Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with Angola’s President Joao Lourenco, after their talks at the Kremlin in Moscow on April 4, 2019. Ahead of the Russia Africa Summit on October 23, 2019, President Putin has promised African countries investments and support for the continent’s causes in global political forums. PHOTO | FILE | NATION MEDIA GROUP
Russia has been a major supplier of weapons and military equipment to African nations and the country’s arms exporter hopes the first Russia-Africa summit will help further boost business on the continent.
This year alone, nine countries including Rwanda, Mozambique and Angola are set to receive Russian arms.
Observers say Moscow has been skillfully using a combination of arms exports and security expertise to expand its political and economic footprint in Africa.
wing off its next generation Kalashnikov assault rifles, helicopters and facial recognition systems as President Vladimir Putin hosts dozens of African leaders for a major summit in Sochi.
The Wednesday and Thursday event at the Black Sea resort has brought together delegates to discuss everything from nuclear technology to mineral extraction—but on the sidelines, stands for arms companies dominate.
Russia has been a major supplier of weapons and military equipment to African nations and the country’s arms exporter hopes the first Russia-Africa summit will help further boost business on the continent.
“We would like to expand our presence there, of course,” Rosoboronexport director Alexander Mikheev told AFP.
He said that African countries now accounted for 40 percent of the exporter’s current orders.
All 54 African states were represented at the event and Rosoboronexport said it planned to conduct meetings with the top leadership of 15 countries on the sidelines of the gathering.
A senior Russian military intelligence officer coordinated the nerve-agent attack on Sergei Skripal, a former spy, from a hotel in the heart of London, making repeated phone calls to an unregistered, prepaid Russian number, the investigative group Bellingcat says. Read More
A heating power plant in Moscow. Officials described the move into Russia’s grid and other targets as a classified companion to more publicly discussed action directed at Moscow’s disinformation and hacking units around the 2018 midterm elections.CreditCreditMaxim Shemetov/Reuters
Kremlin Warns of Cyberwar After Report of U.S. Hacking Into Russian Power Grid|CRIMSON TAZVINZWA||
Do you believe that the Failing New York Times just did a story stating that the United States is substantially increasing Cyber Attacks on Russia. This is a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country…..
The story in the @nytimes about the U.S. escalating attacks on Russia’s power grid is Fake News, and the Failing New York Times knows it. They should immediately release their sources which, if they exist at all, which I doubt, are phony. Times must be held fully accountable!
…..ALSO, NOT TRUE! Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today. They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!
‘Mueller Report, a case of shadows: useful idiots and characters, secrets and spies – PUTIN |CRIMSON TAZVINZWA||
Theses are the two key players at the heart of Trump/Russia collusion, compromise: ‘naive’Carter Page and lowlife‘teaboy’ Michael Papadopoulos.
They are part of an extraordinary work of spycraft, secret sources and unlikely snitches aka Australian diplomat.
As the 2016 US presisential election was gathering steam; Republican candidate Donald J Trump’s team offoreign policy advisors got linked with Russia’s secret agents; KGB and FSB with sole intention of interfering in the election process; the ultimate goal being to have Trump enthroned as President.
What followed was a protracted Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) investigation which has since morphed into special prosecution’s wide ranging probe into Russia interference with US elections, hence ‘Mueller Russia Probe’, which apparently led to scores of individuals from within Trump circle indicted or incercerated, and others pending resolutions.
Actually, talks abound about ‘impeachment’ of the president or imprisonment according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Carter Page
He did not stand out at Merryll Lynch. “He left Merryll Lynch in 2007, when he recognised he was not going to be promoted, very naive; what was written about him in Moscow and how he behaved himself; very naive.
“Nothing close to being and informal advisor to Kremlin;
“He was a very, very medium guy in Moscow, with no exceptional relationships.
With Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian electoral interference finally complete—even though the public is still waiting to learn what it says—many Republicans are declaring it’s time to pivot back to investigating the investigators. Sen. Lindsay Graham, an erstwhile Trump critic who has reinvented himself as one of the president’s fiercest defenders, has announced his intent to lead the charge, with particular focus on whether the FBI abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to wiretap former Trump advisor Carter Page. Trump himself has vowed to release a more complete version of the FISA applications targeting Page (already public in heavily redacted form), along with related documents.
Papadopoulos
George Papadopoulos and his wife Simona Mangiante arrive for his sentencing Friday. AFP/Getty Images
‘Papa’ story goes all the way to London; the hotchy potchy pad of Russian oligarcs, got drunk silly and spilled the dried beans.
Trump says of him: “Few people knew the young, low level volunteer named George, who has already proven to be a liar,” Trump posted on Twitter shortly after 8am local time, adding: “Check the DEMS!”
MARIA BARTIROMO: “This is so extraordinary you can’t write this, so LinkedIn, they reach you on LinkedIn, they give you a job working for the center for law practices, then you say you are going to quit you want to work for Trump, they say no wait, meet Mifsud in Rome, they send you on a paid trip to Rome, you meet this guy Mifsud who we find out is also tied to intel agencies across the world, Mueller talked to him, talked about him in the report as you a Russian spy, but in fact he is very connected to Italy, then others reach out from other countries: Australia, Britain, U.S. agents, all reaching out to you in the Summer of 2016. And then somebody gives you money on one of your trips, explain that, this is now, fast forward to 2017 when someone dropped $10,000 in cash in your lap, what happened?
PAPADOPOULOS: “I actually want Congress, Barr, Horowitz, and Huber to review the bills because I still have the bills and I think they are marked,” Papadopoulos said. “These bills that are still in Athens right now must be examined by the investigators because I think they are marked and they’re going to go all the way back to DOJ, under the previous FBI under Comey, and even the Mueller team.”
Papadapoulos: I Got Caught In A Perjury Trap, It Was A Setup By US, UK, Australian Intelligence
Trump, North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un agree in their assessment of Joe Biden
One of the more profound statements by Archie Bunker in “All In The Family” came when he corrected his daughter Gloria for questioning if God made a mistake: “God don’t make no mistakes, that’s how he got to be God.” There is a certain value in divine status. Natural disasters are dismissed as “God’s will,” and genetic defects as part of “God’s plan.”
Very few mortals ever warrant such faith, except perhaps Robert Mueller. Washington has deified him by popular acclamation. The times demanded it. It was simply not enough to demonize Donald Trump. That was done throughout the 2016 campaign, with the notable assistance of Trump himself. However, you cannot have a villain without a countervailing hero. Evil needs a point of reference, and Mueller became that reference. While Trump is portrayed as bombastic, impetuous, and juvenile, Mueller is painted as stoic, reserved, and professional. Indeed, as every new filing undermined the common narrative of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians, the commentators fell into a mantra of “just wait for Mueller.
They are still waiting. Mueller has yet to testify despite Attorney General William Barr stating that he has no objections to him doing so. In the past week, it was confirmed that Mueller is resisting testifying in public. At the same time, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler indicated that his committee may indeed allow Mueller to appear in private with no subpoena, no cameras, and no cries of coverup. The media is remarkably uninterested in the reason for this demand from Muelller. After all, if you have no faith in Mueller, then you are an apostate within the Beltway.
So why is Mueller and his staff so worried and apprehensive about his answering questions in public? To answer that question, we must look at his report objectively, as agnostics rather than as advocates for one side or the other. Mueller has to address several glaring problems with how he carried out his responsibilities, including his reported failure to identify grand jury material, as requested by Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which may have delayed the report.
The most troubling failure, however, was Mueller refusing to reach a conclusion on obstruction. He reached a conclusion on collusion and stated that his staff could “not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” He then stated that he would not reach a conclusion on obstruction, without explaining why beyond citing past Justice Department memos stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. His decision on this matter is incompatible with his mandate.
The special counsel is mandated to find possible evidence of criminal conduct. If Mueller is going to argue that he felt constrained by Justice Department memos, he was a failure as special counsel. I have argued, going back to my testimony in the Clinton impeachment hearings, that the Justice Department was wrong on those memos. Nothing in the Constitution says that a president has immunity from criminal charges. Nevertheless, one can accept these memos and still see the illogic in reading them as a bar to reaching conclusions as a special counsel.
First, any implied interpretation would not only contradict the governing federal regulations but contradict the express directions of the Justice Department superiors overseeing the special counsel. Indeed, both Barr and Rosenstein pushed Mueller to reach a conclusion on obstruction. When he failed to do so, they did it for him. No one has suggested that they violated Justice Department policy in reaching their conclusion.
Second, any reading of the two Justice Department memos dispels any notion of a limit on special counsels. Even accepting the flawed logic of the memoranda, they only speak to indicting a president while in office. Because such an indictment would tie up a president in litigation, it was argued that it would interfere with his functioning. Yet, nothing in that policy would stop a special counsel from making findings of criminal conduct. Indeed, Mueller made findings not just on collusion but on facts underlying obstruction. It is nonsensical to read memos on the indictment of a president to mean that you cannot find a basis for criminal charges.
Finally, this is what a special counsel does, as defined in the regulations, which outweigh any Office of Legal Counsel memos. A special counsel makes prosecutorial decisions. For two years, both Congress and the executive branch expected Mueller to reach conclusions. Before filing his report, Barr and Rosenstein expressly told him to do so. If he was not willing to do so, he should have stood aside when asked to come on.
Many of the commentators discussing the report in the media not only make excuses for Mueller but ignore that the report is not particularly impressive. The investigation by the FBI certainly was impressive and notable, especially on Russian hacking and trolling operations. However, the report itself reads like a long account of interesting vignettes with no prosecutorial conclusions. One obvious concern is that Mueller and his staff did not reach a conclusion on obstruction because they could not bring themselves to give Trump a clean bill of health on criminal conduct.
The statement released by Barr was damning to be sure. Even if Trump was not found to have acted in an indictable or impeachable fashion, he was found to have acted in a contemptible fashion. However, reaching a conclusion in both volumes may have proven too much for Mueller after months of abuse by Trump. If this was the motivation, then the greatest political offense established by the special counsel was indeed his own.
Mueller may not want to answer any of these questions in public. Indeed, he seemed to have trouble answering even in private. As Barr tellingly testified to the Senate: “Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that,” but for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, “he would have found obstruction.” He continued: “We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision. When we pressed him on it, he said that his team was still formulating the explanation.”
That is not the Mueller many of us encountered 30 years ago. It is bizarre that he would meet with the attorney general and the deputy attorney general about his conclusions but not have a clear explanation on not reaching conclusions. In the past, the idea of Mueller saying his team was working on an explanation after two years would have been laughable.
The House Judiciary Committee is not placing conditions on Mueller testifying as it did with Barr, who had been willing to appear in public until the committee added a condition guaranteeing that he would not by insisting that he be questioned by legal staff, like a mob “torpedo” in the Kefauver hearings. When asked why they would forgo Barr testifying by insisting on such a condition, members said the special counsel report was so complicated that legal staff needed to question the witness.
Suddenly, it seems, the report has become less complicated. There is no demand for a public hearing and, apparently, no demand for legal staff to question Mueller. He has much to explain, and the public is entitled to hear it without the usual partisan filters. Mueller can still fulfill his mandate and redeem his legacy. After all, to err may not be divine, but it is human.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
