Trump News TV from mikenova (1 sites) |
|---|
| Trump's YouTube Videos: What You Need To Know About The Paradise Papers! |
Over 13.4 million documents leaked showing how the Elite hide their money! Trump's allies who are named in the Paradise Papers also include Gary Cohn, his chief economic adviser, Rex Tillerson, secretary of state, Steven Mnuchin, treasury secretary, Randal Quarles, vice-chairman for supervision at the Federal Reserve, Jon Huntsman, ambassador to Russia. The papers also speak about The Queen, Bono, and much more! There is a history of the Elites hiding their money and dealings.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-41880153 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/05/paradise-papers-queen-bono-kept-money-offshore-funds-leaked/ https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/paradise-papers-leak-reveals-secrets-of-world-elites-hidden-wealth https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/leaked-documents-show-commerce-secretary-concealed-ties-putin-cronies-n817711 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paradise-papers-leak-explainer_us_59ff57b9e4b0c965300029eb https://news.vice.com/story/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-massive-paradise-papers-leak https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/paradise-papers.html http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3255.htm http://www.vatileaks.com/vati-leaks/rumors-about-pope-john-paul-ii-now-documented   Trump's YouTube Videos |
| Trump's YouTube Videos: Explore The Influencers Donald Trumps allies in the Paradise Papers |
VIRAL STORIES TODAY
Just-In: Explore The Influencers Donald Trumps allies in the Paradise Papers We Provide Daily Latest Breaking News From USA and All Around The World. Join Us Today To Get Latest Breaking News And Analysis. Analysis Which Electronic Media Will Never Show You.
Thanks For Watching The Video.
Stay Tuned For Next Update. Watch This Video Again: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONNECT WITH US
Subscribe To Our Channel : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ2ovPjeRGR07OkOHYEDigQ
Join Us On Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/BreakingNToday/
Google+ Page: https://plus.google.com/b/106283859705481279309/
Follow On Twitter:https://twitter.com/VNewsToday
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Watch Our Latest Videos
Trump Exposes Fbi:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2TcFLhK7RQ&t=15s
CNN Losing It:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95gHRHDBe64
Don Jr. Responds To Depp:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElQ2cNSeFlM
Kim's End is Near:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKobF3RPVdM&t=13s
Dems Caught in Treason:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nS6S__hAE&t=81s
Janet Napolitano Busted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUvEnT2jURY&t=104s
Hillary In Trouble:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcEK_Fjv9GE&t=51s
See What Judge Orrick Did To Trump:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP0B4YeUn0c&t=19s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch Our Other Videos
Russia Moves Near NK:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss00k3_exnU
Trump Kicked Obama's Appointee:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGW4oViDEoM
Real Reason Why Fox Fired O'Rielly:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjpJZI4lZL0
Russia Joins North Korea:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac5mHyqrt-o&t=4s
China To North Korea And USA:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af0xWFDtj64
Kim Jong-Un TO Donald Trump:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXj4ciFDWVs&t=36s
Anti-Trump Mayor Exposed:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmkexmMtEsI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.  Trump's YouTube Videos |
| Trump's YouTube Videos: Paradise Papers : Des révélations qui éclaboussent Elizabeth 2, Trump, Madonna... 5/11 |
 Trump's YouTube Videos |
Trump Investigations News Review
| Trump Investigations from mikenova (23 sites) | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): Donald Trump: Virginias candidates for governor are in a race to the bottom | ||
The campaign has shone an unflattering light on the state of politics in America  1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): Just Security: 21 Years of War with Al Qaeda? | ||
Has the United States been at war with al-Qaeda for 21 years? During the most recent 9/11 military commission hearing at Guantanamo Bay, the prosecution finally articulated its view of when the U.S. and al-Qaeda entered into an armed conflict. According to the prosecution, that putative armed conflict began more than 21 years ago, on August 23, 1996, the day Osama bin Laden, the founder of the terrorist group, published a fatwa calling for attacks on Americans. The government characterized this fatwa as a declaration of war:
We do believe that the ’96 document written by [Osama] bin Laden, who was the head of al-Qaeda at the time he wrote it, is a declaration of war.
The prosecution apparently staked out this astonishing position, at odds with history, law, and the U.S. governments interests outside of the 9/11 military commission, to satisfy its short-term litigation goal of preserving the military commissions personal jurisdiction over the 9/11 defendants.
The Military Commission Act grants military commissions personal jurisdiction over alien unprivileged belligerents. The Act defines those as individuals who are not U.S. citizens, who are not privileged belligerents, and who either (1) engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; (2) purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (3) were a part of al-Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense. All three categories of individual over whom a military commission may have personal jurisdiction must have some connection to hostilitieswhich the MCA defines as any conflict subject to the laws of war. (The timing element of the third category implicates hostilities through §950p(c), which limits offenses triable by military commission to those committed in the context of or associated with hostilities.) Hostilities, in turn, are defined as any conflict subject to the laws of war. Thus, the military commission has personal jurisdiction over the 9/11 defendants only if they were connected to an armed conflict between the U.S. and al-Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001.
Since May 2017, the 9/11 military commission is working its way towards a pre-trial, evidentiary hearing on personal jurisdiction. It was in the context of a preliminary hearing addressing what if any witnesses should provide testimony as to personal jurisdiction that Judge Pohl pressed the prosecution for a specific date on which the armed conflict with al-Qaeda began. The governments responseAugust 23, 1996was intended to ensure that the 9/11 military commission could proceed. Unfortunately, that position carries with it significant ramifications implicating state sovereigntythe oldest rule in international lawand fundamental applications and consequences of the law of armed conflict.
It is axiomatic that only states may bring about the legal state of war or, in modern terms, armed conflict, through an act of speech. Historically, the law of war applied to situations of declared war between states. When the 1949 Geneva Conventions established the modern framework for armed conflict that rests primarily on objective indicators of conflict rather than political declarations or determinations, the drafters retained the notion of declared war between statesbut only for conflicts between states. Thus, international armed conflictsarmed conflicts between two or more statesmay arise upon a declaration of war alone or through the use of armed force between two states. In contrast, non-international armed conflictsarmed conflicts between states and non-state actors (or among non-state actors)only exist when non-state actors are sufficiently organized and violence between the parties is sufficiently intense. Whereas Common Article 2, which invokes the full panoply of the Geneva Conventions, applies only to interstate war and may be triggered merely by a declaration of war, Common Article 3 applies alone in the event of an armed conflict not of an international character. The drafters of the Geneva Conventions simply made no provision for a non-international armed conflict to be triggered by means of a declaration of war.
In fact, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions intentionally excluded a declared-war trigger for non-international armed conflict. Common Article 3 reflects a careful balance: recognizing that conflicts between states and non-state actors may rise to a level of violence comparable to that of interstate armed conflict, while also accommodating states desire to minimize international legal regulation intruding on their internal affairs. This bargain reflects states aversion to conferring the sort of legitimacy or legal status on non-state actors that could challenge states sovereignty, including by implicitly recognizing their belligerent or insurgent status.
Thus, the final clause of Common Article 3 includes a disclaimer: The application of the preceding provisions [Common Article 3] shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. Jean Pictets authoritative Commentary on the Geneva Conventions specifically attributes the provisions origin to a desire to prevent the [non-state] party from basing a claim for recognition as a regular Government on the respect it had shown for the Convention, as required in the original Convention draft. His explanation of Common Article 3 attributes much of its evolution from its initial proposal to its final form to states concerns about legitimizing criminal entities.
There was also a risk of common or ordinary criminals being encouraged to give themselves a semblance of organization as a pretext for claiming the benefit of the Conventions, representing their crimes as acts of war in order to escape punishment for them. A party of rebels, however small, would be entitled under the Conventions to ask for the assistance and intervention of a Protecting Power. Moreover, it was asked, would not the de jure Government be compelled to release the captured rebels as soon as the troubles were over, since the application of the Convention would place them on the same footing as prisoners of war?
Pictet concluded that without the disclaimer, Common Article 3 would not have been adopted. It meets the fearalways the same onethat the application of the Convention, even to a very limited extent . . . may confer belligerent status, and consequently increased authority, upon the adverse party.
The same concerns over extending legitimacy to non-state actors persists today. Indeed, the United States has never ratified Additional Protocol I precisely because it had the potential to give recognition and protection to terrorist groups by extending the law pertaining to international armed conflicts to certain non-international armed conflicts. In transmitting his decision not to seek ratification of Additional Protocol I, President Ronald Reagan explained to the U.S. Senate that the application of the full panoply of international humanitarian law to armed non-state actors who do not otherwise comply with the law of armed conflict could legitimate the aims and the practices of terrorist organizations.
Nevertheless, solely in order to extend the military commissions jurisdiction over the 9/11 defendants, the government has chosen to legitimize bin Laden and al-Qaeda by placing them on the same legal plane as states, stating last week that:
. . . [O]ur position has always been under international law, when you have international armed conflicts, a declaration of war is sufficient alone [to trigger the law of armed conflict].
. . . .
If we were to declare war on another country today, the law of war would apply from the second we declared war. And thats really what we are talking about. We are talking about when did the hostilities begin so we know when the law of war took over. And clearly our position has always been that we believe it began in 1996 with [Osama] bin Ladens declaration . . . .
The military commission prosecution evidently believes that, as a matter of law, an individual or a non-state actor may, through its speech alone, unilaterally bring about a legal state of armed conflict. If the military commission were to credit the prosecutions position, it would preserve the military commissions jurisdiction and save the prosecution the trouble and difficulty of demonstrating the existence of a non-international armed conflict prior to 9/11. Unfortunately, the consequences of that inexplicable position are not limited to whether the 9/11 military commission may go forward.
According bin Ladens 1996 fatwa the legal effect of a declaration of war implies that in 1996 al-Qaeda had the characteristics of a state actor. International law normally limits statehood only to those entities that are able to exert effective control over a definite territory and population, engage in international relations, and garner recognition. But none of this was true of al-Qaeda in 1996. Three months before issuing his fatwa, bin Laden and al-Qaeda were evicted from Sudan and dispossessed of their enterprises there. At the time, al-Qaeda boasted as few as several dozen members. And, seven months later, the Talibanwho by then exerted actual effective control over the territory where bin Laden residedforced bin Laden to relocate to Kandahar from Nangarhar, where he originally established himself in Afghanistan after fleeing Sudan.
The prosecutions position imbuing al-Qaeda with state-like powers undermine U.S. interests outside of this military commission in at least five ways. First, it undermines the lawfulness and legitimacy of the U.S. war of self-defense against Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11. If al-Qaeda were a state or something akin to a state in 1996, then by implication Afghanistan and the Taliban did not so much host al-Qaeda as surround it, as if it were an enclaved state. Under the prosecutions view, therefore, the Taliban could not be responsible for surrendering bin Laden following the 9/11 attacks, and the United States ultimatum to hand him over would have been unreasonable: how could a de factogovernment with only partial control of its own territory be responsible for curtailing the actions of an enclaved sovereign? Consequently, if the prosecution were right that al-Qaeda was the equivalent of a state actor, the invasion of Afghanistan could be viewed as a misdirected and illegal aggressive war.
Second, the prosecutions position necessarily suggests that the armed conflict between al-Qaeda and the United States is an international armed conflictas opposed to a non-international armed conflictinvoking the full panoply of the laws of war. This position also means that al-Qaeda members were the regular armed forces of a state, meaning that members of al-Qaeda could make a colorable claim to combatant immunity and prisoner-of-war (POW) status. At the very least, all of those currently detained and accused of prior membership in al-Qaeda should have been treated as POWs until they received an Article 5 hearing. (Ammar al Baluchi, for example, has requested, but never received, an Article 5 hearing.) The prosecutions position in the 9/11 case legitimizes attacks by members of al-Qaeda on U.S. soldiers and military infrastructure, narrowing the scope of criminality associated with al-Qaeda attacks. For example, according to the prosecutions view, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole would remain perfidious but the sailors killed and the vessel targeted would be lawful military targetsand the charge of terrorism would be a mere restatement of the object of war: violence intended to coerce a political result.
Third, if the prosecution position prevailed, al-Qaeda would have enjoyed belligerent rights and the benefit of the laws of neutrality. Neutrality of non-belligerents is automatically triggered by the existence of a state of war between belligerents. Neutrals must remain neutralthat is they must not assist one belligerent party against the other. But belligerents must also refrain from conducting hostilities on the territory of neutral states, a fundamental protection for neutrals and against the spread of war. For example, the application of neutrality as a result of the prosecutions position would mean that the U.S. violated Sudans neutrality along with its sovereignty by bombing the al-Shifa pharmaceutical facility in Khartoum in 1998.
Moreover, and outside of the immediate concerns relating to al-Qaeda, the governments position suggests that declarations of war by non-state actors are a fast-track to sovereignty. The consequences of this implication may be far reaching. There are numerous entities that have substantially stronger claims to statehood than did al-Qaeda in 1996, but that remain outsiders in the international system. Would entities like Somaliland, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, and others finally gain admittance to the international system by declaring war on a neighbor or a far-off foe unlikely to take notice?
Finally, the governments position leaves unsettled how to differentiate non-state declarations of war that have legal effect from those that do not. The U.S. has been the target of numerous supposed declarations of war by violent non-state actors to which it accorded no legal effect. For example, the United States treated neither the Symbionese National Liberation Army nor the Weathermen as enemy belligerents. Similarly, why give bin Ladens August 1996 fatwa the legal weight of a declaration of war but not al Qaedas earlier 1992 fatwa that likewise called for attacks on U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia?
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the prosecutions astounding position that bin Ladens fatwa actually caused a legal state of war with the U.S. is that the government is willing to contort the law of armed conflict to suit its short-term litigation goals. Unfortunately, its single-minded and short-sighted effort to patch up the broken 9/11 military commission is simply making wreckage of law and historyand proving the old adage that hard cases make bad law.
The opinions and views expressed are those of the author alone. They do not represent the views of the US Department of Defense or the US Government.
Image: Getty Read on Just Security »1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): 2016 elections and mental health - Google News: Sac teachers: Don't strike + de León, Villaraigosa fight Democrats + 26 shot dead at a Texas church - Sacramento Bee | ||
1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): trump anxiety - Google News: Essential California: High anxiety in Hollywood - Los Angeles Times | ||
1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): Trump anxiety - Google News: Essential California: High anxiety in Hollywood - Los Angeles Times | ||
1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): trump as samson - Google News: New York Fed chief Dudley to retire in mid-2018 - Financial Times | ||
1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): Donald Trump: New York Fed chief Dudley to retire in mid-2018 | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): Donald Trump: Mueller Team Says Paul Manafort's Trump Tower Condo Isn't Worth As Much As He Claims | ||
Trump's indicted former campaign manager wants to use the condo as part of his bail.  1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) | ||
| Trump Investigations Report: 8:19 AM 11/6/2017 Anthony Weiner Google News: Anthony Weiner heads to prison New York Post | ||
Saved Stories Saved Stories – None Donald Trump | The Guardian: Trump dump: president throws entire box of fish food into precious koi carp pond Anthony Weiner – Google News: Anthony Weiner heads to prison – New York Post felix sater – Google News: At least 9 people in Trump’s orbit had contact with Russians … Continue reading"8:19 AM 11/6/2017 – Anthony Weiner – Google News: Anthony Weiner heads to prison – New York Post"  Trump Investigations Report | ||
| Saved Stories - Trump Investigations: Donald Trump | The Guardian: Trump dump: president throws entire box of fish food into precious koi carp pond | ||
While his host, Japans prime minister Shinzo Abe, spoons small amounts of feed, the US leader gives the fish a large feast
It was perhaps only a matter of time before Donald Trumps brasher instincts smashed through the ring of decorum that had held fast on his gaffe-free first day in Japan.
The victims: the colourful, and much loved, koi carp of Akasaka palace in Tokyo.
Continue reading... Saved Stories - Trump Investigations | ||
| Saved Stories - Trump Investigations: Anthony Weiner - Google News: Anthony Weiner heads to prison - New York Post | ||
Saved Stories - Trump Investigations | ||
| Saved Stories - Trump Investigations: felix sater - Google News: At least 9 people in Trump's orbit had contact with Russians - The Daily Herald | ||
Saved Stories - Trump Investigations | ||
| Saved Stories - Trump Investigations: Palmer Report: Holy crap is Donald Trump screwed | ||
It turns out Donald Trump is even more screwed than we thought. In reality, he was screwed the minute Special Counsel Robert Mueller successfully reached the arrest stage last Monday. It gave a new level of credibility to the Trump-Russia scandal in the minds of average Americans who hadn’t been sure what to think of all the noise up to this point. But now we may be looking at something different altogether. Trump is not just going to get ousted from office. His entire life is about to get carved up while he’s forced to watch.
Four crucial storylines emerged yesterday, in a sign of just how quickly things are now snowballing. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has years of massive and secret investments from Russia that could only have been signed off on by Vladimir Putin himself, according to the New York Times and the Paradise Papers. This means that Mueller is now in a position to bust Kushner like a piñata, leaving Kushner little choice but to cut a deal against Trump if he wants to avoid prison. Not only will this destroy Trump’s presidency, it’ll destroy his family. And it’s just the start of the fireworks.
Trump’s Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross was busted yesterday for his own massive secret financial connections to Putin. He’ll likely have to cut a deal himself and he may be in a unique position to expose Trump’s own suspected financial ties to Putin. There was also the revelation that Michael Flynn is about to be arrested and he may cut a deal against Trump in order to keep his own son out of prison.
Then there’s the bizarre storyline about Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort facing possible murder charges in Ukraine. This fouls up any attempt by Trump at pardoning Manafort to try to keep him quiet. It also makes the Trump-Russia scandal look incredibly real in the minds of the public, now that murders are involved. Holy crap is Trump screwed.
The post Holy crap is Donald Trump screwed appeared first on Palmer Report.
Saved Stories - Trump Investigations | ||
| Saved Stories - Trump Investigations: Donald Trump: Trump declares end to era of strategic patience over North Korea | ||
| Saved Stories - Trump Investigations | ||
| Saved Stories - Trump Investigations: trump authoritarianism - Google News: A defining element of US policy will be missing in Trump's Asia tour - CNBC | ||
Saved Stories - Trump Investigations | ||
| Saved Stories - Trump Investigations: Palmer Report: Rick Gates may have to flip on Paul Manafort to keep his own wife out of prison | ||
Rick Gates is best known as the other Donald Trump campaign adviser who got arrested this week, after the higher profile arrest of Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort grabbed the bulk of the headlines. Based on new details surfacing about the legal cases against them, the two men are closely intertwined financially, meaning Gates could flip rather authoritatively on Manafort. Now it turns out Gates may have to flip on Manafort in order to save his own wife.
Manafort and Gates were both arrested on charges of laundering money from Russia into the United States, as payment they had received for getting a Kremlin puppet elected in Ukraine. That money was funneled through Bank of Cyprus, which is now cooperating with the Trump-Russia investigation. Gates has dozens of bank accounts and may have been hiding tens of millions of dollars in assets, according to a report from the Washington Post (link), which also contains this vital sentence: “In August, his wife transferred more than $1 million to a joint brokerage account.”
If it can be demonstrated that Rick Gates’ wife knew this money was dirty at the time she transferred $1 million of it from Bank of Cyprus to the United States, then she can be charged with money laundering or related crimes as well. She could avoid charges by flipping on her husband, who would then be backed into a corner and have little choice but to flip on Manafort. Alternately, Gates could keep his wife out of prison by flipping on Manafort.
This may in fact be why Rick Gates’ wife hasn’t yet been arrested. Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be giving Gates the opportunity to cut a deal that would protect his wife, while also threatening to arrest his wife if that deal isn’t reached promptly. It quite a giveaway that Mueller’s filings against Rick Gates include the detail about his wife. If Gates flips on Manafort, then Manafort will have to flip on Donald Trump.
The post Rick Gates may have to flip on Paul Manafort to keep his own wife out of prison appeared first on Palmer Report.
Saved Stories - Trump Investigations | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): Trump and Russia - Google News: Guardian journalist has book coming on Trump and Russia - Washington Post | ||
1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): trump and russia - Google News: Guardian Journalist Has Book Coming on Trump and Russia - U.S. News & World Report | ||
1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) | ||
| Conspiracy Against US - Google News: President Trump says he expects to meet with Putin during Asia trip - 10TV | ||
 Conspiracy Against US - Google News | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): putin won US 2016 election - Google News: President Trump says he expects to meet with Putin during Asia trip - 10TV | ||
1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) | ||
| 1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites): putin won US 2016 election - Google News: As Putin puffs his chest, DC could turn to us for help - Crosscut | ||
1. Trump from mikenova (196 sites) |
Share this article
