https://t.co/1ScDAUT5aO
BREAKING: China bought influence with Italy through illegal backdoor commissions worth over 72 million euros under the guise of 1.25 billion euro mega deal. The deal from March of 2020 gained them influence to 10 Leonardo SPA managers who are now currently under investigation.
https://t.co/1ScDAUT5aO
https://t.co/deZCJ2Jl4H
At the time of the deal Italy couldn't find any masks.
https://t.co/6Ip2uBhX5u
After the Chinese received the 1.25 billion from Italy, they turned around and funneled 72 million back into Benotti's company > Microproducts. (Link to article further down).
Laughing, Benotti says they were a "slot machine" and jokes about how easy it was to get 50,000,000 euros in "a quarter of an hour."
https://t.co/DTuXRjlsjT
The article quickly led to the investigation of Benotti & 3 others on December 4th.
Then on Dec. 5th, two arrests were made at Leonardo SPA for hacking.
China bought influence into Leonardo SPA in order to hack our election.
Why else would a cyber security expert who specializes in complex computer data algorithms be planted at the scene of the crime?
https://t.co/WTTba0Rb6U
NOW we also know he was not acting alone.. as reported.
https://t.co/poqOTeZaT8
Everyone in the Italian government knows what's going on. Sadly, it seems no one in America does..
😷😔
The only thing I want is the truth to come out & JUSTICE. I’m good with whatever that truth is.
God save us.. 🙏
In 2009 Obama hired Bill Lynn? He was hired on to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.
He is now the CURRENT CEO of Leonardo DRS? (Leonardo SPA’s U.S. owned site).
At the time even the MSM called it an “ethical dilemma”.
https://t.co/96VN4u5TvM
That Leonardo SPA in July, 2020 agreed to partner with Crowdstrike?
That’s the same Crowdstrike who has ties with the phony Russian collusion hoax.
Crowdstrike also announced in July they’re helping to “Secure elections globally.” 🧐
That Nancy Pelosi has made upward of 400,000 dollars since investing in Crowdstrike back in September? Exactly two months before the election.
As early as November 9th, that Leonardo SPA announced they have plans to go public with Leonardo DRS? Why?
They could still hear the echoes of a Biden win coming from MSM when they announced..
That Dmitri Alperovitch and Bill Lynn have ties dating back to 2012 under an Obama presidency?
That’s the current CEO’s of Crowdstrike and Leonardo DRS sitting on a cyber security panel together. 🧐
https://t.co/aLLh2MJHre
Crowdstrike continues to push a false Russian collusion narrative in 2020?
This week’s declassifications reveal Crowdstrike as total frauds who have been lying for years.
https://t.co/6WUrFCnEuX
Shawn Henry is current President of Crowdstrike services and former executive assistant director of the FBI?
Now where may we have seen that bald head before?
https://t.co/7yZg53ZZAU
More from Politics
My piece in the NY Times today: "the Trump administration is denying applications submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services at a rate 37 percent higher than the Obama administration did in 2016."
Based on this analysis: "Denials for immigration benefits—travel documents, work permits, green cards, worker petitions, etc.—increased 37 percent since FY 2016. On an absolute basis, FY 2018 will see more than about 155,000 more denials than FY 2016." https://t.co/Bl0naOO0sh
"This increase in denials cannot be credited to an overall rise in applications. In fact, the total number of applications so far this year is 2 percent lower than in 2016. It could be that the higher denial rate is also discouraging some people from applying at all.."
Thanks to @gsiskind for his insightful comments. The increase in denials, he said, is “significant enough to make one think that Congress must have passed legislation changing the requirements. But we know they have not.”
My conclusion:
Based on this analysis: "Denials for immigration benefits—travel documents, work permits, green cards, worker petitions, etc.—increased 37 percent since FY 2016. On an absolute basis, FY 2018 will see more than about 155,000 more denials than FY 2016." https://t.co/Bl0naOO0sh
"This increase in denials cannot be credited to an overall rise in applications. In fact, the total number of applications so far this year is 2 percent lower than in 2016. It could be that the higher denial rate is also discouraging some people from applying at all.."
Thanks to @gsiskind for his insightful comments. The increase in denials, he said, is “significant enough to make one think that Congress must have passed legislation changing the requirements. But we know they have not.”
My conclusion:
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
I\u2019m sorry it\u2019s just insane that Democrats are like, \u201cwe won everything and our opening position on relief is $1.9T\u201d and Republicans are like, \u201cwe lost and our opening position is $600B,\u201d and the media will be like, \u201cDemocrats say they want unity but reject this bipartisan deal.\u201d
— Meredith Shiner (@meredithshiner) January 31, 2021
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
