The UN Security Council has condemned the killing of veteran Al Jazeera
reporter Shireen Abu Aqla and called for an immediate probe into her
The UN Security Council has condemned the killing of veteran Al Jazeera
reporter Shireen Abu Aqla and called for an immediate probe into her
Clashes erupt during journalist’s funeral in Jerusalem (VIDEOS)
Israeli police blamed the violence on Palestinian “rioters” who allegedly pelted the hospital compound from which the funeral procession began with stones. Policemen “were forced to act,” Tel Aviv insisted, with security forces deploying crowd control measures to disperse the “rioters.”
from the scene shows Israeli police charging the funeral procession and
beating Palestinians with batons. People carrying the reporter’s coffin
were apparently targeted as well, nearly dropping the casket on the
ground. At least 10 Palestinians were injured in the violence.
Akleh was killed on Wednesday during a military raid on the city of
Jenin in the northern part of the West Bank. The Palestinian authorities
were quick to blame the Israeli forces for her death, claiming the
51-year-old journalist was shot in her head. Another Palestinian
journalist, Ali Samoudi, was reportedly wounded in the back during the
deadly raid on the city. He was hospitalized in stable condition.
Al Jazeera, a state-owned Qatari network, has strongly condemned the killing of the reporter, branding it a “heinous crime” and pinning the blame on Israel for her death.
“We hold the Israeli government and the occupation forces responsible for the killing of the late colleague Shireen,” the network said in a statement, urging an independent and transparent investigation.
Israel has expressed its readiness to conduct a joint probe into the
incident with the Palestinian authorities, it demanded they surrender
the bullet that mortally wounded Abu Akleh. The Palestinian Authority,
however, has rejected the initiative.
On Friday, the Israeli
military released an interim report on the incident. The report,
however, lacked any conclusions, merely stating it was impossible to
determine whether the fatal bullet was fired by Israeli troops or some
Defense attorneys are seeking to identify and investigate 80 suspicious actors and material witnesses, some of whom allegedly ran an entrapment operation against the Oath Keepers on January 6, 2021, and committed crimes including the removal of security fencing, breaching police lines, attacking officers, and inciting crowds to storm into the Capitol.
Legal scrutiny, better late than never:
In a motion … filed after 11 p.m. on May 5 in federal court in Washington, attorney Brad Geyer listed 80 people, some of whom he said could be government agents or provocateurs. The people are seen on video operating in a coordinated fashion across the Capitol grounds on January 6, the attorney alleged. … Video evidence the defense gained access to only recently shows that some of the 80 people attacked police, other people, and members of the Oath Keepers; entered the Capitol on the west side “with apparent permission or acquiescence of government actors”; opened the Columbus Doors on the east side of the Capitol “from the inside, possibly with even further assistance of government actors”; and deployed “sophisticated crowd-behavior techniques,” orienting themselves between protesters and police. Suspicious actors are seen on video “associating, conferring and traveling with others, engaging in behavior to confuse law enforcement through body masking, facial masking, clothing changes, and disorienting skirmishing behavior,” Geyer wrote. The suspected people used earpieces, satellite phones, and other communication equipment. “Often it appears that these communications devices do not seem to be affected by capacity restriction or sophisticated jamming that was evident throughout the day,” Geyer wrote. “If it can be established that these SAs [suspicious actors] were government agents, this could amount to entrapment defense that will dispose of this 7th indictment prior to trial,” the motion said. … Geyer suggested the Oath Keepers who entered the Capitol Rotunda through the famous Columbus Doors atop the east stairs were entrapped by suspicious actors who boxed them in and attempted to push them into the Capitol after the doors were opened from the inside. … Video shot by a French television crew, and surveillance footage under court seal raise “significant concerns of informants, influencers, and inciters whose activities are now clearly observable,” said a footnote in the motion. …
Videos referenced in Geyer’s motion show that the 17-foot-high, 20,000-pound bronze Columbus Doors were closed when the crowd gathered at the bottom of the steps and then breached the police line. When the crowd reached the top, the fortress-like doors were still shut. It’s not clear when, or why, the doors were opened.
That significant revelation backs up arguments made in January by attorney Jonathon Moseley, who told prosecutors his client, Kelly Meggs, could not have breached the doors because they are controlled from inside the Capitol. “The outer doors cast from solid bronze would require a bazooka, an artillery shell, or C4 military-grade explosives to breach,” Moseley wrote in a letter to federal prosecutors. “That of course did not happen. You would sooner break into a bank vault than to break the bronze outer Columbus Doors.” … The two inner doors are secured by magnetic locks and cannot be opened from the outside. Twice within an hour on January 6, suspicious actors opened the inner doors from inside the Rotunda, surveillance video shows. According to Geyer’s filing, a large number of suspicious actors controlled the scene directly in front of the Columbus Doors after the giant doors were opened. They chased away regular protesters with pepper spray and moved other actors into place. The Oath Keepers, each of whom was shadowed by at least one suspicious actor, were positioned and coaxed toward the entrance. Six to eight suspicious actors attacked police with mace in preparation to breach the entrance, Geyer wrote. …
The Jan 6 Capitol riot is increasingly looking like a modern Reichstag fire. Coming after the Russia hoax (which turned out to be completely made up by the Clinton camp, but which dominated politics for three years and hamstrung Trump) and the Governor Whitmer kidnapping acquittals (because the incident was just FBI entrapment), a Capitol riot organized by the FBI would appear to be just standard operating procedure. Remember, the sole effect of the riot that day was to cancel the two hour debate on election shenanigans scheduled for that date. The election college voting on the President went ahead as scheduled. And of course since then we have the whole MAGA-are-terrorists vibe that the Democrats are trying on.
Former New York City Mayor and Trump Attorney Rudy Giuliani is scheduled to “testify” before the House Jan. 6 Committee on Friday.
A source close to Giuliani told The Gateway Pundit that Rudy agreed to testify as long as it is recorded or broadcast live.
As the Gateway Pundit previously reported, the radicals on the January 6 Committee issued subpoenas to Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, and Boris Epshteyn last January and claimed they “publicly promoted unsupported claims about the 2020 election and participated in attempts to disrupt or delay the certification of election results.”
A judge vindicated Rudy of any involvement in violence on Jan 6 by a district judge appointed by Obama.
Rudy Giuliani agreed to testify if his appearance is broadcast on live TV or if he is able to record his testimony.
Giuliani says he wants to be transparent, but he lacks trust in Adam Schiff and other committee members because Adam Schiff lied to the American public about the Russian hoax for so long.
Rudy says, “I want to cooperate. I’ve always done the right thing.”
A source close to the Giuliani camp said, “Why should America’s Mayor be subjected to angry, misguided politically corrupt people? They would probably doctor his testimonies, transcripts, or his words. They are so untrustworthy, if polled today the committee may be lower than the frail Joe Biden.”
There have been credible reports Antifa was involved as well as the FBI, and the American people want a thorough and honest investigation. Has Nancy Pelosi been questioned? Did President Trump offer her the National guard and she refused? What about the videos of staff encouraging people to come into the Capitol?
Rudy Giuliani was scheduled to testify but the committee lacks transparency.
It was an absolutely wild Friday in Washington, D.C. Earlier, as Matt covered, D.C. police responded to an active shooter in our nation’s capital, close to several embassies. Now, as Fox News’ Chad Pergram revealed in a video tweet from Friday night, a man has been taken away from the U.S. Supreme Court in a helicopter for medical attention, after he tried to light himself on fire.
A Fox News report from Pergram and Louis Casiano did not include a reason why the man tried to do such a thing. “The condition of Friday’s patient was not disclosed. Fox News has reached out to the Supreme Court Police,” the report also mentioned.
Comment by tonytran2015: So the way to escape scrutiny is to contract a foreign entity to do most parts of the work.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology has the right to ask a partnering lab in the U.S. to destroy all records of their work, according to a legal document obtained by U.S. Right to Know.
A memorandum of understanding between the Wuhan lab and the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch states that each lab can ask the other to return or “destroy” any so-called “secret files” — any communications, documents, data or equipment resulting from their collaboration — and ask that they wipe any copies.
The Biden Administration is destroying our Southern boarder to change the electorate of the United States. The carnage caused by the Biden Administration’s open boarder policy means nothing to them. It is obtaining one-party rule in America that they care about...
Source: Jesse Martin
In October of 2020 six men were arrested and charged for conspiracy to kidnap Michigan’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer. Two of the men have since plead guilty, leaving four defendants to stand trial.
Earlier today, it was announced that the jury was in deadlock over some of the charges levied against the four defendants. Just now the verdict was released and the Justice Department got nothing that they wanted, with two of the men–Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta–being fully acquitted, while a mistrial was declared for the other two–Adam Croft and Barry Fox Jr–due to the jury being deadlocked.
In a Monday night filing, Durham revealed that he has an incriminating statement by Sussmann that dramatically undermined his defense. In the text message, Sussmann denied that he was representing anyone before his critical meeting with the FBI. He then repeated the false statement in that meeting as he pushed a false Russian collusion claim against Donald Trump.
Sussmann has been seeking the dismissal on the single charge under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for lying to the FBI in a meeting with the then-FBI General Counsel James Baker.
In the indictment, Sussmann is accused of “mak[ing] a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement or representation” in conversations with Baker. Durham argued that “the defendant provided the FBI General Counsel with purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank.”
That institution was Alfa Bank and Sussmann’s effort paralleled the work of his partner at the law firm Perkins Coie, Marc Elias, in pushing the Steele Dossier in a separate debunked collusion claim. The FEC recently fined the Clinton Campaign and the DNC for hiding the funding of the dossier as a legal cost by Elias at Perkins Coie.
The Clinton Campaign’s Alfa Bank conspiracy was found to be baseless but the FBI did not know that it was being offered by someone being paid by the campaign to spread the claim. Had they known, Durham alleges the department might have been able to avoid the investigation costs and effort spent on the Alfa matter.
Sussmann has sounded a lot like Michael Flynn in court as he argued that this was trivial and inconsequential comment. On Monday night, Durham lowered the boom. He revealed that, before the meeting, Sussmann sent “the same lie in writing” that his effort was “not on behalf of a client or company.”
Durham is seeking the introduction of a text message to Baker that said:
“Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”
Thus, Durham writes that
“on September 18, 2016 at 7:24 p.m., i.e., the night before the defendant met with the General Counsel, the defendant conveyed the same lie in writing and sent the following text message to the General Counsel’s personal cellphone.”
The filing is particularly notable after the FEC sanctions for hiding the Clinton Campaign’s funding of the Steele Dossier.
During the campaign, a few reporters did ask about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement. It was only weeks after the election that journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie.
New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
“It was not just reporters who asked the Clinton campaign about its role in the Steele dossier. John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.”
The text message greatly strengthens the case by undermining the argument that Sussmann’s concealment of the role of the Clinton Campaign was a single mistake or “one-off” occurrence. This could be used to show intent as part of a pattern of deceit.
Notably, the filings state that
“The defendant’s billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In compiling and disseminating these allegations, the defendant and Tech Executive-1 also had met and communicated with another law partner at Law Firm-1 who was then serving as General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign (“Campaign Lawyer-1″).”
“Campaign Lawyer-1” is a reference to Marc Elias, Sussmann’s partner at Perkins Coie who is accused to concealing the same connections with the Steele Dossier during the campaign.
Sussmann’s trial is scheduled to begin on May 16.