Newsbud Report with Peter B. Collins

In this debut episode of “Newsbud with Peter B. Collins,” we put President Obama’s historic visits to Vietnam and Hiroshima, Japan in context with his activities regarding the nuclear arsenal and his expansion of the U.S. military. We also cover Israel’s new defense minister, Bayer’s bid for Monsanto and the pervasive impact of the herbicide, Roundup, and provide updates on America’s surveillance state. Our feature interview is with two election analysts who suspect manipulation of election results in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

We have 16 more days to reach our goal! Please, share our Newsbud Weekly News with everyone you know via email, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Instagram, and other networks, and help us succeed. And remember, this is a four-phase process. Every dollar we receive above $150K will get us closer to being fully operational and reduce the number of campaigns we have to run.

*Please come, join and support our goal of a one-hundred-percent people-funded media. Don’t wait. Make a pledge today- because it is not only a pledge; it’s a statement.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.


  1. gfc2012 says:

    Thanks newsbud team, great information and report! Cant wait for newsbud to be fully operational!

  2. President Netenyahu ‘intending to seize the new opportunities for peace’ from the already stolen lands of Palestine; and President Professor of Law, Obama’ orating the ‘need of human institutions to evolve alongside the ever more efficient killing machines” – from the lawns of Hiroshima – while as Commander in Chief saluting US military ‘Justice’ torturing Habeas Corpus Law to death in Guantanamo – pretty well sums up the problem.

    KSM . Motion to Recuse Military Judge (Army Colonel James Pohl) and the Current Prosecution Team and for Further Appropriate Relief. 10.May, 2016.3. OVERVIEW.
    “This motion arises from facts and events summarized below, and described in in more detail in references 1-6, Classified Attachment B.

    In summary, the government sought permission from the Military Commission to dispose of certain evidence that had important guilt-phase and mitigation value. The defence filed an objection to the proposed disposal, and the Military Judge issued an order directing the government to ensure the evidence was not destroyed pending further order of this Commission.
    As a result, counsel for Mr. Mohammad reasonably understood that timely notice would be provided if the Commission decided to alter or rescind the Order and permit the government to destroy the evidence. In direct reliance on the Commission’s assurances, Mr. Mohammad refrained from seeking further orders to maintain the status quo, to include a stay from the Commission, or interlocutory relief or writ of prohibition to prevent the destruction of the evidence.
    Indeed, unless and until the Commission provided defence counsel further notice, and the defence were able to allege that the order barring destruction been withdrawn or substantively revised, initiating litigation of an appeal or a writ of prohibition would have been premature as a matter of law.
    Meanwhile, during the period that the controlling order remained in effect publicly, the government communicated ex parte and in camera with the Military Judge seeking authorisation to destroy the evidence; the Military Judge, in an ex parte, sealed and classified order, which the defence was not permitted to read, GRANTED the government’s request; and the government hereafter destroyed the evidence – all without giving fully-cleared defence counsel for Mr. Mohammad even a hint as to the changes until more than 18 months after the Commission’s issuance of the ex-parte destruction order, and waiting more than 20 months before disclosing to cleared defence counsel a partially-redacted though still classified version of the destruction order.” [emphasis added]
    “The test for the appearance of partiality on the part of a judge so as to require recusal is whether an objective, disinterested observer fully informed of the facts would entertain a significant doubt that justice was done. The question to be asked is: Would a hypothetical onlooker be trouble by what happened?”[pp 12 below]

    And, Just in case we didn’t get it the first time:
    “The prosecution further informed the defence, and Military Judge, that the government never had any intention of disclosing the material, exculpatory evidence to the defence, and in the future it will not disclose similar evidence to the defence, irrespective of the sanctions that the Military Commission might impose for the government’s wilful behaviour.”

Speak Your Mind