x.com9h
x.com12h
x.com13h
x.com17h
x.com20h
x.com20h
x.com22h
The News And Times Information Network – Blogs By Michael Novakhov – thenewsandtimes.blogspot.com
Category: The News And Times Blog
Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
#SouthCaucasus
share.google/aimode/m9V4kd1
Does the case of #RamizMehdiyev qualify for the “#HighTreason” charges based on his recently published “letter”?
In my #opinion, it does not.
More than that: his outline is the viable alternative for the Aliyev’s plans for the hereditary monarchy, which are all too evident. And it does not contain calls for the violent overthrow of the current government.
share.google/aimode/m9V4kd1
Does the case of #RamizMehdiyev qualify for the “#HighTreason” charges based on his recently published “letter”?
In my #opinion, it does not.
More than that: his outline is the viable alternative for the Aliyev’s plans for the hereditary monarchy, which are all too evident. And it does not contain calls for the violent overthrow of the current government.
AI Mode
57 minutes ago
Determining if the case of
Ramiz Mehdiyev qualifies for “High Treason” charges is a complex legal matter, dependent on the specific legal definitions within Azerbaijani law, interpretation of evidence, and due process
. According to news reports from October 2025, Azerbaijani state-aligned media outlets accused Mehdiyev of attempting a coup with Russian support, although the basis for these charges has not been independently verified.Context of the alleged “letter” and charges
In mid-October 2025, multiple reports emerged from Azerbaijani news sources, citing an unnamed source within the APA news agency, that alleged former presidential chief of staff Ramiz Mehdiyev had planned a coup.
- The reports claimed that Mehdiyev had shared a plan with Russia to seize power and establish an interim State Council, which he would lead.
- The Kremlin reportedly refused to support the plan and informed Azerbaijani authorities of Mehdiyev’s activities.
- Mehdiyev was subsequently dismissed from the Security Council.
However, the specific “letter” you are asking about has not been publicly detailed in these reports. The accusations are centered on an alleged plot to seize power, not a specific published letter. Some sources suggest the “letter” may refer to publications or articles written by Mehdiyev over the years. These publications, or any recent communications, would be examined in the context of the alleged coup plot to determine their relevance to a high treason charge.
Azerbaijani law on high treason
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code, specifically Article 274, defines high treason as a deliberate action by a citizen to harm the country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, state security, or defense capability. This can include:
- Switching to the enemy’s side.
- Espionage.
- Distributing state secrets to foreign entities.
- Assisting foreign states or organizations in hostile activities against Azerbaijan.
A 2024 amendment strengthened these laws, increasing the maximum sentence to 20 years in prison. Critics have expressed concern that these laws could be used to silence opponents, as exemplified by the prosecution of human rights advocates on politically motivated treason charges in the past.
Qualification of charges
Whether Mehdiyev’s case qualifies for a high treason charge depends on several key factors:
- Proof of intent: The prosecution would need to prove that Mehdiyev’s actions were deliberately intended to harm Azerbaijan’s state security or sovereignty.
- Nature of the actions: The specific actions, whether publishing a document or plotting with a foreign government, must meet the legal criteria outlined in Article 274 of the Criminal Code.
- Interpretation of the “letter”: If a specific “letter” is used as evidence, the interpretation of its contents and intent would be critical. In the context of the alleged coup plot, it could be interpreted as part of a hostile action or aiding a foreign power.
- Political context: International observers often note that treason charges in Azerbaijan can be politically motivated. The recent negative media campaign against Mehdiyev following his dismissal and the sensitive nature of the alleged plot suggests a strong political component.
Ultimately, the official determination of whether the case qualifies as high treason would be made by the Azerbaijani legal system, and potentially be influenced by the ongoing political landscape.
–
Articles and Tweets
“Dark Money” in Politics – 10.27.25
- “Dark Money” in Politics – Google Search
- Cash Machines in Politics: roles, structures, dynamics, election outcomes – Google Search
- The Counterintelligence Aspects of the political money mchines, the dark money, and their roles on the election outcomes in us – Google Search
- Zohran Mamdani and his cash machine – Google Search
- –
There were cheers in Ukraine and the EU when Donald Trump’s administration sanctioned …
Articles and Tweets
2 hours ago
On Friday, October 24, 2025, major news stories include the continuing U.S. government shutdown, new sanctions imposed by the U.S. against Russia, developments in the sports betting scandal involving NBA figures, and a strong hurricane approaching the
#SouthCaucasus
THAT’S HOW THE #AZERBAIJAN #SSS OPERATES:
#LIARS, #FABRICATORS, NO-BRAINS DISGUSTING STINKERS!
INVESTIGATE AND REFORM THESE MF-S NOW!!!
IT IS THEM WHO ARE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO SECURITY!
12 hours inside State Security Service of Azerbaijan – a personal experience | Cavid Ağa cavid.info/12-hours-insid
Quote: “Bahruz stood accused of collaborating with Armenian intelligence services. Yet the SSS interrogators frequently veered into bizarre tangents that seemed to have little bearing on matters of national security. At one point, they asked whether Bahruz belonged to a “sexual minority” — a question that left me genuinely puzzled about its relevance to a treason case. With dark humour born of exhaustion and absurdity, I replied that as far as I knew, he was quite the opposite — a notorious womaniser. I knew that they were looking for ways to humiliate Bahruz on TV. This indeed happened a few days later.”
THAT’S HOW THE #AZERBAIJAN #SSS OPERATES:
#LIARS, #FABRICATORS, NO-BRAINS DISGUSTING STINKERS!
INVESTIGATE AND REFORM THESE MF-S NOW!!!
IT IS THEM WHO ARE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO SECURITY!
12 hours inside State Security Service of Azerbaijan – a personal experience | Cavid Ağa cavid.info/12-hours-insid
Quote: “Bahruz stood accused of collaborating with Armenian intelligence services. Yet the SSS interrogators frequently veered into bizarre tangents that seemed to have little bearing on matters of national security. At one point, they asked whether Bahruz belonged to a “sexual minority” — a question that left me genuinely puzzled about its relevance to a treason case. With dark humour born of exhaustion and absurdity, I replied that as far as I knew, he was quite the opposite — a notorious womaniser. I knew that they were looking for ways to humiliate Bahruz on TV. This indeed happened a few days later.”
See more at: SSS – Azerbaijan – GS
Articles and Tweets
Report: #fbi Informants Aren’t Getting Paid During #governmentshutdown by @JD_Cashless https://t.co/MsA0MIXxt1 pic.twitter.com/hFdWRrrWFz
— Headline USA (@HeadlineUSA) October 22, 2025
Regarding the query, here is an analysis based on the provided search results:
The claim that the FBI will not pay its informants
This claim is false. The FBI does compensate informants for their information or expenses, though they are not employees. Payment amounts are based on the value of the information provided. The misconception that the FBI doesn’t pay informants likely arises from issues that occur during government shutdowns, where funding is temporarily cut off. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The claim that America cannot function and survive without its informants
This claim is debatable. Informants, including confidential ones, are essential tools for law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, as they provide critical insider information that can lead to intelligence gathering, case building, and convictions. Some law enforcement officials even argue that informants are necessary for crime-fighting. However, the use of informants is controversial due to potential issues such as:
- Incentivizing false testimony
- Endangering informants and others
- Cooperating with individuals who may continue to commit crimes [8, 9, 10, 11]
The claim that America is a “snitching society”
Whether America is a “snitching society” is a matter of perspective and depends on the specific context.
- The use of criminal informants is a well-established practice within the U.S. justice system, with tens of thousands of criminal suspects working as informants annually.
- The growth of informant programs has led to concerns that it encourages and normalizes the practice of “snitching,” blurring ethical lines and potentially eroding trust in the justice system.
- Some see the use of informants as a necessary part of law enforcement, while others view it more negatively.
- The “no-snitching” code is prevalent in some communities, including among some police officers, highlighting the moral complexities and differing attitudes toward informing. [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]
In summary, the claim that the FBI never pays informants is incorrect, while the other two claims about America’s reliance on informants and its status as a “snitching society” are subjects of ongoing debate and reflect differing perspectives on the role of informants in the justice system. [3, 7, 11, 16]
AI responses may include mistakes.
AI Mode
Recent news reports from October 2025 indicated that the FBI could not pay its informants because of a government shutdown
. This was a temporary effect of the congressional budget standoff, not a permanent change in policy. The FBI has a formal process for compensating its informants, and their use is considered an essential, though controversial, component of law enforcement in the U.S..
The FBI does pay its informants
The claim that the FBI does not pay its informants is inaccurate. Informants—or confidential human sources—are not employees of the FBI, but they can be compensated for information and expenses.
- Payment guidelines: Payments are made according to a strict, tiered structure. The amount is based on the value of the information provided and factors like the significance of the case.
- Authorization levels: A special agent-in-charge can authorize payments of up to $100,000 per informant per fiscal year. Higher amounts require approval from successively higher levels of the FBI.
- Expense reimbursement: Informants may also receive reimbursement for expenses such as travel, housing, and other costs associated with their assistance.
- Asset forfeiture: In some cases, an informant can receive a share of the value of property forfeited as a result of their information, up to 25% of the net value.
The importance and controversy of using informants
The U.S. law enforcement system relies heavily on informants, a practice the courts have upheld as lawful and often essential for investigations.
The importance of informants
- Access to criminal networks: Informants, who are often embedded in criminal communities, provide crucial “insider” knowledge that is otherwise difficult for agents to obtain.
- Effectiveness in complex cases: Informants are especially valuable in complex criminal cases, such as those involving drug trafficking, organized crime, and counterterrorism.
- Officer safety: Using informants can reduce the need for agents to put themselves in dangerous undercover situations.
Controversy over informants
- Reliability: An informant’s motives can be complicated, ranging from financial gain to revenge or a desire for leniency in their own cases. This can compromise their reliability and introduce bias.
- Ethical and legal issues: The use of informants can involve deception and raises ethical and legal questions, especially concerning the reliability of the information they provide.
- Historical abuse: The FBI has a history of misusing informants, most notably during its COINTELPRO operations from 1956 to 1971, which targeted domestic political groups. These actions were later condemned by Congress for violating constitutional rights.
- Risks to informants: Informants face significant risks of retaliation from criminal associates and are often afforded minimal protection by law enforcement, particularly after they are no longer useful.
The concept of a “snitching society”
The idea that the U.S. is a “snitching society” is a broad characterization that speaks to the common use of informants, as well as the historical and cultural context surrounding them.
- Prevalence in law enforcement: The use of informants is a widespread practice across various law enforcement agencies, not just the FBI.
- Varying motivations: The term “snitch” or “informant” can apply to a wide range of people, from criminals seeking a plea deal to concerned citizens who provide tips with no expectation of reward.
- Cultural dimension: While some may view the reliance on informants negatively as a form of social corrosion, law enforcement sees it as a necessary tool for solving crimes that affect communities. The practice highlights the difficult balance between public safety and the ethical dilemmas inherent in relying on compromised or vulnerable individuals for information.
Recent news reports from October 2025 indicated that the FBI could not pay its informants because of a government shutdown
. This was a temporary effect of the congressional budget standoff, not a permanent change in policy. The FBI has a formal process for compensating its informants, and their use is considered an essential, though controversial, component of law enforcement in the U.S..
The FBI does pay its informants
The claim that the FBI does not pay its informants is inaccurate. Informants—or confidential human sources—are not employees of the FBI, but they can be compensated for information and expenses.
- Payment guidelines: Payments are made according to a strict, tiered structure. The amount is based on the value of the information provided and factors like the significance of the case.
- Authorization levels: A special agent-in-charge can authorize payments of up to $100,000 per informant per fiscal year. Higher amounts require approval from successively higher levels of the FBI.
- Expense reimbursement: Informants may also receive reimbursement for expenses such as travel, housing, and other costs associated with their assistance.
- Asset forfeiture: In some cases, an informant can receive a share of the value of property forfeited as a result of their information, up to 25% of the net value.
The importance and controversy of using informants
The U.S. law enforcement system relies heavily on informants, a practice the courts have upheld as lawful and often essential for investigations.
The importance of informants
- Access to criminal networks: Informants, who are often embedded in criminal communities, provide crucial “insider” knowledge that is otherwise difficult for agents to obtain.
- Effectiveness in complex cases: Informants are especially valuable in complex criminal cases, such as those involving drug trafficking, organized crime, and counterterrorism.
- Officer safety: Using informants can reduce the need for agents to put themselves in dangerous undercover situations.
Controversy over informants
- Reliability: An informant’s motives can be complicated, ranging from financial gain to revenge or a desire for leniency in their own cases. This can compromise their reliability and introduce bias.
- Ethical and legal issues: The use of informants can involve deception and raises ethical and legal questions, especially concerning the reliability of the information they provide.
- Historical abuse: The FBI has a history of misusing informants, most notably during its COINTELPRO operations from 1956 to 1971, which targeted domestic political groups. These actions were later condemned by Congress for violating constitutional rights.
- Risks to informants: Informants face significant risks of retaliation from criminal associates and are often afforded minimal protection by law enforcement, particularly after they are no longer useful.
The concept of a “snitching society”
The idea that the U.S. is a “snitching society” is a broad characterization that speaks to the common use of informants, as well as the historical and cultural context surrounding them.
- Prevalence in law enforcement: The use of informants is a widespread practice across various law enforcement agencies, not just the FBI.
- Varying motivations: The term “snitch” or “informant” can apply to a wide range of people, from criminals seeking a plea deal to concerned citizens who provide tips with no expectation of reward.
- Cultural dimension: While some may view the reliance on informants negatively as a form of social corrosion, law enforcement sees it as a necessary tool for solving crimes that affect communities. The practice highlights the difficult balance between public safety and the ethical dilemmas inherent in relying on compromised or vulnerable individuals for information.
Articles and Tweets
Articles and Tweets
Categories
FBI, ADL, and Mossad
-
FBI, ADL, and Mossad
- FBI Director Kash Patel Severs Ties with ADL – Google Gemini
-
-
FBI Director Kash Patel Severs Ties with ADL, Accusing Organization of “Spying on Americans”
Washington, D.C. – In a significant move in October 2025, FBI Director Kash Patel announced the termination of the bureau’s long-standing relationship with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
1 Patel accused the civil rights organization of “spying on Americans,” a claim that has ignited a firestorm of controversy.2 The decision to cut ties followed a period of increasing tension between the new FBI leadership and the ADL.
3 In a public statement, Director Patel alleged that the ADL had overstepped its role as a civil rights watchdog and engaged in activities that amounted to domestic surveillance.4 “The FBI will not be party to organizations that exploit their position to monitor and collect information on American citizens under the guise of combating hate,” Patel stated.The ADL has vehemently denied the allegations, calling them “baseless and defamatory.” In a press release, the organization defended its work in tracking extremist groups and providing intelligence to law enforcement agencies, stating that its efforts have always been in accordance with the law and aimed at protecting vulnerable communities.
The move by Director Patel has drawn both praise and condemnation. Supporters of the decision argue that it is a necessary step to rein in what they see as the overreach of non-governmental organizations in law enforcement matters. Critics, however, have expressed deep concern that severing ties with the ADL will hinder the FBI’s ability to combat domestic extremism and hate crimes, particularly at a time when such threats are a major concern.
5 Historical context for this decision includes the ADL’s long history of working with federal and local law enforcement agencies to provide training and data on extremist movements.
6 This partnership, which has spanned decades, has now come to an abrupt end, signaling a potential shift in the FBI’s approach to domestic intelligence gathering and its relationships with outside organizations.7 The full ramifications of this decision on national security and civil liberties are yet to be seen. -
–
-
Links
- In October 2025, FBI Director Kash Patel cut the bureau’s ties with the ADL, accusing the organization of “spying on Americans.” – Google Search
- ADL spying on Americans – Google Search
- The counterintelligence aspects of the FBI – ADL partnership – Google Search
- Mossad attempts to control the American Jews – Google Search
- documented instances of Israeli intelligence activities – Google Search
- ADL and Mossad – Google Search
- ADL as the tool of Mossad – Google Search
- ADL engaging in surveillance activities – Google Search
- ADL surveills the American Jews with the special gusto – Google Search
- fbi and mossad – Google Search
- FBI and Mossad – Google Search
-
Assassination of Charlie Kirk