.

At this point, Durham has indicted three people as part of his investigation: Michael Sussmann in September 2021, Igor Danchenko on Nov. 4, 2021 and Kevin Clinesmith in August 2020.

Photo of John Durham and Michael Sussmann.  Sussman pic:  Perkins Coie (Perkins Coie)

The indictment against Sussmann, says he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work “for any client” when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

ALEXANDRIA, VA – NOVEMBER 10: Russian analyst Igor Danchenko arrives at the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse before being arraigned on November 10, 2021 in Alexandria, Virginia.  Danchenko has been charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI regarding the sources of the information he gave the British firm that created the so-called “Steele Dossier,” which alleged potential ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Danchenko was charged with making a false statement and is accused of lying to the FBI about the source of information that he provided to Christopher Steele for the anti-Trump dossier.

DURHAM PROBE HAS ‘ACCELERATED,’ WITH MORE PEOPLE ‘COOPERATING,’ COMING BEFORE GRAND JURY

Kevin Clinesmith was also charged with making a false statement. Clinesmith had been referred for potential prosecution by the Justice Department’s inspector general’s office, which conducted its own review of the Russia investigation.

Kevin Clinesmith was charged with making a false statement as part of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. 

Specifically, the inspector general accused Clinesmith, though not by name, of altering an email about Page to say that he was “not a source” for another government agency. Page has said he was a source for the CIA. The DOJ relied on that assertion as it submitted a third and final renewal application in 2017 to eavesdrop on Trump campaign aide Carter Page under FISA. 

Fox News’ Mike Emanuel and Jake Gibson contributed to this report. 

Source link

[whenpraxisbecomesunbearable]

Xi Tfisser Tkun Bniedem? 13 podcasts on campusFM

Between October and December 2021, together with my friend and colleague Robert Farrugia, I co-hosted a radio programme on CampusFM, titled Xi Tfisser Tkun Bniedem? (What Does it Mean to be Human?).

The programme consisted of 13 conversations with academics and researchers from the University of Malta who, from different disciplines, engage with the multi-faceted question of what is means to be human. Here is the blurb:

What does it mean to be human? Throughout history, the human has always asked this fundamental question about itself. From the philosophers to the historians, the scientists to the theologians, the sociologists to the artists, the human strives to understand the different facets that make him what he is and what he can be. 

In this programme, we will conduct conversations with academics and researchers from various disciplines that engage with this question in their research and practice. We will look at how researchers from different areas of study extend and use theoretical and philosophical ideas in their attempt to understand the complexity of the human being. We will ask questions that create an inter-disciplinary dialogue in order to explore the discourses and methods that shed light on the fundamental question of what it means to be human. 

This programme is co-produced by the Department of Education Studies and the Department of Philosophy at the University of Malta.

Information on the project and each episode - including full bionote on each speaker - can be found here.

Each episode can be access and downloaded for free here, or below:

Program 1: Komunita' - Michael Grech. Program 2: Diżabilita' - Dr Anne Marie Callus. Program 3: Politika - Dr Jean Paul DeLucca. Program 4: Saħħa Mentali - Paulann Grech. Program 5: Spiritwalita' - Charlo Camilleri. Program 6: Letteratura - Immanuel Mifsud. Program 7: Persuna - Fr Mark Sultana. Program 8: Ġografija - Maria Attard. Program 9: Arti - Dr Giuseppe Schembri Bonaci. Program 10: Saġġi - Dr Mario Aquilina. Program 11: Terapija - Pamela Baldacchino. Program 12: Alterita' - Clive Zammit. Program 13: L-immigrazzjoni - Dr Daniela Debono.

Thanks to the campusFM staff and Leo Busuttil for their support.

[americanmysticom]

The Impeachment Hearings Are Canceled Until Further Notice | Gina Shakespeare | Declassified Jul 29, 2019

Brian Cates

Commentary

Going into the long-anticipated congressional testimony of former special counsel Robert Mueller on July 24, Democrats were desperately hoping that somehow Mueller’s comments to the House committees would be a game-changer.

Oh, Mueller’s testimony changed the game, all right. Just not in the way that Democrats were hoping. The hearings were a complete and utter disaster for anyone hoping they would provide any real momentum toward impeachment hearings.

Over the past two and a half years, a picture of Mueller was created by the political establishment of a crack investigator, a sharp, competent prosecutor up to the task of leading a special counsel’s office. Instead, viewers of the hearings found themselves looking at an aged, weary-looking fellow who was often confused, couldn’t seem to hear his questioners, constantly had to have questions repeated to him, and seemed clueless about what was in the official report that bears his name.

This actually happened several times. I’m not exaggerating. Mueller was asked a question about something, he answered he didn’t know or it wasn’t within his purview, only to look confused when he was told he was being asked about something that was contained in his own final report.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) probably elicited the clearest example of this when he questioned Mueller about Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud’s role in helping to launch the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. While pointing out that Mueller’s special counsel team had no problem prosecuting people such as George Papadopoulos and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for even minor acts of perjury, Jordan demanded to know why Mifsud was never charged for telling multiple lies to the FBI.

Mueller seemed to be not at all familiar with Mifsud’s name or what Jordan was referring to. Jordan then attempted to walk Mueller through why Mifsud’s perjury mattered. Mueller looked completely lost. When Jordan asked, “Who told Papadopoulos?” that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, Mueller said he couldn’t “get into the evidentiary file,” and then appeared shocked when Jordan told him it was in his own report.

The guy who just spent more than two years investigating all of this appeared to have no grasp of the sequence of events that triggered the start of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign in July 2016.  How is that possible?

In case anyone shares Mueller’s obvious confusion on this, I’ll explain it.

Mifsud’s Key Role

Here’s the sequence of events that occurred:

Mifsud approached Papadopoulos with claims of being very connected to the Russian government. At one meeting he had with Papadopoulos, Mifsud brings a woman with him who is purported to be Russian President Vladimir Putin’s niece.

Mifsud tells Papadopoulos that Russian government officials want to help the Trump campaign win the 2016 election. He tells the young adviser that the Russians have “dirt” on Hillary Clinton that they are willing to share.

Later, FBI asset Stefan Halper meets with Papadopoulos and specifically inquires about any untoward or unusual Russian activity that Papadopoulos has encountered. When he relates the Mifsud offer to him, Halper inquires as to whether Papadopoulos intends to accept the offer. Papadopoulos very strongly tells Halper in no uncertain terms that it would be treason.

Papadopoulos is later approached by Australia’s High Commissioner to the UK, Alexander Downer. Papadopoulos had never met Downer before and his suspicions were immediately aroused when Downer turned the conversation to Russia.

Despite his misgivings, it appears Papadopoulos relates Mifsud’s offer of Russian aid to the Trump campaign. This information makes its way to the FBI, and as a result, FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and top agent Peter Strzok launch the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.

Jordan wanted an answer as to why this key, central figure whose activity in approaching Papadopoulos literally launched three years of all of this—the FBI investigation and then the special counsel investigation—was allowed to lie multiple times to federal investigators and then walk away scot-free. Mueller had no answer.

Mueller especially didn’t want to address questions about whether Mifsud, far from being a real Russian agent, was actually sent to Papadopoulos by the FBI to make a fake offer, so as to entrap him.

Mueller also appeared to not be familiar with the political operative firm Fusion GPS, something that many people find simply incredible, given the central role the firm played in hiring Christopher Steele to create his now-infamous anti-Trump dossier.

2 Main Stages of the Collusion Hoax

People need to remember how we got here.

We didn’t learn about Papadopoulos’s drunken bar chat with Downer being the “trigger” for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign until early 2018.

Prior to that, it was speculation and allegations leaked from the notorious Steele dossier during the 2016 campaign and then the publication of the dossier itself by BuzzFeed in January 2017 that launched the full-blown Trump–Russia collusion hoax in the mainstream media.

One “stage” was launched by the Clinton campaign hiring Fusion GPS to create the Steele dossier and then paying Steele and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson to shop the allegations to U.S. news media during the campaign cycle.

The other “stage” was the launch of the investigations into the Trump campaign, based on very shaky evidence.

It was widely assumed that the special counsel’s office spent the past two years thoroughly investigating both stages of the collusion hoax. If Mueller’s report itself hadn’t made it crystal clear this was not the case, his testimony on July 24 certainly did. Mueller’s team appears not to have looked into either the Steele dossier or the antics of Mifsud, Halper, and Downer.

A Final Conclusion to Impeachment Hysteria

The expectation was that after Mueller testified and dropped a bombshell or two that the Democrats could move full-speed-ahead to impeachment hearings in the House.

And now? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has had to rebuff House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and firmly put the brakes on any movement to impeachment hearings since the Mueller testimony turned out to be the opposite of what they expected.

It was almost two weeks ago that a resolution introduced onto the House floor to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump went down to a most embarrassing lopsided defeat. How bad was it? One hundred and thirty-seven Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans against the resolution.

After that train wreck of a hearing, I don’t see the Democratic leadership allowing another impeachment vote any time soon.

Brian Cates is a writer based in South Texas and author of “Nobody Asked For My Opinion … But Here It Is Anyway!” He can be reached on Twitter at @drawandstrike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4BNcjqF6sE

[What it really means is ‘getting done with business while dusting your tracks’ - with quite the mastermind, details like a ritual

the mark of the old pagan gods, somewhat mirrored in the rituals but with selfish intentions satisfied while you sacrifice yourself

unsanctified by G-d, assuming full deity of yourself alone nullified

- a bit of its schizophrenia detailed here

-AHA! a signature

a thumbprint even

-

I like the ancient ways, and we should still learn this stuff for its contribution to the tree of Life. This is indeed the Female aspect of G-d visualized in Pagan Form and FAMILY CLANS. Not unlawful outside the borders of Israel

G-d Presents himself differently within the borders of Israel - totally male in mental imagery, keeping it, His True Form represented in ‘Light’, Power separate from physical imagery - this is the true extent of the argument in deeply mystical terms]

[arlingtonpark]

The Story of L’Affaire Russe Part 6

Part VI. The Indictment of Paul Manfort to the Present/It’s a Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb World.

Thus continues my now six part epic saga to document what is currently the biggest political scandal since Iran-Contra over 30 years ago: L’Affaire Russe, Russia’s attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election and the Trump campaign’s attempted complicity in it.

After a weekend of suspense, the announcement was made that, to no one’s surprise, Paul Manafort was the one who was indicted, along with his right hand man Rick Gates.

The charges allege that Manafort and Gates collectively laundered over $75,000,000 over the course of several years through undisclosed foreign and domestic entities, including bank accounts. It is further alleged that they failed to disclose their work as agents of the Ukrainian government and its then-President, Victor Yanukovych. Finally, it is alleged that they made various false statements related to the above two allegations. Manafort and Gates surrendered themselves to FBI custody.

Mueller’s plan, it seems, is to put pressure on Manafort to flip on Trump and cooperate. Bringing these charges against him accomplishes this because now Manafort can enter in to a plea deal where he offers information in exchange for leniency. Whether or not he does so remains to be seen.

To some extent, this was all expected, which is why it was so shocking when Mueller somehow managed to work in a plot twist: he revealed that he managed to secure the cooperation of George Papadopoulos.

George Papadopoulos had previously played a bit part in the story of the 2016 election, so much so that I did not mention him since he seemed like one of those characters in a sitcom who are prominent for an episode because they interact with the main characters in a funny way, and then they go away never to be seen again. Turns out, he was one of those characters who interact with the main characters in a funny way, and then go away, but come back later because they’re actually very important. This is why people liken the larger Trump presidency to a badly written sitcom.

Papadopoulos’ prior role: during the Summer of 2016, it became obvious that the Trump campaign did not have anyone advising them on foreign policy. Desperate to save face, the campaign half-assedly threw together a list of people who would advise them on FP issues; Papadopoulos was one of the people whose name appeared on that list. Papadopoulos in particular received attention, but for all the wrong reasons. He had listed his participation in the model UN on his LinkedIn resume, a laughable thing to include when you’re supposedly as distinguished in the realm of FP as to be advising a serious contender for the American Presidency.

But it turns out to be even more laughable than that. He actually lied about attending the model UN! So not only did he think that model UN was a high enough distinction for a Presidential foreign policy advisor to put on his resume, he thought it was such a coveted position that he saw fit to lie about it!

Everyone laughed this joker off as a clown, except he turned out to actually be important. That’s right. Model UN guy (model UN guy!) is a key player in the Trump-Russia imbroglio! What the hell!

What happened was that Papadopoulos met Joseph Mifsud, a university professor who was also a spy for the Russian Government. Papadopoulos’s confession can be read here. It details how he came to learn of the existence of the hacked Clinton emails and his attempts to obtain them.

This is another example of the Trump campaign trying to collude with Russia, but never actually succeeding, the first example being the Veselnitskaya meeting at Trump Tower. It’s at this point that I should say that it is entirely possible that Trump and his campaign are not guilty of anything. Incredible as this may sound, it’s conceivable that the Trump campaign merely tried to coordinate with Russia, but ultimately failed to do so.

The various investigations by the House and Senate continued apace. Throughout the Autumn of 2017, Carter Page, Michael Cohn, Rinat Akhmetshin, Jeff Sessions, and various leading figures in Fusion GPS, the firm that contracted Steele, all testified before the House Intel Committee.

Trump’s long time bodyguard, Keith Schiller, was called to testify before the House Intel Committee as well, and during this testimony Schiller dropped a very telling revelation: recall that the Steele Dossier alleges that Trump had a group of Russian hookers piss over the bed in his Moscow hotel room, the same hotel room that Obama had stayed at years earlier. In his testimony, Schiller CONFIRMS that a group of hookers were offered to Trump, but maintains that they were turned down.

So as far as I’m concerned, the pee tape is real, Putin’s got it, and he’s probably using it to blackmail the Leader of the Free World right now. Great.

Information regarding contact between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks, one of the groups involved in disseminating the hacked Clinton emails, came to light in November. Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics firm that worked for the Trump campaign, apparently tried to make contact with Wikileaks after they began working for the Trump campaign.

Not only that, but Wikileaks also sent various Twitter DMs to Trump, Jr. Wikileaks asked for various things. They floated the idea of Wikileaks head Julian Assange being appointed Ambassador to Australia. They encouraged the Trump campaign to contest the outcome of the election if they lost. They even asked for Trump’s tax returns. Jr. did not always respond to these messages, but he did at times. Most notably, Wikileaks sent Jr. a link with the recommendation that they publicize it since using the link would take you to a compendium of Wikileaks emails. Trump himself gave the link a shout out just 15 minutes later. Jr. also gave the link a shout out on his Twitter page two days later.

Tangentially, we were also treated to something of a side show courtesy of Michael Flynn and his dealings with the Turkish government. Recall that Robert Mueller’s mandate is to investigate Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 election and any crimes uncovered over the course of that investigation. Flynn could be sitting on useful information involving possible Trump collusion with Russia, so Mueller is trying to nail Flynn on unrelated crimes in order to flip him. Not only that, but Mueller is apparently also targeting Flynn’s son too, since he was apparently also involved in the same shady activities as his father. Mueller’s calculation is that Flynn loves his son enough that he’d be willing to surrender to the investigation in return for leniency for his son. (He was right)

With that said, oooh boy, has Flynn and co. been up to some nefarious, and quite frankly incredible, s!@t.

In 2016, a coup was launched against the rule of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan is a dictator; for years now, he has worked to undermine democracy in Turkey and consolidate his own power. The coup was led by Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric who apparently masterminded the coup from his mountain top fortress in the Poconos. (Yes, that Poconos) The coup not only failed, it backfired. Erdogan survived and used it as an excuse to accelerate his consolidation of power.

This is where Flynn comes in. Flynn had previously worked as a lobbyist for the Turkish government, and it has been reported that he and his son were offered $15 million by the government of Turkey to use his power as the then-National Security Advisor to facilitate Gulen’s extradition to Turkey. Either that, or the offer was $15 million to flat out kidnap him!

Unfortunately for Flynn, that’s not the end of the problems for him. Remember what I said earlier about Flynn doing lobbying work for the Turkish government? Well, it turns out he didn’t notify the US government of his lobbying work, which he is legally required to do. He’s also been found to have made various false statements to the FBI.

It should come as no surprise then that Flynn entered in to a plea deal with Mueller, both for his own sake and for the sake of his son. Flynn is now cooperating with the investigation.

Recall that after the Obama administration announced sanctions against Russia for interfering in the election, Russia did not escalate the situation by retaliating. Flynn admits to having been the one who told Ambassador Kislyak to tell Putin to not retaliate. This confirms the reporting of the Washington Post, which reported, based on leaks from the Intelligence Community, that Flynn had done just that. Flynn also admits to having discussed the issue of what to tell Kislyak with other senior officials in Trump’s orbit, but it is not known if Trump himself knew of this.

In other words, Flynn, on behalf of the Trump team, worked to undermine US foreign policy towards Russia.

The next item on the agenda here is a raft of revelations regarding the Steele Dossier, AKA the Pee Tape Dossier.

During this time, important details about how the dossier was compiled came to light. It was already known that the dossier was compiled by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who was hired by Fusion GPS, an opposition research company. Fusion GPS, in turn, was hired by an anonymous GOP donor to perform oppo research during the 2016 GOP primary.

That last part about Fusion GPS being paid by a GOP donor, which turned out to be the libertarian leaning online news website the Washington Free Beacon, is actually irrelevant. Steele was only brought on board to create the dossier after the Free Beacon stopped funding Fusion GPS. But someone did pay Fusion GPS to do their oppo research on Trump, so who was it?

It was none other than Hillary Clinton!

DUN DUN DUU-

(Indirectly)

…

This is what actually happened: after being dumped by the Free Beacon, Fusion was hired by Perkins Coie, the law firm of Marc Elias, a very well connected Democratic Party-aligned campaign lawyer. Fusion, in turn, subcontracted the research work out to Steele, who has many contacts and sources in Russia and so was considered to be well positioned to do this sort of work.

Perkins Coie was acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, which ultimately paid for the dossier’s creation. Note, though, that Clinton herself was unaware of the details of Fusion or Steele’s work.

The fact that the dossier’s creation was paid for by Clinton led to many conservative commentators to raise a stink about the validity of Bob Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Everyone in the propaganda-sphere from Sean Hannity to even members of Congress was attempting to spin this yarn about how the dossier’s being paid for by Clinton money made the entire Russia investigation illegitimate because, in their telling, the dossier was the reason the investigation was started in the first place.

This is all nonsense.

The Dossier was not the investigation’s catalyst. The investigation actually got started when, and I swear I’m not making this up, George Papadopoulos got drunk at a bar in London and spilled to Australia’s ambassador to the UK that the Trump campaign was seeking to obtain the emails the Russian government pilfered from Clinton.

But in spite of the admittedly too-stupid-to-believe reason for the investigation was out there and public, Trump-aligned forces still pushed the narrative that the Dossier was politically biased and that this somehow made the investigation illegitimate, even though it had resulted in multiple indictments and even a couple guilty pleas by that point.

Chief among them was Devin Nunes, a Republican representative from Fresno, California.

You may remember Nunes from part 3, in which he obtained intel in a secret midnight rendezvous with a contact from within the federal government like a character in a f!@#ing spy movie (and on the White House lawn no less!) and potentially spilled classified information live on national tv, all in the hopes of clearing Trump’s name, which he failed to do because he had no idea what he was doing.

Well, in early 2018, the prodigal son returned.

In that time period, Nunes began talking up a memo he had his staff prepare. He claimed that this memo would prove that there was a deep state conspiracy to undermine President Trump.

The FBI had been spying on Carter page for months, Carter Page being a Trump campaign advisor who, according to Trump himself, was not a Trump campaign advisor. Devin Nunes claimed his memo (which, he kept telling everyone, would be a Big Deal upon release) would show that the FBI started its Trump-Russia investigation with their surveillance of Page. This surveillance was done on authority granted by a warrant issued by the FISA Court. To obtain the warrant, the FBI had to submit an application to the Court detailing the evidence that there was criminal wrongdoing.

Nunes claimed his Big Deal Memo would show that the evidence the FBI relied on to get the warrant was from the Steele Dossier and that the FBI did not disclose to the FISA Court that the Dossier was created by politically biased people. Thus, the FBI withheld pertinent information in the name of getting their warrant and this proves they have it in for Trump.

Nunes said, flat out, that his Big Deal Memo (which apparently turned anything it rested upon into gold) would single-handedly expose the biggest government conspiracy since Watergate.

Even before the memo was released to the public, Trump defenders the world over latched on to this to attack the credibility of the Mueller investigation. (The Mueller investigation is just a continuation of the FBI’s investigation.)

They were outraged (outraged, I tells ya!) that the FBI would act so underhandedly and spy on a high-ranking Trump advisor. (Who was somehow simultaneously not a Trump advisor)

Fact check: even if the Dossier was the basis for the investigation’s start, the bias of its creators wouldn’t have mattered. The FBI relies on biased sources for evidence all the time in its applications to the FISA Court. This is well known and the judges know to account for this.

But wait! It gets even dumber then that! Nunes finally pulled his Big Deal Memo out of his ass and presented it to the public.

It literally refutes itself. I’m not even kidding. The memo lays out the case Nunes was arguing for this whole time, (the investigation is biased because it has its roots in a biased document) and then in literally the last paragraph it says that the biased document (the Dossier) was not the root of the investigation!

Big Deal!

And to top it off, Nunes claimed throughout this whole mess that the FBI didn’t disclose the Dossier’s biases. But as Nunes himself would later be forced to admit, they did! The disclosure was made in a footnote to the main body of the application, which Nunes argued was still an obvious attempt at deceitfulness.

Because footnotes apparently don’t exist to be read. Or something.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 

[vagabondretired]

Coffee boy my ass...... ABC News conducted an interview with Simona Mangiante, who is the fiancee of former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos. Mangiante, who is Italian, met Papadopoulos through Joseph Mifsud the “professor” who appears frequently in the documents associated with Papadopoulos’s indictment for lying to the FBI. Mangiante describes Mifsud as having high-level connections with both the Italian and Russian governments. She describes Papadopoulos as being “constantly in touch with people at high levels” of the Trump campaign. Mangiante: He never took any initiative, so far as I know, unauthorized. ABC: Was he in touch with the chief strategiest, Steve Bannon? Mangiante: Yes. ABC: He was in touch with General Flynn? Michael Flynn? Mangiante: Yes. ABC: You’re saying he had communications with officials at the top levels of the campaign. And everything he did was with the knowledge of those officials? Mangiante: As far as I know, yes, absolutely. And what Papadopoulos did was try to make connections between the highest levels of the Trump campaign, and the highest levels of the Russian government—for the benefit of both.

[ccshowme]

General Michael Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, made a request just days ago to the Department of Justice, asking for them to hand over the contents of two phones that were connected to Joseph Mifsud.

Well, as it turns out, we now know that the phones in question were from the United Kingdom.

The plot always thickens when it comes to uncovering all of the left’s attacks against President Trump, liberty, and our way of life.

[eurotickets20]

Euro 2020: Sharp Romania impose heavy setback on Malta

Romania scored three goals in the first half to conclude the match at Ta 'Qali and win the crucial victory in their quest for a place in the finals of the Euro 2020. Sports enthusiasts from around the world can purchase Romania Euro Cup Tickets online to enjoy its stunning performances.

It was an easy victory for Romania, who were Class apart against an adventurous Maltese team over long distances, but a Maltese team with gaping holes in the defense.

Coach Ray Farrugia made two changes to Sweden's initial training against Solna. Luke Montebello and Jake Grech gave way to Joseph Zerafa and Paul Fenech. For his part, Romanian coach Cosmin Contra made a revolution in the team that faced Norway in Oslo last Saturday.

Contra made six changes, including Hagi, Bancu, Marin, Cristea, Nedelcearu, and Maxim, while leaving the offensive tandem of George Puscas and Claudiu Keseru, the latter having scored in all the games played so far by Romania during these qualifications.

Malta began the offensive by dominating the midfield and pushing their opponents into their own zone. At the end of six minutes, Andrei Agius tried to cross the bar and Romania came out of the impasse.

Bancu had a loose field on the left and was heading towards Puscas who, alone, was facing Bonello, deceived the ball, but the ball hit his shin completely deceiving Bonello. The Maltese was not discouraged and continued playing indoor football, but the Romanians were fatal at the break.

In 17 minutes, the base of the tuprigh saved Bonelo when Puscas passed the Maltese goalkeeper, but this grounder at an acute angle hit the base of the amount. Two minutes later, a golden opportunity for the Maltese with Corbolan making a good break, but he hesitated and his shot was easily saved by Tatarasanu.

In 29 minutes, Romania doubled the score with a goal very well taken. Keseru placed the ball in the center of Puscas, whose low shot hit the base of the post before ending at the back of the net.

The Maltese were now clearly demoralized and Romania ended the game by scoring the third goal in 35 minutes. Chipciu scored a superb goal from the edge of the box, leaving Bonello no chance of winning.

In the last few minutes, the Maltese had at least two chances to reduce their arrears, but in both cases, Alfred Effiong was far from the net in front of goal, missing two very good opportunities. The second half was less intense, the Romanians controlling the match and the Maltese trying in vain to obtain a consolation goal.

In the 56th minute, Effiong was repelled by a shot, but his shot missed the target. Two minutes later, Bonello saved a Keseru free-kick and an hour later Bonello was again called to save a Scorcher Maxim.

Although Malta continued to attack, Romania had the best chances, Bonello giving up Man again. In 70 minutes, Bonello could do nothing, but fortunately, Marin's bomb hit the crossbar. After 79 minutes, Puscas was off the bench but his header was slightly over the bar.

Ten minutes from Romania, Chipiu received a second booking. Malta made one last effort to score at least one consolation goal. Substitute Michael Mifsud was close on two occasions, but in the break, Man added some trouble to the Maltese side, scoring the fourth goal.

Football fans can get Euro Cup Tickets through our trusted online ticketing marketplace. EuroTickets2020.com is the most reliable source to book Euro 2020 tickets.