The film begins with the biography of the president, drawing on the archives of the East German political police kindly opened by the BKA [Federal Crime Police Office]. The problem is that there is no connection between the documents exhibited and Alexei Navalny's discourse. They only contain illustrations (wish the exception of the KGB card of one of President Putin's companions).

Then the film takes us back to the palace using new images captured by a drone. Here again, these images fall short of illustrating Alexeï Navalny's point. They simply show a palace built by Italian architect Lanfranco Cirillo.

Finally, Alexeï Navalny displays blueprints, cost estimates and invoices for the Palace. The only thing they prove is that this residence is luxurious. But these facts have been known for a long time. The Russian opposition figure then claims that the property deeds are forgeries. After convoluted explanations, he purports that the building does not belong to billionaire Alexander Ponomarenko, but to President Putin, whom he calls "the richest man in the world".

Let us recall that the CIA had already accused Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat of being secret billionaires. Forbes magazine had even confirmed such accounts which, after their death, turned out to be malevolent fabrications. Thus, the CIA attributed to Yasser Arafat ownership of the PLO funds that he managed in his own name, no bank being willing to receive funds from the Palestinian resistance. Everyone who knew Castro, Arafat and their families have never had any doubts about them.

The slipshod approach of the documentary does not argue in favor of Navalny.

Rotenberg, Putin's former judo sparring partner who sold his stake in gas pipeline construction firm Stroygazmontazh in 2019 for a sum which RBC business daily put at some 75 billion roubles ($990 million), said he bought the palace two years ago.

"Now it will no longer be a secret, I am the beneficiary," Rotenberg said in a video published by Mash channel in Telegram. "There was a rather complicated facility, there were a lot of creditors, and I managed to become the beneficiary."

He gave no further financial details of the purchase or how it had been funded.

He added that he intends to use the location as an apartment hotel, once it is finished.

"I like the hotel business...and have been involved in it for several years now," Rotenberg said, adding that he owns several 'objects' throughout Russia. He explained that the site in question has a troubled financial history, but he nevertheless acquired it a few years ago, putting faith in its "gorgeous" coastal location, near the resort town of Gelendzhik.

"This project is somewhat scandalous and difficult. But mark my words, in 12 or 18 months I'll invite you to witness for yourself what beauty it will be," he told Mash editor-in-chief, Maksim Iksanov, joking that the journalist may get a discount since he already visited the property.

Growing evidence of advance planning and coordination of the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol undermines claims that the rioters were responding spontaneously to former President Trump's speech to supporters about a mile and a half away, according to legal and intelligence experts.

As Senate Democrats mull their options for convicting or censuring Trump and banning him from future public office for allegedly inciting insurrection, experts said their incitement case against him was dealt a severe blow this week when federal prosecutors charged three men in the Capitol attack, alleging their communication and coordination dated back to November.

For speech to meet the threshold of incitement, a speaker must, first, indicate a desire for violence and, second, demonstrate a capability or reasonable indication of capability to carry out the violence, according to Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI.

In Trump's case, Brock said, there were neither.

In an interview Thursday, Brock told Just the News he listened to Trump's entire Jan. 6 speech. "I didn't hear a single word about — or anything that would trigger a reasonable person to believe that he was inciting — violence," he said. "He even used the words 'peaceful' and 'respectful.'"

Brock thinks that Trump "was caught by surprise at what happened" and was probably unaware of the segment of the crowd intent on violence. That was "a failure, frankly, on the intelligence that he should have been provided as president of the United States," Brock said. "We shouldn't be in a position where knuckleheads like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers can plan a disruptive violent event and it catches us by surprise."

Still unanswered are questions about how much House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell knew in advance of the potential for violence and when they knew it. Also unresolved are lingering questions surrounding the Pentagon's pre-attack offer to send National Guard troops to reinforce the Capitol Police.

See: "Incitement" timeline debunked as ex-Capitol police Chief says Pelosi & McConnell's Sergeants-at-Arms refused security measures

Brock, former principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), noted that Trump did use the word "march" in encouraging his supporters to march to the Capitol and voice their dissent during the floor proceedings to formally certify the 2020 Electoral College vote.

"But 'march' — we've had peaceful marches as part of our history — doesn't necessarily indicate automatic, violent response," Brock said. "So I think they'd be hard-pressed to prove that he was using words that were inciting violence."

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said during his speech at the Ellipse, according to a transcript. "Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated."

Brock, who is now consulting at a firm he founded called NewStreet Global Solutions, said such use of words urging "strength" to "take back our country" is far from uncommon in political speeches.

"Every other politician in this country uses those kinds of words and that kind of language," Brock said. "So I think to convict him on those words would open up politicians across both parties for future examination as to whether or not their words are inciting violence across the country. Frankly, I think a lot of them are exposed in that regard."

In a Senate floor speech, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) cited other examples that he said further undermine Democrats' claims that Trump incited the Capitol Hill riot.

"No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the [pro-Sanders] shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise," Paul said. "No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters" to confront Trump officials in public.

Brock said based on his assessment of Trump's claims questioning electoral integrity in key battleground states, Trump's language in the weeks and months leading up to Jan. 6, following the Nov. 3 election, "purely from a predication standpoint, for a federal investigation, those words would not be significant."

A politician expressing frustration, bitterness, or disbelief he or she lost "is not new in the American tradition," Brock said. "So that alone is not enough to have the FBI launch an investigation as to whether or not somebody is inciting an insurrection. If that were the case, we'd have to do it after every election."

Constitutional law scholar Alan Dershowitz told Just the News that a successful case by Democrats would depend on whether Trump knew about the planning of the Capitol Hill assault but that there was no evidence of that.

"If you didn't know about it, they had planned it without him, then you're missing the causal relationship," said the longtime Harvard Law School professor. "It would have happened without his speech as well. So that would be relevant on the issue of causation."

All of Trump's claims in the weeks and months before Jan. 6 about electoral malfeasance are protected by the First Amendment, said Dershowitz, a member of the president's defense team during his January 2020 impeachment trial.

Even while he personally disagreed with Trump's content, he said legally there was "nothing wrong, it's constitutionally protected, clearly" under the Brandenburg test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a court ruling used to determine whether inflammatory speech is intended to advocate illegal action. In Trump's case, said Dershowitz, it was "not even a close question" under Brandenburg,

"The Bible has caused violence, the Koran has caused violence. [Karl Marx's] 'Das Kapital' has caused violence," Dershowitz noted. "You can't be held responsible for making constitutionally protected arguments that lead others to engage in violence. Jefferson wrote about that in 1801. It goes way back in our history, we punish the actor, not the speaker."

Senate Democrats say they are considering whether or not they can utilize the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to bar President Trump from ever holding public office again. The 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War, in part directs that no individual may hold any public office in the country if he or she "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S. after taking an oath of office in support of the Constitution.

"It's an idea that's out there that I think people are contemplating in the accountability space," U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine told the Hill last week.

• NewsReal #32: Trump's Attempted Coup, or Successful Coup Against Trump?
• Newsreal #33: Strange Days in DC - Military Checkpoints as US Capital Awaits 'Virtual Inauguration'

The Italian government is reportedly set to announce an easing of Covid-19 restrictions in certain regions despite warnings from health experts that it is too soon to relax measures designed to control the spread of the virus.

Veneto, near Venice, Calabria in the south, and Emilia-Romagna in the north of the country are all expected to be downgraded from 'orange' to 'yellow' zones, according to local reports. The move would allow bars and restaurants to reopen, as well giving residents more freedom to move around their areas.

The World Health Organization, however, has warned that it is "too early to ease up," as there is "still [a] very high" presence of the virus in the country.

A public health expert who advises the Italian health minister has echoed this note of caution, telling AFP that Italy was "bucking the trend," while other European nations remain in lockdown and some are even considering stricter measures.

Students in Russia will soon be dusting off their travelcards as the country prepares for a return to traditional, in-person teaching at universities and colleges, with Covid-19 lockdown measures due to be relaxed.

The Ministry of Education and Science announced on Friday morning that it had ordered academic chiefs to organize the reopening of classrooms and lecture halls, taking into account both local laws and the opinions of an institution's students.

"At the same time," officials said, "universities will need to take preventative measures." Specifically, they will be expected to "create conditions for hygiene by providing antiseptic handwash, ensuring the temperature-checking of everyone present, enforcing mask-wearing and social distancing, and airing classrooms during breaks." They will open their doors from February 8.

...

The news comes as Russia begins to relax other pandemic-prevention measures amid a downturn in the number of positive tests. Earlier this week, students will be relieved to hear, the capital dropped its ban on nightclubs, bars, and restaurants opening past 11pm, paving the way for a resurgence of the city's nightlife.

• 'I've been shot!': AOC shrieks as Ted Cruz greets her with set of friendly finger guns
• AOC: I didn't attend Biden's inauguration in part because I don't 'feel safe' around Republicans
• AOC declares Stalin was actually center-right: No Green New Deal proves it
• AOC proposes funding to 'deprogram white supremacists'
• AOC says commission being 'discussed' to help 'rein in' media environment after Capitol riot
• Poll: Majority of Americans hate socialism, don't much like Ocasio-Cortez
• Goya Foods CEO names Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 'employee of the month' when her boycott spiked his sales
• For just $58! AOC's 'Tax the Rich' sweatshirts combine socialist slogans with a capitalist price tag

• Revenge of the Sith: Feds, media want blood, label Capitol Hill rioters domestic terrorists
• The New Domestic War on Terror is Coming
• Homeland Security issues 'national terrorism alert' - because 'domestic terrorists' are very scary
• Matthew Ehret: How the FBI created 'domestic terrorism' through 80 years of psychological warfare
• Ben Swann interviews Gad Saad: Dems want a war on 'domestic terror'
• White House launches 'comprehensive threat assessment' on domestic extremism
• Biden or Bush? Democrats and neocons clamor to bring the 'war on terror' home, targeting Trump supporters as 'domestic terrorists'
• Americans are being divided as the war on 'domestic terror' expands