Sunday, October 20, 2019

SGT

42767 POSTS 0 COMMENTS

UK prosecutors admit destroying key emails in Julian Assange case

0

by Ewen MacAskill and Owen Bowcott, The Guardian:

Correspondence between CPS and its Swedish counterparts about WikiLeaks founder deleted after lawyer retired in 2014

The Crown Prosecution Service is facing embarrassment after admitting it destroyed key emails relating to the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is holed up in Ecuador’s London embassy fighting extradition.

Email exchanges between the CPS and its Swedish counterparts over the high-profile case were deleted after the lawyer at the UK end retired in 2014.

The destruction of potentially sensitive and revealing information comes ahead of a tribunal hearing in London next week.

Adding to the intrigue, it emerged the CPS lawyer involved had, unaccountably, advised the Swedes in 2010 or 2011 not to visit London to interview Assange. An interview at that time could have prevented the long-running embassy standoff.

The CPS, responding to questions from the Guardian, denied there were any legal implications of the data loss for an Assange case if it were to come to court in the future. Asked if the CPS had any idea what was destroyed, a spokesperson said: “We have no way of knowing the content of email accounts once they have been deleted.”

Assange, whose WikiLeaks has been involved in a series of controversial leaks that include the Iraq war logs, US state department cables and Democratic party emails, was wanted by Sweden as part of a preliminary investigation into rape allegations. Sweden dropped the investigation in May.

Detractors of Assange, who sought refuge in Ecuador’s embassy in 2012, accuse him of collaborating with Russian propagandists in undermining Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency and helping Donald Trump secure it.

Supporters of Assange fear he could have been extradited to the US from Sweden and might yet from the UK. The US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, said this year Assange was a priority for the justice department and US federal prosecutors are believed to be considering charges against him over the leaks.

The CPS data destruction was disclosed in a freedom of information (FOI) case being pursued by the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi.

Advertisement

 

Read More @ TheGuardian.com

‘This was a setup … the entire time!’ Dan Bongino blows Obamagate wide open

0

by Phil Shriver, Conservative Review:

… using left-wing media reports!

Filling in for Mark Levin Friday night, former Secret Service agent and host of “The Dan Bongino Show” Dan Bongino made the case that the entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a “setup.”

“You can see the left-wing media’s own stories about all of this. The spying, the setup, the framing of Donald Trump. The left wing reported on it because they thought it was real … because they’re suckers for the Democrats!” Bongino argued.

“Folks, this was a setup. It was sting operation, an entrapment operation the entire time.”

Listen:

Along with Levin, Bongino has been leading the charge in exposing the Obamagate scandal on his chart-topping podcast, calling it the “biggest political scandal in U.S. history.”

Read More @ ConservativeReview.com

Professor Claims Soros ‘Missionaries’ Bragged About Toppling Governments in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East

0

by Jack Montgomery, Breitbart:

Author and sociologist Frank Furedi claims globalist activists working for billionaire financier George Soros bragged about toppling governments at a private lunch.

A former professor of sociology at the University of Kent in Canterbury, Furedi recounted his experience with the globalist’s “missionaries” in an article for the Telegraph newspaper, having been prompted by the revelations about his efforts to bring down the British government and trigger another EU referendum.

“Soros believes that if the people voted the wrong way, he is entitled to thwart decisions made by them,” Furedi wrote.

“Soros does not believe in the legitimacy of borders nor in the authority of national electorates. Consequently, he feels entitled to influence and if possible direct the political destiny of societies all over the world.”

Furedi said his own encounter with “the Soros operation” took place in the 87-year-old’s native Hungary in 2013, at an Open Society Youth Exchange exchange event which brought together so-called ‘civil society’ activists from across the globe:

Most of those in attendance were smart, idealistic young people who appeared to be committed to making the world a better place. My only concern with the gathering was it regarded its participants as a group of democratic missionaries, who would go back home to spread the good word.

It was later during lunch at a plush Budapest hotel that I encountered the full force of the arrogant ethos promoted by the Soros network of organisations. At my table I listened to Dutch, American, British, Ukrainian and Hungarian representatives of Soros NGOs boast about their achievements. Some claimed that they played a major role in the Arab Spring in Egypt. Others voiced their pride in their contribution to the democratisation of the Ukraine. Some bragged about their influence in preparing the ground for the overthrow of the Gadafif regime in Libya.

I sat quietly and felt uncomfortable with a group of people who so casually assumed that they had the right to play God throughout the world. At one point, the head of the table – a Hungarian leader of a Soros NGO – asked me what I thought about their work. Not wishing to offend, I quietly remarked that I wasn’t sure whether the external imposition of their idea of democracy on the people of Libya was legitimate nor that it would work. Without a second’s hesitation, my interlocutor rounded me with the response: “I don’t think that we have the luxury of waiting until the Libyan people come up with their own Jefferson!”

Furedi recalled being alarmed by “the haughty tone with which she lectured me about performing the role of Jefferson” in countries like Libya.

Foreign intervention has changed the North African country into a failed state, where jihadists are at large, black Africans are sold openly in slave markets, and criminal people-smugglers coin a handsome profit ferrying illegal migrants to Europe — often with the assistance of NGOs linked to Soros.

Read More @ Breitbart.com

Very, Very Bad News For Mainstream Media – 31% Of Democrats, 55% Of Independents Paying Close Attention To FISA Abuse Issue Know The MSM Is Lying To Them

0

by Susan Duclos, All News Pipeline:

Since the 2016 presidential election we have consistently seen the MSM claim that “all” the pollsters got it wrong, as they excused and justified their utter failure to accurately capture the mood of voters and the support that Donald Trump actually had across the heartland of America, while refusing to report (which they later admitted) how “hated” Hillary Clinton was in those same areas.

The prevailing consensus among pollsters and media organizations was that “everyone got it wrong,” but that isn’t accurate either as one polling organization, the IBD/TIPP poll on election day, predicted that in a four way race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson on the ballot, that Donald Trump held a 2 point lead. They were also ranked the most accurate in the three previous presidential elections.

VERY BAD NEWS FOR THE MSM

The reason I highlight the IBD/TIPP polling success is because recently they conducted a poll regarding the story that has been dominating the news, about the Obama White House weaponizing the U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign leading up to the 2016 election, and even after the election, and the numbers have severe ramifications for the mainstream media, as we see that 87 percent of Republicans, and 55 percent of Independents that are following the issues “very closely” or “somewhat closely,” believe the Obama administration “improperly surveilled the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.” The shocking number comes from Democrats that are following the issue closely, where over 30 percent also agree that the Obama administration acted improperly.
 

The poll also suggests that many Americans think the roots of the allegations made against Trump extend beyond the two major party campaigns in the last presidential election and deep into the Obama era’s intelligence and law enforcement bureaucracies, and may involve active political bias on the part of supposedly nonpartisan employees of both the Justice Department and FBI.

In the IBD/TIPP survey of public opinion, we asked respondents “How closely are you following news stories about the role played by the FBI and the Department of Justice during the 2016 presidential election?” Of those who responded, 72% said they were following the story either “very closely” (39%) or “somewhat closely” (33%). Our responses were taken only from those who were following the story closely.

Some 55% of those said it was “likely” that the Obama administration “improperly surveilled the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.” There was an obvious partisan split among the responses, with 87% of Republicans and 55% of independents saying the improper spying took place, but only 31% of Democrats.

On the question of whether a special counsel was needed to “investigate whether the FBI and the Department of Justice improperly surveilled the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election,” 54% responded “yes,” and 44% “no.” Again, 74% of Republicans and 50% of independents wanted a special counsel appointed. But even 44% of Democrats thought it would be a good idea.

Read the entire breakdown at IBD: Most Think Obama White House Spied On Trump Campaign, Want Special Counsel: IBD/TIPP Poll

As the tidal wave of new information continues to come out over the attempts by the Obama administration, the Hillary Clintoncampaign, the DNC, FBI and DOJ senior level officials, and the MSM, to “rig” the 2016 presidential election, albeit unsuccessfully, Democrats have been downplaying the extent of the improper behavior of the Obama administration and the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence agencies beneath him.

The huge problem for the MSM is that they have attempted to do the same, willingly complicit in not fully informing the public, but rather pushing the Democratic spin as they seem to have become nothing more than the propaganda arm for the Democratic party.

Let me offer a recent example: After President Trump informed the public back in March 2017 that the Obama administration had “wire-tapped” Trump Tower, CNN and all the other MSM outlets claimed he lied, saying it was a “baseless claim,” they mocked him for his claim, until recently when all the FISA abuses and FBI/DOJ biases, were revealed, showing that members of Trump’s team were surveilled, including Paul Manafort, who did indeed have an office in the Trump Tower, and yes, it was surveilled.

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin recently attempted to address the new information, which contradicted CNN’s own reporting back in March  through early September 2017, just to be cut off as they did not want to “inform” their audience, they wanted to focus on the anti-Trump news of the day instead.

Via the Daily Caller:
 

“The Democrats have already made their arguments about the whole subject,” he continued. “So the memo itself, I mean people will read it, those who are interested. But I think this has been the story of this past Trump year. Stories that were, you know, explosive and big. Remember he said, Obama wiretapped me. Like, what? That was a huge story we spent months on.” 

CNN had criticized Trump for making such claims, but it was later confirmed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had tapped Paul Manafort. That along with the Nunes memo made the allegations more plausible. Just as Toobin was about to dissect the wiretap story he was cut off by Camerota.

“That is about the memo and the rebuttal. That is the heart of this,” she said

Read More @ AllNewsPipeline.com

A Review of Prof. Stephen Cohen’s Excellent Recent Talk About the Real Putin (Video)

0

by The Saker, via Russia Insider:

“He rebuilt, stabilized and modernized Russia in a way to prevent future collapses”

I have recently had the pleasure of watching a short presentation by Professor Stephen F. Cohen entitled “Rethinking Putin” which he delivered on the annual Nation cruise on December 2, 2017 (see here for the original Nation Article and original YouTube video).

In his short presentation, Professor Cohen does a superb job explaining what Putin is *not* and that includes: (but, please do watch the original video before proceeding).

  1. He is not the man who de-democratized Russia (Yeltsin and the White House did)
  2. He is not the leader who created corruption and kleptocracy in Russia (Yeltsin and the White House did)
  3. He is not a criminal leader who ordered the murder of opponents or journalists (no evidence)
  4. He did not order the hacking of the DNC servers (no evidence)
  5. He was not anti-US or anti-West from the get-go (Putin changed over time)
  6. He is not a neo-Soviet leader (he is very critical of Lenin and Stalin)
  7. He is not an aggressive foreign policy leader (he has been a reactive leader)
  8. He is not somehow defined by his years at the KGB.

Professor Cohen ended his talk by suggesting a few things which might form a part of a future honest biography:

  1. As a young and inexperienced leader placed at the helm of a collapsing state:
  2. He rebuilt, stabilized and modernized Russia in a way to prevent future collapses
  3. He had to restore the “vertical” of power: “managed democracy” (i.e. restored order)
  4. He needed a consensual history patching up Czarist, Soviet and post-Soviet eras without imposing one, single, version of history
  5. He needed Western support to modernize the Russian economy
  6. He wanted Russia to be a great power, but not a super-power
  7. He never favored iron-curtain isolationism; he is an internationalist (more European than 90% of Russians, at least in the beginning).

The key thesis is this: Putin began as a pro-Western, European leader and with time he realigned himself with a much more traditional, Russian worldview. He is more in line with Russian voters today.

Professor Cohen concluded by addressing two topics which, I presume, his audience cared deeply about: he said that, contrary to Western propaganda, the so-called ‘anti-gay’ laws in Russia are no different from the laws of 13 US states. Secondly, that “by any reckoning, be it flourishing inside Russia or relations with Israel, by general consent of all, nobody denies this, Jews under Putin in Russia are better off than they had ever been in Russian history. Ever. They have more freedom, less official anti-Semitism, more protection, more official admiration for Israel, more interaction, more freedom to go back and forth”.

This is all very interesting important stuff, especially when delivered to a Left-Liberal-Progressive US audience (with, probably, a high percentage of Jews). Frankly, Professor Cohen’s presentation makes me think about what Galileo might have felt when he made his own “presentations” before the tribunal of Inquisition (Cohen’s articles and books are now also on the modern equivalent of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum). In truth, Professor Cohen is simply true to himself: he opposed the crazies during the old Cold War and now he is opposing the same crazies during the new Cold War.

His entire life Professor Cohen was a man of truth, courage, and integrity – a peacemaker in the sense of the Beatitudes (Matt 5:9). So while I am not surprised by his courage, I am still immensely impressed by it. Some might think that delivering a short presentation on a cruise-ship is hardly a sign of great courage, but I would vehemently disagree.

Yes, nobody would shoot Cohen in the back of the neck like, say, the Soviet ChK-GPU-NKVD would have done, but I submit that these methods of “enforcing” a single official consensus were far less effective than their modern equivalents: the conformity imposition techniques (see: Asch Conformity Experiment) so prevalent in the modern Western society.

Just look at the results: there was far more reading and thinking (of any kind) going on in the Soviet society than there is today in the modern AngloZionist Empire (anybody who remembers the bad old USSR will confirm that to you). As one joke puts it: in a dictatorship, you are told to “shut up”, while in a democracy you are encouraged to “keep talking”. QED.

Turning to Professor Cohen’s talking points, numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are basic facts. Nothing to be debated here – Cohen is plainly setting the factual record straight. Number 5 is much more interesting and controversial. For one thing, we are talking views/intentions, which are hard to judge. Was Putin ever pro-Western? Who knows? Maybe his closest friends know? My own belief is that this question must be looked at in combination of issue #8: Putin’s service in the KGB.

There is still a huge amount of misinformation about the old Soviet KGB in the West. To the average American a “KGB agent” is a guy called Vladimir, with steel gray-blue eyes, who beats up dissidents, steals Western technological secrets, and spies on the wives of politicians (and even beds them).

Read More @ Russia-Insider.com

Russian Gold Rush: Massive Stocks of Precious Metals Found in Southern Urals

from Sputnik News:

Geologists searching for copper pyrite ores have made a pleasant discovery in the Republic of Bashkortostan, Russia, discovering nearly 900 tons of silver and gold.

Russian state exploration company Rosgeo says specialists found the precious metals while conducting geological work in the Bashkortostan’s Khaybullinsky District.

Surveying some 28 square km in search of copper pyrite, geologists drilled exploratory wells from 346 to 510 m deep into the soil surface. What they found were extremely rich deposits of copper pyrite, mixed in with zinc, gold and silver.

According to Rosgeo’s estimates, there are some 87 tons-worth of gold in the area. Silver deposits, meanwhile, are estimated to amount to 787 tons.

As for the copper pyrite and zinc, they amount to a whopping 538,000 tons and 906,000 tons, respectively.

Read More @ SputnikNews.com

Clark County Coroner releases autopsy for 6′-1″ body with bad teeth, Stephen Paddock was 6′-4″ with good teeth

0

by Shepard Ambellas, Intellihub:

Something is afoot at the Clark County Coroner’s office, autopsy of “Stephen Paddock” reveals body was not Paddock and rather someone else

LAS VEGAS (INTELLIHUB) — It is unknown why the Clark County Coroner has released the autopsy report of a random 6′-1″ tall individual with bad teeth after cremating the body, violating court a court order, and then claiming the body is that of the alleged shooter Stephen Paddock when Paddock is clearly 6′-4″ tall and has rather good teeth.

No this is not a joke. This is real and should scare any American who entrusts their government, to tell the truth.

The bogus autopsy records were released by the coroner on Friday and contradict everything we know about Paddock physically.

Fox News reports:

The autopsy showed Paddock, who was just more than six feet tall, was considered to be slightly overweight at 224 pounds, had high blood pressure and bad teeth. But he appeared to be healthy and nothing out of the ordinary was uncovered in his physical condition, even after experts at Stanford University conducted a microscopic brain examination, according to the documents.

As Intellihub reported on 20 Jan., in the article titled Body autopsied by doctor likely not Steven Paddock’s, official LVMPD report reveals:

Information listed in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s preliminary report on the 1 Oct. massacre, reveals that the body autopsied by Dr. Lisa Gavin may not be Steven Paddock at all.

According to Section VIII of the report titled Suspect Autopsy: “On 10-06-17, at approximately 1625 hours, under CCOCME case 17-10064 and FBI incident number 4-LV-2215061 an autopsy was performed on the body of Paddock at the CCOCME
by Doctor Lisa Gavin.”

However, the report lists the decedent Stephen Paddock as being only “73 inches” tall (6′-1″) despite the fact that it is well known that Paddock was 6′-4″ in height and had a much larger frame than the dead guy pictured in the leaked crime scene photographs.

Read More @ Intellihub.com

The Threat of Contagion

0

by Jim Rickards, Daily Reckoning:

To understand the risk of contagion, you can think of the marlin in Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea. The marlin started out as a prize catch lashed to the side of the fisherman Santiago’s boat.

But, once there was blood in the water, every shark within miles descended on the marlin and devoured it. By the time Santiago got to shore, there was nothing left of the marlin but the bill, the tail and some bones.

In this metaphor, the marlin is XIV. During regular trading hours last Monday, there was not much blood in the water. But, once traders saw the damage to VIX, they smelled blood in terms of the value of XIV.

At that point, markets (the sharks) no longer traded XIV in relation to other instruments. Instead markets systematically traded against XIV in an effort to force every holder, sponsor and guarantor to suffer a total loss. They were out to break it.

Markets intended to pressure the price of XIV until there was a suspension of redemption, a collapse to zero, or ultimately noteholder litigation.

I apologize if this sounds a bit technical. The bottom line is, the damage seems to have been contained.

But, what if the XIV ETN holdings had been concentrated at just one or two hedge funds? What if those holders themselves were highly leveraged and were losing money on stocks and XIV at the same time? What if rumors had leaked out into the marketplace about “hedge funds in distress?”

An even greater danger for markets is when these two kinds of contagion converge. This happens when market losses spillover into broader markets, then those losses give rise to systematic trading against a particular instrument or hedge fund.

When the targeted instrument or fund is driven under, credit losses spread to a wider group of fund counterparts who then fall under suspicion themselves. Soon a market-wide liquidity panic emerges in which, “everybody wants his money back.”

This is exactly what happened during the Russia-Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) crisis in 1998. The month of August 1998 was a liquidity crisis involving broad classes of instruments. But, the month of September was systematically aimed at LTCM.

I was right in the middle of that crash. It was an international monetary crisis that started in Thailand in June of 1997, spread to Indonesia and Korea, and then finally Russia by August of ’98. It was exactly like dominoes falling.

LTCM wasn’t a country, although it was a hedge fund big as a country in terms of its financial footings.

I was the general counsel of that firm. I negotiated that bailout.  The importance of that role is that I had a front-row seat.

I’m in the conference room, in the deal room, at a big New York law firm. There were hundreds of lawyers. There were 14 banks in the LTCM bailout fund. There were 19 other banks in a one billion dollar unsecured credit facility. Included were Treasury officials, Federal Reserve officials, other government officials, Long-Term Capital, our partners.

It was a thundering herd of lawyers, but I was on point for one side of the deal and had to coordinate all that.

It was a 4 billion dollar all-cash deal, which we put together in 72 hours with no due diligence. Anyone who’s raised money for his or her company, or done deals can think about that and imagine how difficult it would be to get a group of banks to write you a check for 4 billion dollars in 3 days.

Systematic pressure on LTCM persisted until the fund was almost broke. As Wall Street attacked the fund, they missed the fact that they were the creditors of the fund. By breaking LTCM, they were breaking themselves. That’s when the Fed intervened and forced Wall Street to bail out the fund.

Those involved can say they bailed out Long-Term capital. But if Long-Term Capital had failed, and it was on the way to failure, 1.3 trillion dollars of derivatives would’ve been flipped back to Wall Street.

In reality, Wall Street bailed out itself.

The panic of 2008 was an even more extreme version of 1998. We were days, if not hours, from the sequential collapse of every major bank in the world. Think of the dominoes again. What had happened there? You had a banking crisis.

Except in 2008, Wall Street did not bail out a hedge fund; instead the central banks bailed out Wall Street.

And today, systemic risk is more dangerous than ever. Each crisis is bigger than the one before.Too-big-to-fail banks are bigger than ever, have a larger percentage of the total assets of the banking system, and have much larger derivatives books.

New automated trading algorithms like high-frequency trading techniques used in stock markets could add to liquidity in normal times, but the liquidity could disappear instantly in times of market stress. And when the catalyst is triggered and panic commences, impersonal dynamics take on a life of their own.

These kinds of sudden, unexpected crashes that seems to emerge from nowhere are entirely consistent with the predictions of complexity theory.

Read More @ DailyReckoning.com

Cops Hold Mentally Ill Man Down on 170 Degree Pavement Until His Skin Melted Off

0

by Jack Burns, The Free Thought Project:

A man is seeking $26 million after the force used by police resulted in life-threatening injuries and third-degree burns when he was forced onto the scorching 170-degree pavement.

Sacramento, CA — A California man is suing the city of Citrus Heights and several of its police officers for the horrific injuries he sustained when police forced him onto the ground of a restaurant parking lot when the temperature was more than 100 degrees outside.

The pavement was estimated to have been around 170 degrees, causing James Bradford Nelson III’s flesh to melt and resulting in third-degree burns on his face, torso, legs, and buttocks.

Nelson suffers from schizophrenia and has been in and out of jail since he was a juvenile. While defense attorneys will likely bring up his criminal past as being responsible for the police officers’ use of force, Nelson’s family says his incarcerations have followed a pattern of mental instability, leading to criminal behavior, and then jail time. But, arguably, no human should receive life-threatening burns after a run-in with police.

Police officers were called to the KFC when Nelson was behaving erratically. The shirtless man then fled the restaurant but was taken to the ground, with his bare skin being exposed to the scorching roadway.

Nelson’s mother and stepfather, Tarsha and Barry Benigno, told the Sacremento Bee that they believe the officers were “poorly trained,” and that the injuries Nelson sustained have taken an emotional toll on both him and his family.

Citrus Heights police chief Ronald Lawrence said the case will be tried in court, adding that it is, “something that will involve the judicial system, and will not be resolved in the court of public opinion.”But it will be the opinion of the jury and not the chief which will matter when restitution must be decided.

The lawsuit contends, “During this time on the ground Nelson was screaming and yelling in excruciating pain,” and adds, “the officers forced his head down onto the hot pavement, leaning onto it with such force that Nelson could not move it for relief, exposing the right side of his face and neck to the scorching heat of the concrete.”

Read More @ TheFreeThoughtProject.com