#Turkey says it has detained seven people, including a special detective, suspected of spying for Israel’s #Mossad intelligence service.https://t.co/l7CVRXfVpY
— Al Arabiya English (@AlArabiya_Eng) March 5, 2024
Author: Mike Nova
https://t.co/yYsjbKOUoM – Psychology of FBI and Police informants#NewsAndTimes #NT #TNT #News #Times#World #USA #POTUS #DOJ #FBI #CIA #DIA #ODNI#Israel #Mossad #Netanyahu#Ukraine #NewAbwehr #OSINT#Putin #Russia #GRU #Путин, #Россияhttps://t.co/O0SIgLVWzM…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) March 5, 2024
#FBI FBI – Psychology of informants – GS https://t.co/pZjPzdAucU – “THEIR LACK OF GUILT FEELINGS” indicates (along with other signs) that informants in general are PSYCHOPATHS by their nature and can deceive their handlers just as easily as they betray those on whom they inform. pic.twitter.com/0wdXIvHjLt
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) March 5, 2024
The Psychology of the FBI and Police informants
The Psychology of the FBI and Police informants – Google Searches – 3.6.24
Psychology of FBI and Police informants – Google SearchThe FBI and Police Informants and their Lying kinds – Google SearchLying FBI and Police informants – Google Searchinformants – Google Searchsnitch – Google SearchFBI Informants – Google Searchpolice informants – Google Searchcredibility and reliability of informants – Google Searchexamples of informants – Google SearchPsychology of informants – Google SearchTypology of informants – Google SearchMotivations of informants – Google Search
Episode 134 has been uploaded.
iHeart Radio link; list of all podcasts there
Omny.FM link; list of all podcasts there
ivoox also carries his podcasts.
YouTube, later
A-Block
- Trump appears to be suffering from a condition called “Fluent Aphasia.”
- Victims can verbalize intricate long sentences, and appear to be answering questions or making coherent observations. But frequently all they have is the structure and the cadence of coherence; the rhythm of speech. They do not fully understand what they are hearing, cannot convey what they are trying to through speech, and are almost invariably the victims of strokes or head injuries. All attempts to explain “Fluent Aphasia” (or by its formal name, “Wernicke’s Aphasia”) use the phrase “word salad.”
My personal choice is “Markov Chains.” When you look at the phrase level, the phrase might make sense, but overall, things wander. A (relatively) simple program can be written which picks up these 2- or 3-word units, picks a random word to start things with, and then looks for a way to continue the sentence.
Here’s an example of the output, where the source text is the Declaration of Independence.
Head of the Laws for their exercise; the Right of peace, Standing Armies without our frontiers, the population of Nature’s God entitle them, a multitude of human events, it is their substance. Civil power. Representation in many cases, of Lands. Charters, abolishing the tenure of their just powers of the most barbarous ages, sexes and altering fundamentally the People to which impel them shall seem most wholesome and to pass others to pass others to encourage their substance.
Back to Keith.
- And after a three-day series of speeches in which, on literally dozens of occasions, he said things that SOUNDED like sentences but were not, the evidence is mounting and the problem is accelerating: the Trump word salad is “Fluent Aphasia” and on top of all of Trump’s other mental and ethical problems, it is disqualifying.
- He cannot be President. His brain literally does not work correctly,
- MEANWHILE: “Course I’m respectable,” says John Huston as Noah Cross in Chinatown to Jack Nicholson as Jake Gittes in Chinatown. “I’m OLD. Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable, if they LAST long enough.” And then there’s what happens when you’re all three of those things — as the Supreme Court and its justices are all three of those things: Politicians pretending to be justices, working in an ugly building, and as Trump relied upon and was proved correct — they’re all whores.
- “Because the Constitution makes Congress rather than the states responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal office holders and candidates, we reverse,” reads the Court’s decision to not enforce the 14th Amendment denying insurrectionists the right to become President or hold other offices. 9-nothing. Except it DOESN’T do that. Section 3, as conservative scholar after conservative scholar has repeatedly stated, is SELF-enforcing. It is automatic. If you engaged in insurrection, you’re out. If you think you’re being ill-treated, Section 3 provides you an override mechanism: you can get the House AND the Senate to each CLEAR you, each by a two-thirds vote. Period. The Constitution says NOTHING about an enforcement responsibility.
- The Court betrayed democracy yesterday — again: this time by going faster to help Trump. On Presidential immunity, it’s going SLOWER to help Trump. Its members, including Jackson and Kagan and Sotomayor, who before folding, stood up just long enough to wave BYE BYE to representative government, overruled one of the easiest parts of the Constitution to understand for the benefit of one corrupt politician. Individually and as an entity they have proved themselves inept at basic reading comprehension. They have proved themselves to be corrupt and illegitimate. Its usefulness and relevance is at an end, and whatever replaces it, the immediate need is obvious: The Supreme Court must be dissolved.
- The funny part, of course, is that these idiots have inadvertently given the current sitting President (a Mr. Biden, I believe) a kind of qualified, specific immunity from prosecution in case HE wants to illegally overturn an election.
B-Block
- POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: Another reporter claims Trump is about to pivot and Trump promptly makes her look like an idiot. Trump’s new vaccine promise: I’m here to kill your kids. Trump shortens his National Abortion Ban plan. Jack Smith says no, the DOJ 60-Day Secret Unwritten Rule does NOT apply to cases already filed against Trump. And farewell to my old friend Chris Mortensen go ESPN.
- THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Jesse Watters says Biden “licking ice cream” is unmanly and implies he has Alzheimer’s. That’s before they found the post from five years ago of Watters … licking ice cream.
What’s that you say, Jesse? https://t.co/yEnPzWqlOh pic.twitter.com/1I6DrM9Tlc
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) February 28, 2024
“I’m Watters and this is my world.” Evidently, there’s no stigma against hypocrisy in his world.
- Darrell Leon McClanahan III, the would-be Republican nominee for Governor of Missouri,
Whenever I see “III” or “IV” after someone’s name, I wonder about what kind of family isn’t creative enough to think up a new name for their kid (usually son).
I’ve also wondered whether I should append “I” to my name.
- is suing because, he claims, he was only an HONORARY member of the KKK,
Missouri Republican party announced that they were working to remove Darrell Leon McClanahan III from the primary ballot. Black former Republican shared a photo of McClanahan doing what appears to be a Nazi salute in front a burning cross.https://t.co/HCxZRjimuX via @TheRoot
— Leon Dash (@DashDeCosta) March 1, 2024
You mean the Republican party has standards?
C-Block
- THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: My oldest enemy — the one I thought was killed off in the ’80s — turns out to be alive and well. My half century battle against “The Auto Train” and its stopped-up toilets of 1972.
Good morning, good afternoon, good night, and good luck!
States can’t kick Trump off ballot, Supreme Court says
The result — which came one day before the Super Tuesday primaries — was expected. During oral arguments on Feb. 8, justices across the ideological spectrum signaled that they were uncomfortable with allowing individual states to assess the eligibility of presidential candidates accused of insurrection.
Monday’s 13-page opinion echoed that concern. Allowing states to make that judgment could result in an inconsistent and dangerous patchwork of conflicting rulings, with a candidate appearing on some states’ ballots but not on others, the court wrote.
“An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times,” the court’s principal opinion said. No individual justice was listed as the author of that opinion; instead, the opinion was labeled as “per curiam,” a legal phrase meaning on behalf of the court.
“Nothing in the Constitution,” the opinion continued, “requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.”
The three liberal justices wrote a separate opinion, saying that they agreed with the result but that they would have issued a narrower ruling that left open the possibility of federal courts disqualifying Trump or another candidate alleged to have engaged in insurrection.
“Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announced novel rules for how that enforcement must operate,” Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in their joint concurrence, referring to the section of the 14th Amendment that contains the insurrection clause. The court’s main opinion, those three justices wrote, “reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.”
The court’s main opinion referenced the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol only in a recitation of the chronology of the case in the lower courts, but otherwise did not discuss it in any of its analysis. Nor did the court assess Trump’s role in the attack, a central aspect of the case in Colorado.
In December, Colorado’s Supreme Court became the first court in the nation to find Trump ineligible to run for the presidency, with a split, 4-3 ruling finding that the former president should be kept off the ballot there. Trump “did not merely incite the insurrection,” the Colorado court wrote; he “continued to support it” while rioters attacked the Capitol.
Shortly after the Colorado decision, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, made the same determination on similar grounds. And last week, a state judge in Illinois ordered him removed from the GOP primary ballot there for the same reasons.
All three state-level decisions have been on hold while the Supreme Court reviewed the issue on an expedited timeline.
And Monday’s decision from the high court effectively nullifies each of them, as well as dozens of other similar challenges in other states.
“State-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that ‘the President … represent[s] all the voters in the Nation,’” the high court’s main opinion said.
In addition to the separate opinion from the three liberal justices, Justice Amy Coney Barrett — who was appointed by Trump in the waning days of his presidency — also wrote a separate one-page opinion of her own.
“The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up,” Barrett wrote.
“For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home,” she continued.
The case dragged the Supreme Court into the upcoming presidential election in a near-unprecedented way, asking the court to rule on the political future of the likely Republican presidential nominee.
Trump reacted quickly, posting “big win for America!!!” in all caps on his social media website. A spokesperson for the White House said it did not have a comment on the decision.
But it is also far from the last time the high court will deliver a decision with the potential to have a sweeping impact on Trump’s prospects for reelection.
Last week, the justices agreed to hear Trump’s challenge to a federal appeals court ruling that rejected his claims of presidential immunity from criminal charges related to his bid to try to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Their ruling on that question could dictate whether Trump faces a federal trial in Washington on those charges beginning in late summer or fall, at the height of the presidential campaign.
The case decided Monday originated in Colorado, where the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington organized challengers — including a 91-year-old GOP former legislative leader — who argued Trump was not eligible to run because of Jan. 6. Another organization, Free Speech for People, has backed similar challenges in states across the country, and the theory had a strange coalition of supporters that included prominent liberal and conservative legal academics as well as a conservative former federal judge who advised then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject the so-called “fake electors” three years ago.
While Colorado’s high court officially ordered Trump removed from the Republican primary ballot, the state court also put its own decision on hold to allow Trump to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, ballots were printed ahead of the state’s primary Tuesday and mail-in voting has proceeded with Trump’s name on the official list of candidates.
The justices did not observe their usual custom of taking the bench as they delivered the politically pivotal ruling Monday morning. Instead, the opinion was released online and to the press and public on paper at the court.
The News And Times Review – Posts