Ivan Aivazovsky The Galata tower by moonlight 1845
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806525328036073626
CNN: "Right now, there is a deep, a wide, and a very aggressive panic in the Democratic Party. It started minutes into the debate, and it continues right now. It involves party strategists and involves elected officials.
It involves fundraisers, and they're having conversations… pic.twitter.com/0yaCJjFkpG
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) June 28, 2024
Things were so bad for Biden that even his hardest core media partisans have to admit it.
There's no way to "replace Biden." He'll never agree to give up power.
Even if he did, they can't run with Kamala, but also can't catapult someone ahead of her.pic.twitter.com/nQBtIFE6NQ
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 28, 2024
Trump just released a brutal 95 second ad of Joe Biden's debate lowlights: pic.twitter.com/enusIKHhwN
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 28, 2024
…I can't believe that just happened. pic.twitter.com/qbbQDnjkDP
— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) June 28, 2024
"His presidential campaign came to an end tonight, whether he knows it or not…It was an unmitigated disaster. It was uncomfortable to watch…"@MegynKelly's instant reaction to President Biden's disastrous debate. Watch below, and subscribe:https://t.co/YJPxz5Gu8d pic.twitter.com/0OvHsfaiyl
— The Megyn Kelly Show (@MegynKellyShow) June 28, 2024
Jon Stewart, as always, sums it up beautifully. pic.twitter.com/M6SArtn9bB
— Mike Galsworthy (@mikegalsworthy) June 28, 2024
This was the kill shot pic.twitter.com/kEYrVCTHNu
— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) June 28, 2024
Macgregor
BREAKING REPORT: Following Bidən’s debate performance, Colonel Douglas Macgregor calls for EARLY ELECTIONS…
President Bidən is NOT FIT to discharge the immense duties of the presidency.” pic.twitter.com/4SE5WRdJSY
— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) June 29, 2024
“..he is “the only person who has ever beaten Donald Trump. He will do it again.”
• Biden Won’t Drop Out Of Presidential Race – Campaign Official (RT)
US President Joe Biden will not drop out of the 2024 election race despite his poor performance during Thursday’s first presidential debate with Donald Trump, campaign spokesperson Seth Schuster has announced. Following the debate, in which Biden was largely panned, even by fellow Democrats, many in the party suggested that the president should be replaced on the November 5 ballot. In a text message seen by The Hill, Schuster is apparently attempting to reassure the president’s supporters that he will continue his efforts to be reelected. “Of course he’s not dropping out,” the campaign spokesperson wrote. Another member of the president’s team told Politico that Biden will stay in the race because he is “the only person who has ever beaten Donald Trump. He will do it again.”
Biden himself has also dismissed the notion that he should bow out of the race, explaining to reporters at a Waffle House following Thursday’s event that “it’s hard to debate a liar.”Meanwhile, according to Politico, the Democratic Party is reportedly “panicked” by Biden’s “faltering” display against Trump and is actively discussing the possibility of replacing him with another candidate. “No one expected this nosedive,” one senior Democratic adviser told the outlet. Biden “was bad on message, bad on substance, bad on counter-punching, bad on presentation, bad on non-verbals. There was no bright spot in this debate for him.” Concerns over Biden’s performance have also been expressed by a number of major Democratic donors, with one telling Politico that the president had delivered “the worst performance in history” during the debate and “needs to drop out.”
Biden’s team, however, has been scrambling to explain the president’s poor display. One person close to his election campaign claimed that the 81-year-old was “over-prepared and relying on minutiae when all that mattered was vigor and energy.” They prepared him for the wrong debate. He was over-prepared when what he needed was rest. It’s confounding,” the person said. US media outlets have also suggested that Biden’s shaky performance was due to a cold, which they claim has been confirmed by a doctor who examined the president ahead of the debate.
“..the question is whether a man who was too diminished to be a criminal defendant can still be a president for four more years..”
• Robert Hur Emerges as the Clear Winner in the Presidential Debate (Turley)
The presidential debate last night was chilling to watch as President Joe Biden clearly struggled to retain his focus and, at points, seemed hopelessly confused. The winner was clear: Special Counsel Robert Hur. For months, Democrats in Congress and the media have attacked Hur for his report that the president came across as an “elderly man with a poor memory.” Hur concluded that prosecuting Biden would be difficult because a jury would view him as a sympathetic figure of a man with declining mental capabilities. That was evident last night and the question is whether a man who was too diminished to be a criminal defendant can still be a president for four more years.
Hur laid out evidence that President Biden had unlawfully retained and mishandled classified evidence for decades. However, he also concluded that “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” He found that “it would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.” What has followed is the usual pile-on in the media with legal analysts, press, and pundits denouncing Hur for his findings. Hur likely does not anticipate any apologies even as commentators on CNN and MSNBC admit that there are now unavoidable questions of Biden’s ability to be the nominee. Democrats have repeatedly insisted that Hur did not find Biden diminished and that he actually was impressed by his memory and mental acuity. Hur contradicted that in his own testimony before Congress.
Indeed, the denial campaign took on a bizarre character, particularly when Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) insisted that Hur “exonerated” Biden. Hur pushed back: “I need to go back and make sure that I take note of a word that you used, ‘exoneration.’ That is not a word that is used in my report and that is not a part of my task as a prosecutor.” Jayapal shot back, “You exonerated him.” Hur responded, “I did not exonerate him. That word does not appear in the report.” The debate also further undermines the ridiculous effort of the Biden Administration to continue to withhold the audiotape of the Hur interview as privileged (despite saying that the transcript is not privileged). The debate showed not only what Hur saw but why the Justice Department is making a clearly laughable privilege claim to delay any release of the audiotape until after the election.
“They prepared him for the wrong debate. He was over-prepared..”
• Biden’s Team Offers Excuse For Debate Performance – Axios (RT)
Joe Biden’s team claims the US president’s poor performance during Thursday’s debate with Donald Trump was the result of him being “over-prepared” for the event and not getting enough rest, according to Axios news outlet. The first presidential debate ahead of November’s election, which was held in Atlanta, Georgia, has overwhelmingly been described as a low point in Biden’s bid for a second term. The 81-year-old sounded hoarse, lost his train of thought several times, and struggled to get his points across. According to Axios, which claims to have spoken to a person close to Biden, the president’s poor performance was due to him being prepared for “the wrong debate.” “He was over-prepared and relying on minutiae when all that mattered was vigor and energy,” the source said. “They prepared him for the wrong debate. He was over-prepared when what he needed was rest. It’s confounding.”
The outlet also spoke to a former White House official, who argued that people on Biden’s team needed to be fired for the blunder. He noted, however, that this probably wouldn’t happen because “Biden rarely dismisses people.” Meanwhile, Politico has reported that the Democratic Party is now actively discussing the possibility of replacing Joe Biden on the November 5 ballot following his “faltering” display on Thursday. “No one expected this nosedive,” a senior Democratic adviser told the outlet, noting that Biden “was bad on message, bad on substance, bad on counter punching, bad on presentation, bad on non-verbals. There was no bright spot in this debate for him.” A number of major Democratic donors have also expressed bewilderment at Biden’s performance, with some insisting that the president needs to drop out of the race.
“Our only hope is that he bows out, we have a brokered convention, or dies. Otherwise we are f**king dead,” an adviser to Democratic donors told Politico. Despite the blunder, Biden’s team has indicated that the US president does not plan to drop out of the race, with one campaign official telling Politico that he is “the only person who has ever beaten Donald Trump” and will “do it again.” According to a CNN flash poll after the debate, 67% of registered voters who watched the contest felt that Trump had outperformed Biden.
“I know how to get things done. And I know, like millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down, you get back [up],” Biden said.
• The New York Times Editorial Board Urges Biden To Quit The 2024 Race (RT)
Democrats must admit that US President Joe Biden is no longer capable of resoundingly defeating Donald Trump on Election Day in November and that is why they must find a more suitable candidate to replace him, The New York Times editorial board wrote on Friday. The appeal came a day after Biden delivered what many described as a disastrous performance against Trump during the live presidential debate in Atlanta, Georgia. Observers noted that Biden appeared frail and confused, struggling to finish his sentences and mixing up words when speaking. In a piece published on Friday, the Times cast doubt on the certainty that Biden would repeat his 2020 win over Trump. “That is no longer a sufficient rationale for why Mr. Biden should be the Democratic nominee this year,” the editorial board wrote. “Voters… cannot be expected to ignore what was instead plain to see: Mr. Biden is not the man he was four years ago.”
The board further argued that Biden appeared on the debate stage “as the shadow of a great public,” who “struggled” to articulate his own policy position and ultimately failed to adequately counter Trump. “There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency,” the board wrote. “It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.” The editorial board concluded that Democrats have a better chance of defeating Trump if they “acknowledge that Mr. Biden can’t continue his race, and create a process to select someone more capable to stand in his place.” While the board did not propose any alternatives, the US media and pundits have suggested that several prominent Democrats could potentially replace Biden as candidate, including Vice President Kamala Harris, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker.
Multiple leading liberal journalists and public figures have acknowledged that Biden performed badly on Thursday night. A flash poll conducted by CNN revealed that 67% of registered voters who watched the debate felt that Trump had won. Several outlets cited unnamed Biden staffers who tried to justify the president’s performance by saying that he has been suffering from a cold and was “over-prepared and relying on minutiae.” Biden appeared to acknowledge his flaws shortly after the debate. “I know I’m not a young man, to state the obvious,” he told a crowd of supporters during a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina on Friday. “I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to.” Nevertheless, he vowed to continue the campaign and insisted that he is best qualified for the presidency. “I know how to get things done. And I know, like millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down, you get back [up],” Biden said.
“You need someone who is a known commodity that is already recognized by every single person, whether good, bad or ugly, and who has the ability to fundraise, you know, the half billion dollars they’re going to need to fundraise for the course of the next several months. And the only person who fits that bill will be Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, and Michelle ain’t doing it.”
• Kamala to Be ‘Leapfrogged’ in Quest to Find Biden Replacement (Sp.)
US Vice President Kamala Harris will be skipped over if her running mate President Joe Biden decides to drop out of the race, attorney and civil rights organizer Robert Patillo II speculated on Sputnik’s Fault Lines on Friday. “President Biden had a very bad night. The worst part was that he reinforced the narrative about him, of being kind of this doddering old man who didn’t know where he was, couldn’t complete a sentence, kind of got lost midway through sentences, those sorts of things.” The post-debate analysis, even on left-leaning MSNBC, focused heavily on finding a potential replacement for Biden, with the choices of Harris and California Governor Gavin Newsom being floated on the air. Patillo described Biden’s performance as “Just an old man dying in front of us,” saying that “It got uncomfortable for people watching.” In what appeared to be an attempt at damage control, Harris appeared on both MSNBC and CNN defending Biden’s performance and vehemently declining to call for him to step down. She may have been the only one.
CNN analyst Van Jones called Biden’s performance “personally painful for a lot of people,” and openly noted that the Democrats could make a switch before the convention. NBC analyst Chuck Todd said Democratic leaders are in “a full-on panic about this performance.” Almost 48 million viewers watched the debate, many more likely saw clips of Biden’s worst moments after they were posted online. However, the Democrats may have difficulty finding a replacement for Biden because they all but shut down the party’s primary this cycle, making Harris the only potential candidate with a reasonable claim to the nomination as Biden’s running mate. Unfortunately for Democrats, Harris is unpopular with the voting public, According to poll aggregator 538, only 39% of Americans view her favorably, leading commentators to speculate that another candidate may be chosen by party leadership. That causes its own set of problems, however, because Harris is the first woman vice president and the first Black vice president. Whoever is the eventual Democratic nominee will need support from both voting blocs if they hope to defeat Donald Trump in November.
“The problem then becomes you can’t hop over the first Black female vice president and put Gavin Newsom, let’s say, in the catbird seat,” explained Patillo. “Every once and a while the Democratic Black folks know exactly what their place is in the party and it’s pretty clear that the white feminists don’t hold Kamala Harris in the same regard that they held Hillary Clinton, for example,” he added later. According to Sportsbook Review, Biden’s odds went from +137 on May 31, to +400 after the debate. That means a $100 bet placed on May 31 would have returned $237 ($137 profit) if Biden won the presidency. Now, a $100 bet will net you $500 ($400 profit) if Biden wins. By comparison, Trump’s odds are -185, which means a $100 bet will net you $185 ($85 profit). Even more interesting is how the odds of the other candidates not named Trump or Biden fared following the debate. Nearly every potential candidate– except Biden and Independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr.– saw their odds improve, indicating that betters and sportsbooks are expecting a change at the top of the Democratic ticket.
The biggest jump was for Gavin Newsom, who saw his odds go from +5000 to as low as +500 on some sites. By comparison, Harris’ odds went from +6600 to +1400, a large jump but not nearly as large as Newsom’s. The Democratic nominee for the 2016 Presidential election also jumped up the boards: Hillary Clinton’s odds are now +4000, in May, a bet on Clinton would have gotten gamblers +15000. Patillo thinks she may be a dark horse candidate for the nomination. “The reason is you have, what? Four months that you have to get 100% name recognition around the country. You don’t have time to introduce the country to Gavin Newsom. You don’t have time to introduce the country to Kamala Harris, quite frankly,” he explained. “You need someone who is a known commodity that is already recognized by every single person, whether good, bad or ugly, and who has the ability to fundraise, you know, the half billion dollars they’re going to need to fundraise for the course of the next several months. And the only person who fits that bill will be Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, and Michelle ain’t doing it.”
While Clinton lost to Trump in 2016 and has polled unfavorably with the American public, she can at least appear competent on the debate stage, unlike Biden’s performance on Thursday. “[Biden] was barely able to form a sentence last night and that is why it’s a situation that’s apocalyptic for Democrats because regardless of how much money you raise, regardless of how you try to paint Trump, if people think you’re running essentially against ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ it’s not going to really matter,” argued Patillo. “And that is why that Hillary train is going to be picking up over the course of the next several weeks.” “How many times have you heard people say this is no time to panic?” constitutional historian Dan Lazare asked while speaking to Sputnik. “Well, if ever there was a time for Democrats to panic, this is it.”
“..turned out to be worse for the Democratic Party than the botched Afghanistan withdrawal..”
• Debate Debacle: Democrats Need to Find New Candidate ASAP (Sp.)
The first debate between incumbent President Joe Biden and Republican front-runner Donald Trump turned out to be worse for the Democratic Party than the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, according to Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel. “Debate night was a fiasco for Team Biden and for the conspirators in media and elsewhere who have ceaselessly sold Biden disasters on many fronts as ‘successes’,” Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel told Sputnik. With just a few months until Election Day, the Democratic leadership must now “push Biden and Harris both out and try to find a more credible team to fight the already well-funded and fiercely energized Trump juggernaut,” the analyst said. “This is a very heavy lift as the Democrat bench is light and marginalized by primary cycles of 2020 and 2024 that installed a serial liar and diminished clod into the White House where he fails on all fronts,” Ortel said.
“Whether it is the demolished pier in Gaza, the wreckage across the Middle East and Afghanistan, the horrific meat grinder in Ukraine, or the lawlessness and failures in Democrat run states and cities, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris stand revealed as incompetent losers.” A week ago, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh called attention to growing concerns among top Democrats and their wealthy donors about Biden’s ability to overcome Trump in the November election. After saying that Biden’s debate performance would be “a major touchstone,” Hersh quoted political insiders as suggesting that if the first showdown with Trump goes badly for the incumbent president, the Democratic convention in Chicago would replace Joe with another, more dynamic candidate in August.
That scenario seems likely after the debate, according to Ortel. “One theoretical approach might be to field an all-female historic ticket, seeking to exploit perceived weaknesses for Republicans over stances on abortion and gender insensitivity. Here, a Michelle Obama ticket with, perhaps, Hillary Clinton might gel. But who gets the top billing and who is second?” the Wall Street analyst remarked. “Thursday’s nightmare will look even worse on Friday morning for Democrats. The Biden and Harris ‘brands’ are unsaleable,” Ortel concluded.
“All Mr. Trump would have to do is broadcast the scene from a San Francisco street-cam on “X” (Twitter) 24/7.”
• Joe Biden Catches Cold (Kunstler)
It’s obvious that the ruling blob now has to deep-six “Joe Biden.” The problem is they must induce him to renounce the nomination of his own will. The party’s nominating process is so bizarrely complex that it would very difficult to just shove him out. Another problem is that the party had to peremptorily declare “JB” their legal nominee before the August convention in order to keep him on the ballot in Ohio with its 17 electoral votes (due to some arcane machinery in the state’s election laws). As per above, the debate fiasco calls into serious question whether “Joe Biden” is competent to even serve out this term. He (or shadowy figures pulling strings behind him) are making profoundly hazardous decisions right now, such as last week’s missile attack that killed and wounded civilians on the beach in Crimea. Are you seeing how easily “Joe Biden” might start World War Three?
All of which is to say that pressure will soon rise to use the 25th amendment to relieve him of duty, leaving you-know-who in the oval office. If Joe Biden actually has to resign as president, he also loses the ability to pardon his son, Hunter, and peremptorily his other family members who shared bribery money received from China, Ukraine, and elsewhere. If he won’t resign, and the party can’t force him off the ticket, the blob could have no choice except to bump him off. I imagine they would get it done humanely, say late at night sometime, in bed, using the same method as for putting down an old dog who has peed on the carpet one too many times. Or, if that can’t be managed and he clings to his position, maybe the party could cobble up some new nominating rules impromptu. And then, who could they slot in from the bench?
The usual suspects are like the cast of a freak show, each one displaying one grotesque deformity after another. Gavin Newsom we understand: the party’s base of batshit-crazy women may all want to bear his child, but that limbic instinct to mate with a six-foot-three haircut-in-search-of-a-brain might not work with any other voter demographic — and Newsom has the failed state of California hanging around his neck. All Mr. Trump would have to do is broadcast the scene from a San Francisco street-cam on “X” (Twitter) 24/7.
Hillary has been stealthily flapping her leathery wings overhead for weeks as this debacle approached. She may still own the actual machinery of the Democratic Party — having purchased it through the Clinton Foundation some years back when the party was broke and needed a bailout. She could just command the nomination by screeching “Caw Caw” from the convention rostrum. Whatever happens, it will look terrible. Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan? An inveterate and notorious intel blob tool, Whitmer has allowed herself to be used repeatedly by the FBI to frame and persecute conservatives in her state as well as using her state AG Dana Nessel to go after political enemies there, especially poll workers who cried fraud in the sketchiest Michigan voting districts.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. Like Dreamboat Newsom in California, Mr. Pritzker is busily running Illinois (and especially Chicago) into bankruptcy and chaos. Looks aren’t everything, but if Dreamboat gives the vapors to Karens across the land, the Illinois governor will get them shrieking in terror as from the sight of King Kong on Skull Island. Who else is there? Michelle O, of course, who will be instantly branded as a catspaw for her husband seeking a fifth term — as Barack himself has averred in so many words: just hanging out in the background, managing things in his jogging suit. That would be the ultimate Banana Republic set-up for us and I don’t think the voters will go for it. It all boils down to the Party of Chaos being thrust into chaos. Can it even survive “Joe Biden?”
EU will pay.
• Ukraine: US Starts Conflict And Tasks Europe With Fueling It (Dionísio)
The USA, in Europe, behaved like true arsonists. Like any arsonist, they studied the terrain, identifying the main points conducive to propagation and combustion, finally, they caused the ignition and, today, like a painter, in the perspective and security that only distance can provide, they enjoy their destructive work. Satiated with their incendiary thirst, they turn away and leave the victims in charge of fueling the fire they so calculatedly created. The last approval process for the 61 billion dollars, with its difficulties, advances and setbacks, was already the result of this internal tension. The anxiety of exploiting another hotbed of tension in the Pacific that “contains China”, as well as the need to turn to Israel and its pyromaniac on duty, Netanyahu, led to an internal struggle that was responsible for a sharp drop in supplies to Kiev.
If between April 2022 and September 2023, every quarter, the USA sent at least 7.8 billion dollars in “aid”, even reaching 14.7 billion between July and September 2022, already in the period October 2023 As of March 2024, Kiev has only received $1.7 billion. Data from Kiel Institute, Ukraine Support Tracker. Although the amounts have, in the meantime, risen again, at least until we see it, the truth is that, contrary to what has been said so much in the mainstream media, it is the European Union and its member states that owes the largest share of “help”. Until April 2024, the European Union and its member states have committed 177.8 billion euros, while the USA only contributes 98.7 billion euros.
But this number alone tells us a lot about who is really paying the cost of fueling the fire spreading across the USA. While the USA and the EU member states, bilaterally, essentially send weapons, equipment that must be paid for, in the case of EU institutions, what is sent is essentially money. Either outright or in the form of loans in which Ukraine receives the money and the European Commission pays the interest and provides guarantees that future payments are made. The path things take tells us who will bear this payment. Furthermore, these figures do not include expenditure on refugees which, between Germany and Poland alone, exceeds 50 billion euros in subsidies, housing and other types of support.
Even in terms of armament, although the USA, when it comes to some types (howitzers and MLRS) takes the largest share, when we go to tanks, air defense and infantry vehicles, it is the Europeans who send the most, many of these systems supplied despite the lack of protection of its own defenses, which, as we know, does not happen with the USA. Europe helps to defend Ukraine, without needing to defend itself. This is the level of commitment reached. If these data alone already show us who is bearing the Ukrainian burden on their shoulders, the numerous statements by government officials in Washington, who urge Europe (read the European Union) to take greater responsibility on the issue Ukrainian, there are other signs that point to the fact that the U.S. is about to assume a commanding stance, entering when necessary and only if, strategically, this is justified.
“These are two parallel things – to be strong on the battlefield and to develop a plan, a clear plan, a detailed plan. And it will be ready this year..”
• Zelensky Preparing ‘Plan To End War’ (RT)
Ukraine is preparing a “comprehensive plan” for ending the conflict with Russia that should be ready by the end of the year, Vladimir Zelensky has said. Zelensky made the comments at a press conference in Kiev, after meeting Slovenian President Natasa Pirc Musar on Friday. “We will also work out all other points of the Peace Formula and prepare a comprehensive plan that will be on the table before our partners,” Zelensky said. “It is very important for us to show a plan to end the war that will be supported by the majority of the world. This is the diplomatic path we are working on.” The so-called peace formula is a ten-point document Zelensky unveiled in November 2022, which envisions Russia ceding all formerly Ukrainian territory, withdrawing all of its troops, paying reparations and submitting to war crimes tribunals, among other things.
Moscow has dismissed it as unrealistic and “detached from reality”. Ukraine “must be strong on the battlefield,” Zelensky added, because Russia only respects strength. “These are two parallel things – to be strong on the battlefield and to develop a plan, a clear plan, a detailed plan. And it will be ready this year,” he told reporters. Zelensky’s comment came after he signed a long-term security pact with the EU on Thursday, obligating the bloc to years of military and financial aid. The US and several of its allies have signed separate aid pacts with Kiev, also pledging to prop up Kiev “for the long haul.” Western diplomats have openly said that the purpose of such treaties was to protect the Ukraine policy in case Donald Trump wins the November US presidential election.
Speaking in Brussels, Zelensky had argued that Ukraine “does not want to prolong the war” and does not want the conflict to last “for years.” “We have many wounded and killed on the battlefield. We must put a settlement plan on the table within a few months,” he said, without offering details. Kiev has been coy about Ukrainian casualty figures, insisting instead that it has inflicted massive losses on Russian forces. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, Ukraine lost 35,000 troops in May alone and has lost close to 500,000 since the start of the conflict.
“It is translucent, so one can see the movements of those on the other side, but there is no making out what they are doing.”
• Putin – Behind the Shoji (Patrick Lawrence)
It is never a good idea to turn to corporate media for an understanding of Vladimir Putin — his thoughts, his intentions, what he does and the outcome of what he does. Whenever the Russian president is the topic, you are always going to get reports so distorted as to obscure vastly more than they reveal. This pervasively Western–centric work makes it impossible, for anyone who relies solely on it, to see either the Russian leader or the nation he represents with any clarity, just as they are. One is invited to think Putin never acts but for the damage his chosen course will inflict on the U.S., the rest of the Atlantic world, and by extension the non–Western allies of this world. The net effect of this unceasing exercise in misrepresentation is to place a nation of 144 million people, and most of all its leader, behind a screen similar to a Japanese shoji: It is translucent, so one can see the movements of those on the other side, but there is no making out what they are doing.
They are reduced to shadows. The consequence of this induced blindness is easily legible in the dangerous shambles the policy cliques in Washington and most of the European capitals have made of their relations with Moscow since, I would say, the winter of 2007. It was in February of that year Putin gave his famously frank speech at the Munich Security Conference, wherein he attacked the West’s “almost uncontained hyper use of force — military force, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.” Too honest. It was inevitable that the shoji would immediately be put in place such that the man and all he did and said could thereafter be rendered illegible — grist for the propagandists. Last week the Russian leader spent two days in Pyongyang, his first visit to North Korea since he assumed the presidency two dozen years ago. Putin then proceeded to Hanoi for his fifth journey to the Republic of Vietnam.
Both visits involved nations with relations of long duration — histories dating to the decades when they stood on the same side, the anti-imperialist side, during the Cold War. These were consequential occasions of state, let there be no question. But there is simply no way to understand what Putin and his counterparts got done, and why, via the West’s corporate and state-supported media. To them Putin’s intent was all about overcoming the isolation Russia suffers except that it doesn’t, destabilizing East Asia, and — a curious phrase from The New York Times coverage — “leaving behind a redrawn map of risk in Asia.” I would ask where corporate journalists get this stuff, but the answer is perfectly clear when one considers the lockstep uniformity of the coverage: This is what reporters in Washington and correspondents abroad are fed by unnamed briefers from Langley, embassies in East Asia, and elsewhere in the national-security state’s sprawling propaganda apparatus.
Putin’s talks with Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang resulted in all sorts of agreements covering the economic, technology, trade, investment and cultural spheres. But the main event was the conclusion of a “comprehensive partnership agreement” — Putin’s description — that amounts to a mutual defense treaty. Curiously, the formal name of this document is the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty. Unclear why Putin omitted so significant a term, as a strategic partnership is a half-step shy of an alliance. Accords of this kind between Moscow and Pyongyang have a long history, true. But to mark this down as a reflexive Cold War revival, as Western media have done, is a misreading one must mark down as intentional. The immediate antecedent is the Treaty of Friendship Putin signed with Jong-un’s pop, Jong-il, in 2000, just as he, Putin, was replacing Boris Yeltsin in in the Kremlin.
“..judges previously had to defer to agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous. Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies..”
• SCOTUS Overturns ‘Chevron Deference’ In Massive Blow To ‘Administrative State’ (ZH)
The Supreme Court has ruled to overturn the so-called ‘Chevron Deference’ dealing a huge blow to the so-called ‘administrative state’ that have enjoyed In an 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upended the 40-year administrative law precedent that gave agencies across the federal government leeway to interpret ambiguous laws through rulemaking. Conservatives and Republican policymakers have long been critical of the doctrine, saying it has contributed to the dramatic growth of government and gives unelected regulators far too much power to make policy by going beyond what Congress intended when it approved various laws. The authority of regulatory agencies has been increasingly questioned by the Supreme Court in recent years. Those on the other side say the Chevron doctrine empowers an activist federal government to serve the public interest in an increasingly complicated world without having to seek specific congressional authorization for everything that needs to be done.
Today, a few underdog fishermen just took down the administrative state. In October, I was in a car in New Hampshire when I expressed hope for the Supreme Court overturning the Chevron Doctrine. Today, it finally happened. pic.twitter.com/vtZTIYdmy5
— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) June 28, 2024
As The Hill report, judges previously had to defer to agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous. Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies – effectively making it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life. This includes rules governing toxic chemicals, drugs and medicine, climate change, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and more. The move hands a major victory to conservative and anti-regulatory interests that have looked to eliminate the precedent as part of a broader attack on the growing size of the “administrative state.” The Biden administration defended the precedent before the high court. As Mark Joseph Stern writes on X: “Today’s ruling is a massive blow to the ‘administrative state’, the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers’ rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless.”
“The Supreme Court’s reversal of Chevron constitutes a major transfer of power from the executive branch to the judiciary, stripping federal agencies of significant discretion to interpret and enforce ambiguous regulations.” Chief Justice Roberts, writing the opinion of the court, argued Chevron “defies the command of” the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs federal administrative agencies. He said it “requires a court to ignore, not follow, ‘the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA.'” Further, he said it “is misguided” because “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”The liberals on the court are not happy: “In dissent, Justice Kagan says the conservative supermajority “disdains restraint, and grasps for power,” making “a laughingstock” of stare decisis and producing “large-scale disruption” throughout the entire government. She is both furious and terrified.”
As Stern concludes: “Hard to overstate the impact of this seismic shift.”
Simply put, a massive win for the constitution…“Wow, this is a big deal for addressing overreaching regulation!” — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2024
“..in a 6-3 opinion which cut across the Supreme Court’s usual ideological lines, the court ruled that the law should be interpreted relatively narrowly – and used only against defendants who tampered with documents..”
• Supreme Court Casts Doubt On Hundreds Of Jan 6 Cases (BBC)
Federal prosecutors overreached when using an obstruction law to charge hundreds of January 6 rioters, the Supreme Court has ruled in an opinion that could also affect a case against Donald Trump. The justices ruled that obstruction charges must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. More than 350 people have been charged with obstructing Congress’ business – the certification of the 2020 presidential election. The law that prosecutors used was passed in 2002, after the Enron scandal, to stop corporate misconduct. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act outlines criminal penalties for anyone who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object”, and another clause includes anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding”.
Justice department prosecutors argued for a broad interpretation of the law to include those who broke into the Capitol on 6 January 2021 in an attempt to keep Trump in the White House. But in a 6-3 opinion which cut across the Supreme Court’s usual ideological lines, the court ruled that the law should be interpreted relatively narrowly – and used only against defendants who tampered with documents. The ruling has cheered supporters of Donald Trump. While the court introduced another wrinkle into the special prosecution of the former president – and the Supreme Court could rule in a separate case expected next week that he has immunity for his actions – it is unclear whether the decision will halt one of the charges against him.
“For Trump, I think there will be litigation,” said Aziz Huq, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. “But the charges against him involve falsifying or altering ‘records, documents, or objects’. So I think it likely doesn’t undermine those charges.” In addition, Special Counsel Jack Smith has also charged Trump with other crimes in connection with his attempts to overturn the 2020 result: Conspiring to defraud the US and conspiring against the rights of citizens. Those charges will go ahead regardless of the outcome of the obstruction case. The special prosecutor faces an obvious deadline. If Trump wins the November election, he will be able to remove Mr Smith from his post and end the federal legal case.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was one of a number of laws used against those who stormed the Capitol in January 2021. About 25% of Capitol riot defendants were prosecuted under the law, and according to Attorney General Merrick Garland, all of those faced additional charges. “The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision,” Mr Garland said in a statement issued after the decision in which he also noted he was disappointed with the ruling. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Joseph Fischer, a former police officer from Pennsylvania who attended Trump’s rally in Washington on 6 January 2021, then briefly went inside the Capitol. He was seen arguing with police on video before leaving the building.
Lower courts will now decide whether the obstruction charge against him can continue. However, Mr Fischer also faces trial on a number of other charges including civil disorder, disorderly conduct and assaulting, resisting or impeding a police officer. More than 1,400 people have been charged with crimes related to the riot. According to justice department figures, more than 500 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers, including more than 130 who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to a police officer. And more than 1,300 people have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds. More than 100 of those have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.
As such, this court should conclude that the entire prosecutorial process against the applicant was tainted and must be dismissed as a matter of law.”
• Supreme Court Rejects Bannon Bid To Avoid Monday Prison Deadline (ZH)
Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon has until Monday to report to prison after the Supreme Court rejected his 11th hour bid to remain free while he pursues an appeal of his conviction for two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee. US District Judge Carl Nichols had previously put Bannon’s sentence on hold as he pursued his appeal, saying that Bannon had presented a “substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal” of the conviction. That, however, was rejected by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in May – leaving him only the Supreme Court to help him avoid time behind bars. Bannon has argued that he was acting on the advice of counsel when he refused to comply with the subpoenas. He must report to prison on July 1.
As the Epoch Times notes further, Bannon through his lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene. In the application, lawyers said it would be unfair for Mr. Bannon to start serving his sentence before the full appeals court and justices consider overturning the recent appeal rejection. “If Mr. Bannon is denied release, he will be forced to serve his prison sentence before this court has a chance to consider a petition for a writ of certiorari, given the court’s upcoming summer recess,” the lawyers wrote. Department of Justice attorneys, on the other hand, urged the Supreme Court to reject the application. They said Mr. Bannon “cannot make the demanding showing necessary to override the normal requirement that a convicted defendant begin serving his sentence.”
Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, told the court in a brief that the panel that subpoenaed Mr. Bannon produced flawed subpoenas because it failed to comply with House regulations, as it did not have a ranking member appointed by the Republican minority. “Notwithstanding the applicant’s indictment and sentencing, the select committee’s enforcement of the subpoena and the prosecution of Mr. Bannon for failing to participate in a deposition was factually and procedurally invalid,” Mr. Loudermilk wrote. “As such, this court should conclude that the entire prosecutorial process against the applicant was tainted and must be dismissed as a matter of law.” Peter Navarro, another former adviser to President Trump, is already serving a sentence after being convicted of contempt of Congress after also declining to cooperate with subpoenas from the same committee.
“..the United States court in Saipan yesterday conceded, and the judge found that there is no evidence that any harm has befallen any individual anywhere in the world as a result of Mr. Assange’s publications..”
• Assange Agreed to Destroy Unpublished Classified Material (Lauria)
The 23-page plea deal between Julian Assange and the United States government that freed Assange this week contains a provision that he agree to return or destroy all unpublished U.S. material still in WikiLeaks‘ possession. The agreement says on Page 29: “Before his plea is entered in Court, the Defendant shall take all action within his control to cause the return to the United States or the destruction of any such unpublished information in his possession, custody, or control, or that of WikiLeaks or any affiliate of WikiLeaks. The Defendant further agrees that, if the forgoing obligation requires him to instruct the editor(s) of WikiLeaks to destroy any such information or otherwise cause it to be destroyed, he shall provide the United States (or cause to be provided to the United States) a sworn affidavit confirming the instruction he provided and that, he will, in good faith, seek to facilitate compliance with that instruction prior to sentencing.”
Asked about it at a press conference in Parliament House in Canberra on Thursday, Barry Pollack, Assange’s U.S. lawyer who negotiated the plea deal, dismissed the significance of the agreement to destroy the materials. He said: “You’d have to ask the United States government why they insisted on including that clause. The materials we are talking about are now more than a decade old. I don’t know to what extent any still existed or what possible value they might have, certainly no national security value. In fact, the United States court in Saipan yesterday conceded, and the judge found that there is no evidence that any harm has befallen any individual anywhere in the world as a result of Mr. Assange’s publications. That being said, they did insist that he issue an instruction to the editor of WikiLeaks to destroy any materials they might have that were not published and Julian has complied with that provision and issued that instruction.”
Having had most of this material for more than a decade, and the time to review its enormous archive of documents, it unlikely, but not certain, that what remained unpublished is of great significance to the public. This part of the plea deal had only been vaguely referred to in a handful of press reports leading to speculation that it could mean the deletion of parts or all of WikiLeaks already published material, which the agreement makes clear, remains safe.
“He has mandated the use of experimental gene serums, which caused very serious damage, death and sterility, calling them ‘an act of love,’ in exchange for funding from pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic foundations. His total alignment with the Davos religion is scandalous”.
• Inquisition Redux at the Vatican (Karganovic)
The initiation by the Vatican of canonical proceedings against gadfly Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano marks a significant new development in the deepening crisis within the Roman Catholic church. Archbishop Vigano was recently summoned to answer accusations of committing three canonical offences: fomenting schism, questioning the legitimacy of the current Pope, and rejecting the second Vatican council of the Roman Catholic church which was held sixty years ago and whose controversial reforms have been agitating traditionalist Catholics ever since. It is a delicious irony which will not be lost upon the students of Vatican affairs that the church organ now prosecuting Vigano, the innocuous sounding Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, historically is the direct successor to the Holy Office, the very agency that used to direct the Inquisition.
The Archbishop has declined to present himself before his accusers at the initial hearing held on 20 June. He has also refused to dignify the proceedings with, as he put it, “a predetermined outcome,” by sending an advocate to plead his cause. Since retiring as apostolic nuncio in the United States in 2016, Vigano has become a powerful voice denouncing moral lapses in the ranks of the Roman Catholic clergy. With increasing stridency, he has been taking the Vatican to task for failure to adequately address its in-house scandals. Over time, the scope of Vigano’s public denunciations has continued to expand. Besides calling attention to the sordid moral atmosphere pervading the Roman Catholic church, Vigano has also been a persistent personal critic of current Pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio, specifically his failure to discipline the wrongdoers. Vigano’s contrarian stance concerning the Covid emergency enlisted him even more enemies.
Whilst Bergoglio publicly urged strict adherence to the Covid regime as practically a religious duty, Vigano used his bully pulpit to massively disseminate evidence to the contrary, echoing assertions by Prof. M. Chossudovsky that the “official ‘corona narrative’ is predicated on a ‘Big Lie’ endorsed by corrupt politicians”. Does Vigano have a case to answer with regard to the Roman Curia’s vaguely formulated accusations against him? We should perhaps delay our response to that question until the trial, when presumably the evidence in support of the Vatican’s charges shall be made public. There is little doubt, however, that Vigano and those who adhere to the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic faith do have a coherent case for the current Pope and his entourage to answer. Without mincing words, in his response to the Curia’s indictment Vigano has charged that it is the current pontiff who in his preaching and actions appears to be guided by quite another doctrine:
“Globalism calls for ethnic substitution: Bergoglio (Pope Francis) promotes uncontrolled immigration and calls for the integration of cultures and religions. Globalism supports LGBTQ+ ideology: Bergoglio authorizes the blessing of same-sex couples and imposes on the faithful the acceptance of homosexualism, while covering up the scandals of his protégés and promoting them to the highest positions of responsibility. Globalism imposes the green agenda: Bergoglio worships the idol of the Pachamama, writes delirious encyclicals about the environment, supports the Agenda 2030, and attacks those who question the theory of man-made global warming. He goes beyond his role in matters that strictly pertain to science, but always and only in one direction: a direction that is diametrically opposed to what the Church has always taught. He has mandated the use of experimental gene serums, which caused very serious damage, death and sterility, calling them ‘an act of love,’ in exchange for funding from pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic foundations. His total alignment with the Davos religion is scandalous”.
Compared to the gravity of those objections, the best indictment that the Curia was able to muster against Vigano does appear rather contrived and frivolous.
Reagan
it's not your imagination.
standards really have slipped. pic.twitter.com/lxgdia6mtx
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) June 29, 2024
Garland
Did you miss it?
Speaker Johnson confirmed his support of FL Rep. @realannapaulina’s motion to hold Merrick Garland in Inherent Contempt where the House Sergeant-at-Arms can arrest him
This is no longer a pipe dream
This is now likely going to happenpic.twitter.com/d6LfR7SLme
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 28, 2024
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
#/media/File:Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Le_Moulin_de_blute-fin(1886).jpg)
