Menu Icon

Debt Rattle November 10 2024

Nov 102024
 
 November 10, 2024  Posted by at 9:41 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  72 Responses »


Claude Monet Camille on the Beach at Trouville 1870

 

• Goodbye To The Liberal Elites (Diesen)
• Trump Must End Wars, Focus On Problems At Home – Dennis Kucinich (RT)
• Trump’s Election Victory Gives Cautious Optimism For Peace In Ukraine (SCF)
• Trump Seeking ‘Major Changes’ To US Foreign Policy – Bloomberg (RT)
• Biden Allows Deployment Of US Military ‘Contractors’ To Ukraine – Media (RT)
• Can Trump Tame Resistance 2.0? (J. Peder Zane)
• Trump’s Triumph Sows Sorrow for Soros (Sp.)
• Kamala Harris May Be Appointed Supreme Court Judge (Sp.)
• Zelensky ‘Afraid War Will End’ – Slovak PM Fico (RT)
• Zelensky Must Accept ‘Crimea Is Gone’ – Trump Strategist (RT)
• Musk Says “Time Is Up For The Warmonger Profiteers” (ZH)
• Will Trump Clash With Musk Over EV Tariffs? (Sp.)
• Putin Outlines The ‘Moment of Truth’ (Pepe Escobar)
• Neoliberalism Has “Become a Totalitarian Ideology” – Putin (Paul Craig Roberts)

 

 

 

 

Bullet

Gender

20 million

 

 

 

 

App
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854976633733890264

Co-President

Elon
https://twitter.com/i/status/1855085762930422025

Amish

Vivek Elon
https://twitter.com/i/status/1855142541697728612
https://twitter.com/i/status/1855281327253188672

Kash Patel
https://twitter.com/i/status/1855244901916492023

FYI

Disavow

 

 

 

 

 

 

“..Trump’s flaw is that excessive tariffs and an economic war on China will severely disrupt supply chains to the extent it will undermine the US economy..”

• Goodbye To The Liberal Elites (Diesen)

“Make America Great Again” is likely a reference to somewhere around 1973, when the US peaked – it’s since been in decline. Under the neoliberal consensus, society became an appendage to the market and politicians became unable to deliver the changes demanded by the public. The political left could not redistribute wealth, and the political right could not defend traditional values and communities. Globalization gave birth to a political class loyal to international capital without national loyalties, and accountability to the public disappeared. Globalization often contradicts democracy, and there is a growing division between illiberal democracy versus undemocratic liberalism.

A key lesson from the American System in the early 19th century was that industrialization and subsequent economic sovereignty is a necessity for national sovereignty. Tariffs and temporary subsidies are important tools for infant industries to develop maturity, and fair trade is thus often preferable to free trade. Trump’s tariffs to re-industrialize and advance technological sovereignty are noble ambitions that even the Biden administration attempted to emulate. However, Trump’s flaw is that excessive tariffs and an economic war on China will severely disrupt supply chains to the extent it will undermine the US economy. The excesses of Trump’s tariffs and economic coercion derive from the effort to break China and restore US global primacy. If the US can accept a more modest role in the international system as one among many great powers, the president elect could embrace a more moderate economic nationalism that would have a greater prospect of succeeding.

Trump’s vice president-elect, JD Vance, correctly noted the self-defeating moralizing of the US: “We have built a foreign policy of hectoring and moralizing and lecturing countries that don’t want anything to do with it. The Chinese have a foreign policy of building roads and bridges and feeding poor people.” It is a good time for pragmatism to triumph over ideology. Critics of Trump are correct to point out the paradox of a billionaire claiming to represent the people against a detached globalized elite. Sitting in flashy buildings with his name on the side in large golden letters, Trump has nonetheless taken the role of representing American workers by calling for re-industrialization. Raised in the excesses and hedonism of America’s cultural elites, Trump calls for preserving America’s traditional values and culture. Is Trump a savior? Probably not.

But policies are more important than personalities, and Trump is kicking open a door that was seemingly closed by liberal ideology. Trump’s appeal to end the forever wars resulted in invaluable support from former Democrats such as Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Elon Musk. The liberal crusades over the past three decades have fueled unsustainable debt. Of course, they financed the deep state (the blob), but they alienated the US across the world, and incentivized the other great powers to collectively balance Washington. The forever wars were costly mistakes that never end well, yet the US could absorb these costs during the unipolar era in the absence of any real opponents. In a multipolar system, America must scale back its military adventurism and learn how to prioritize foreign policy objectives.

Read more …

“Trump is a deal-maker… a family man concerned about children and grandchildren. He’s not personally interested in seeing the US expand into war, he’s not a globalist in that way..”

• Trump Must End Wars, Focus On Problems At Home – Dennis Kucinich (RT)

US president-elect Donald Trump will have his hands full fixing the mess in foreign and domestic policy left by incumbent leader Joe Biden’s administration, according to Dennis Kucinich, two-time Democratic presidential candidate and retired eight-term US congressman. In an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi broadcast on RT on Saturday, Kucinich said that the success of Trump’s presidency will depend on his ability to shift the focus of US politics from the “globalist aspirations of the State Department” to problems at home. The veteran politician welcomed Trump’s victory over Democrat Kamala Harris in this week’s election, saying that it represents a “historic shift” in US politics towards “populism.”

“[The US] has come through a very dark period where the government put this country to the edge of World War III, and people don’t want that,” Kucinich stated, noting that ordinary Americans worry about simple things like paying bills and generally “making ends meet,” which he called “very practical aspirations they have in common with people around the world.” He said Trump’s presidency “will depend on not getting further involved in foreign entanglements.” “This economy is shaking, the dollar is not in the same position it was in four years ago… the previous administration has not been successful in reviving the economy with all this money for Wall Street but not enough for main street,” he stated. Kucinich added that this happened “precisely” because the Biden administration poured billions into wars “that are not necessary.”

There’s a lot of work Trump will need to do, he is going to be faced with some serious decisions about scaling back the US position in Europe and the Middle East and to try to find a way that we can move past the events that the Biden administration embroiled America in. Kucinich noted that he expects Trump to be able to extricate the US from global conflicts through his “deal-making finesse.” “Trump is a deal-maker… a family man concerned about children and grandchildren. He’s not personally interested in seeing the US expand into war, he’s not a globalist in that way,” he stated. Kucinich also suggested that Trump would be wise to lead the US towards cooperation with the “new world” that is “taking shape in response to disastrous sanctions and wars,” citing BRICS as one of the alignments that the US should consider working with.

Read more …

“Russia’s military victory in Ukraine is as assured as it is righteous and legally correct. Moscow will set its own terms and is not looking for U.S. approval under Trump or anyone else.”

• Trump’s Election Victory Gives Cautious Optimism For Peace In Ukraine (SCF)

As the dust settles after a tumultuous U.S. presidential election, the magnitude of Donald Trump’s victory becomes clearer. His decisive win to become the 47th president of the American Republic is an emphatic popular mandate for change. This could enable Trump to bring the disastrous U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine against Russia to a peaceful end, as Francis Boyle, a respected American professor of international law, remarked this week. Going into the election, the stakes could not have been higher. A continuation of the nearly three-year-old conflict – as would have happened if the Democrats had remained in power – was potentially leading to World War Three and a nuclear conflagration. Trump had starkly warned of that imminent danger. A central part of his election platform was a pledge to push for a diplomatic resolution.

At 78, Donald J Trump becomes the only second president in U.S. history to win two non-consecutive terms. The last figure to do that was Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, in 1892, as noted by Martin Sieff, a seasoned observer of American elections. What makes Trump’s political comeback so astonishing is the defiance of the establishment and the mainstream media, which for the most part was staunchly supporting his rival, Kamala Harris. “Every dirty trick, lie and scare tactic in the history of American politics – which is filled with them – was used against him. They all failed,” wrote Sieff this week. The pre-election polls, right up to voting day on November 5, weren’t even close, as it turned out. Trump swept the electoral map, taking even the supposedly battleground states, to win by more than 4 million popular votes. He also stormed past the crucial threshold of 270 to win over 300 electoral college votes.

The key factor for his triumph was the economy which Trump tapped into. Bound up in the economic tribulations for ordinary Americans is the militarism and warmongering that the Democrats have become associated with. The callous lack of priority to address pressing social and economic needs of poor, working Americans that the Biden administration and his vice president Kamala Harris had displayed over the past four years was matched by their license to fund the war in Ukraine to the tune of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

There was also the factor of the Biden administration’s appalling complicity in the Israeli genocide in Gaza over the past year. Millions of Muslim, Arab and young voters who would normally vote Democrat were outraged and disgusted. They refused to give Harris their votes. Trump is no friend of the Palestinian people, but at least he could not be accused of complicity in genocide the way Biden and Harris indelibly are. Not only does Trump win the White House decisively, his Republican Party also took back control of the Senate and looks like maintaining its majority in the House of Representatives. With that dominance in the executive and legislative branches of government, the second Trump administration will be able to implement his program without impediment. His previous administration (2016-2020) was hampered by Democrats and the corporate-controlled media over spurious claims about “Russia collusion”. That propaganda farce is obsolete.

The authority of Trump’s political position makes it propitious for him to follow through on his election pledge to end the conflict in Ukraine. Trump has boasted that he can end the war in 24 hours. That is typical bluster from the former real estate magnate. The signs are that Russia has its own clear-sighted objectives and will not be swayed from achieving them. Russia is done with Western duplicity. It is determined to defeat the Kiev NeoNazi regime, to retain its newly regained historic territories, and to ensure whatever is left of the rump Ukrainian state that it will never join the NATO military alliance. Russia’s military victory in Ukraine is as assured as it is righteous and legally correct. Moscow will set its own terms and is not looking for U.S. approval under Trump or anyone else.

What Trump can do to expedite the end of the bloodshed and establish peace is to immediately sever the reckless military aid to the Kiev regime. Trump’s “America First” manifesto suggests that is what he will do. By closing down the war racket that was driven by the Biden administration, the conflict will come to a much-needed prompt end. This week, Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Trump on his election and said that Moscow was open for reasonable dialogue. But it seems patent that the dialogue will be about accepting the eminently reasonable conditions that Russia had always offered – no NATO expansion into Ukraine and recognition of the principle of indivisible security for all.

Read more …

“..the country is now “moving in the direction – knowing that Trump has won – of accepting that negotiations are a reality.”

• Trump Seeking ‘Major Changes’ To US Foreign Policy – Bloomberg (RT)

US President-elect Donald Trump is wasting no time in his push to revamp Washington’s policies on Ukraine, even though his inauguration is still weeks away, Bloomberg reported on Friday. One unnamed former Trump administration official told the agency that the Republican will “have an immediate head start thanks to the perception that he will be tougher than his predecessor.” He added that some US adversaries could change their behavior without waiting for the president-elect to be sworn in, as they might be “deterred by the threat of US retaliation,” while others could try “to exploit their remaining leverage before President Joe Biden leaves office.” According to Bloomberg, the shift in the wind is “felt most acutely in Ukraine,” given that Trump has promised to settle the conflict within 24 hours if elected, even before his inauguration.

The president-elect and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky have already had a phone call, with X owner Elon Musk – a Trump ally who has advocated for Kiev to cede territory to Russia to end the conflict – also reportedly joining in. Shelby Magid, the deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, told Bloomberg that Trump’s victory has changed Ukraine’s attitude toward talks. She added that the country is now “moving in the direction – knowing that Trump has won – of accepting that negotiations are a reality.” The transition period is often turbulent in the US, the article added, noting that this has been exacerbated by Trump’s apparent intention to change US policy. According to Bloomberg, this has “handcuffed the Biden administration,” as many US allies had been reluctant to take action before they were sure who would be the next US president.

As for a possible settlement of the Ukraine conflict, the Wall Street Journal reported that one of the plans under consideration includes Kiev dropping its ambitions to join NATO in the near future and freezing the conflict along the current front line. While Zelensky has ruled out any concessions to Russia, including “trading” territory, Ukrainian media reports suggested that he might be powerless to resist US pressure if Trump decides that Kiev must make a peace deal with Russia. Moscow has ruled out a freezing of the conflict, insisting that all of the goals of the military operation – including Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and denazification – must be achieved. Nevertheless, Russia has signaled that it is open to talks aimed at resolving the crisis.

Read more …

What if they come under fire? What about body bags?!

• Biden Allows Deployment Of US Military ‘Contractors’ To Ukraine – Media (RT)

The administration of outgoing President Joe Biden has lifted a de facto ban on deploying US defense contractors to Ukraine to repair American-made armaments, Reuters and CNN reported on Friday, citing anonymous Pentagon officials. This reversal of previous US policy comes as Donald Trump, who has been skeptical of providing funding and military assistance to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, secured his second term in the White House. While it is unclear whether Trump would have continued the prior policy, he has promised not to put American lives at risk and to rapidly conclude the conflict once in office again. The potential American presence on the ground will be “small” and located “far” from the front lines, and they are not expected to engage in combat, Reuters wrote on Friday, citing an anonymous US official.

As the US and its NATO partners have provided Kiev with increasingly sophisticated American-made armaments, such as F-16 fighter jets and Patriot air defense systems, restrictions have slowed repairs and proven increasingly challenging. Much of the equipment has been damaged beyond repair by Kiev’s own specialists. The policy change aligns the Pentagon more closely with the US State Department and USAID, which already have contractors in Ukraine, according to another official. “These contractors will help the Ukrainian Armed Forces rapidly repair and maintain US-provided equipment as needed so it can quickly return to the front lines,” CNN wrote on Friday, citing a defense official. Specifically, F-16 jets and Patriot batteries “require specific technical expertise to maintain,” they said.

Allowing US contractors to work in Ukraine will provide a faster alternative to the current method of transporting equipment to NATO countries such as Poland and Romania for repairs, CNN noted. Meanwhile, the risks of being killed by Russian strikes will fall on the companies bidding for the Pentagon contracts. “Each US contractor, organization, or company will be responsible for the safety and security of their employees and will be required to include risk mitigation plans as part of their bids,” CNN cited a defense official as saying.

Russian President Vladimir Putin previously stated that Moscow is aware of the “direct involvement of NATO troops in this conflict.” He pointed out that several high-tech systems the US and its allies have provided to Kiev, such as ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles, require the involvement of Western officers to operate them. The Russian Defense Ministry regularly reports airstrikes on repair facilities in Ukraine. This week alone, the Russian military conducted at least 38 strikes on Ukrainian military-industrial complex facilities, as well as the energy and military infrastructure supporting them, according to the latest report on Friday.

Read more …

“They will keep fighting, banking on a return to power in two or four years when they can continue their project to transform America. They are masters of the long game.”

• Can Trump Tame Resistance 2.0? (J. Peder Zane)

Last Tuesday, we were all equal – one person, one vote. Against every effort by the liberal elites, a slim majority of Americans returned Donald Trump to the White House, investing him with vast authority through their 73 million votes. On Wednesday, the normal order of inequality was restored. The potent forces in government, business, media, and academia that opposed Trump by hook or crook took back up their undemocratic reins of power and began to plot how, as Kamala Harris put it in her concession speech, they “will continue to keep fighting.” This is not as bad as it sounds. America became a free and prosperous nation in large part because of the constraints our founders put on government – both in the checks and balances at the federal level and the federalism that invests states with great authority. This, along with the visionary Bill of Rights and the refusal to establish a national church, created vast opportunities for individuals and non-governmental organizations to shape our country.

This diffusion of power is a major reason why we have never come close to dictatorship. Even with the vast expansion of government since the New Deal and Great Society, there are still too many moving parts for a wannabe authoritarian to corral. As it empowers the non-governmental actors, the American system depends on an implicit set of checks and balances – both vigilance and restraint – on the behavior of the people. One clear example concerns speech. The First Amendment’s broad protections are limited by the guardrails imposed by ever-evolving community standards regarding acceptable discourse. In theory, everybody can say the n-word, but you really can’t, along with a host of slurs that once filled our newspapers. Another example involves accepting the results of elections. Even in Ronald Reagan’s 1984 landslide, about 42% of Americans did not vote for the Gipper.

Still, the losing side is expected to accept defeat graciously, to respect the authority their adversary has gained in this zero-sum game of elections, and take up the mantle of the loyal opposition. In the wake of Trump’s victory, this is another norm that conspicuous segments of the modern Democratic Party seem intent on breaking – not through a Jan. 6 episode of violence but through the legislative maneuvers, investigations, and lawfare that marked their resistance during his first term. Before the election, the legacy media was filled with largely celebratory articles about efforts to Trump-proof government in case he won. This effort is now being turbocharged with reports that President Biden aims to use the lame-duck session to thwart his successor. Governor Gavin Newsom has called a special session of the California legislature to Trump-proof state laws.

Governor Maura Healey has said Massachusetts state police will not support Trump’s mass immigration plans – a bedrock promise of his campaign, which is backed by a majority of Americans. This opposition is only the tip of a long spear of Resistance 2.0. The liberal and leftist elites in the legacy media, academia, and various other power centers have made clear that they will do everything they can, not just to oppose but to undermine and delegitimize the democratically elected president. This is not business as usual, nor is it merely an echo of Mitch McConnell’s vow in 2010 to make Obama a one-term president. It is a rejection of the compact that has long ruled American politics in which the losing side gives the winner a chance to prove them wrong.

How could they? Their unhinged claims that Trump is an authoritarian fascist are not a political ploy but a deeply held belief, cultivated over decades of Manichean indoctrination. They have used similar language to describe every Republican president since Reagan. Trump is the culmination of this uncompromising worldview. The concise paraphrase of the physicist Max Planck’s insight – that science proceeds one funeral at a time – captures what Trump is up against. Democrats and their allies are too invested in their own ideology to change. They will keep fighting, banking on a return to power in two or four years when they can continue their project to transform America. They are masters of the long game. In response, Trump and his allies must first hope that the GOP retains control of the House of Representatives – votes are still being counted. This is crucial for limiting the Democrats’ ability to kneecap the new administration with spurious congressional investigations.

More importantly, Trump must, as best he can, limit his love for battle, resist his instinct to take the bait. He should treat his opponents with the contempt they deserve, ignoring their provocations for the sake of effective governance. He should be guided by the single best line of his campaign, “My revenge will be success.” He must focus on our problems rather than his enemies. The challenges we face – especially our unsustainable debt, an economy that is not working for ordinary Americans, and a world beset by conflict – have little to do with the opinions of Democrats and the New York Times. Yes, his opponents enjoy great power, which they will brandish in an attempt to weaken and frustrate him. But if he can rise above their malice – and his own pettiness – he just might make America great again.

Read more …

“I expect that Trump will be found guilty at least in some cases, and will be in jail by election day in November 2024..”

• Trump’s Triumph Sows Sorrow for Soros (Sp.)

Billionaire hedge fund shark-turned liberal ‘philanthropist’ George Soros’ financial interests and political projects may be in trouble when Donald Trump returns to the Oval Office, with tens of millions in campaign funding, smear jobs and even involvement in the Trump prosecutions failing to stop the former president from making a comeback. Bloomberg reported on Friday that Soros Fund Management plans to shut down its Hong Kong office as part of a surprise “administrative reorganization” after 14 years of operations. The move may signal preparations by the Soros family to make major changes in the way their soft power empire operates with Trump back in power. The campaign by the elder Soros and his son and heir apparent Alex to keep a Democrat in the White House has failed to pay dividends, despite the Soros’ Fund for Policy Reform’s transfer of $60 mln to Future Forward, a pro-Democrat dark money super PAC.

That’s on top of a $15 mln donation by an Open Society Foundations subsidiary in 2023. Along with money, the Soros family invested significant personal capital into the campaign against “MAGA-style Republicans” in 2024. In the spring of 2023, Alex Soros announced a dramatic scaling back of OSF’s operations in Western Europe to focus on Ukraine, Moldova, the Western Balkans, and the United States, with the effort to stop Trump becoming a top priority. George Soros first sounded the alarm over Trump’s “America First” foreign policy in 2016, when he pumped millions into Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign but failed to see his preferred candidate elected. After Trump won, Soros funded an anti-Trump “resistance movement,” manifesting itself in street protests, court challenges to his domestic agenda, secret lobbying of members of his administration, support for lawmakers promoting a neoliberal foreign policy, and even $1 mln in cash spent on the infamous debunked ‘Trump-Russia collusion’ dossier.

During Trump’s first term, Soros lobbied tech giants to regulate social media, funded a campaign to support dozens, if not hundreds, of liberal prosecutors and judges, gubernatorial candidates, congressional hopefuls, and other state and local officials in 2018 and 2020. Soros and the OSF’s noticeable shift away from meddling abroad to interfering in US domestic politics earned the ire of Trump backers, who sought to declare him a “domestic terrorist,” strip him of his assets, and expel the Hungarian-born billionaire from the country. When Joe Biden won in 2020, a Soros-linked think tank lobbied his administration to support policies favoring OSF principles in nearly two dozen different policy areas, and laid out $20 mln to create ‘grass roots organizations’ to sell Biden’s $1.2 trln infrastructure bill. In 2022, Soros channeled $125 mln into a ‘Democracy PAC’ to support anti-MAGA candidates in the midterms.

In 2023, as criminal indictments began to come down on Trump, the former president immediately linked the political “witch hunt” against him to Soros and his “hand-picked and funded” Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, to whose 2021 campaign Soros is known to have donated at least $1 mln. “I expect that Trump will be found guilty at least in some cases, and will be in jail by election day in November 2024,” Soros said in an August 2023 interview. “If I am right, he is unlikely to win the election. But if I am wrong, the US will face a constitutional crisis that is likely to bring on an economic crisis as well.” Something seems to have gone terribly wrong in the billionaire’s calculations, with Soros’ ex-money manager, Stan Druckenmiller, warning in mid-October that the markets were “very convinced” that Trump would win.

With the Soros family dealt a major blow in Tuesday’s election and set back to where it started in 2016, only time will tell whether the OSF empire will restart its anti-Trump “resistance” movement, and if the president-elect’s inner circle – steeled by over eight years of efforts to sabotage Trump and undermine his ability to govern – will tolerate Soros-style attacks on the US political system and constitutional order.

Read more …

Eminently unqualified.

• Kamala Harris May Be Appointed Supreme Court Judge (Sp.)

US Vice President and former presidential candidate Kamala Harris may be appointed an associate justice of the US Supreme Court after the failed attempt to become the first female president of the United States, Newsweek reported, citing a Democratic member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, Bakari Sellers. Harris has a Doctor of Law degree and worked in the prosecutor’s office, the mayor’s office and for lawyers. She also served as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general between 2011 and 2017. During that period, she refused to support two initiatives banning the death penalty in the US, which gave her opponents grounds to accuse her of inconsistency. Sellers believes outgoing US President Joe Biden can persuade the current associate justice, the 70-year-old Liberal, Sonia Sotomayor, to resign, for Harris to take her place, Newsweek said.

However, the move should be made quickly, before the Trump administration enters the White House, according to the report. “I think that’s actually a very good plan. I think it’s something that should happen,” Sellers was quoted as saying by Newsweek. Sotomayor’s health is of growing concern, since she is at quite an advanced age and has type 1 diabetes, Newsweek reported, adding that some Democrats have been urging her to resign. A presidential election took place in the United States on November 5. Republican candidate Donald Trump, who served as the US president from 2017-2021, was declared the winner by all leading race callers and networks, namely the Associated Press, Decision Desk HQ, Fox News, and CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS from the National Election Pool consortium, as he secured enough votes in the Electoral College to win the election.

Democratic candidate Kamala Harris conceded defeat in an address to her supporters, and US President Joe Biden congratulated Trump. The Electoral College, the group of presidential electors from the states, will vote for the candidate whom each state’s voters have chosen on December 17, and the results will be approved by Congress on January 6. The presidential inauguration will take place on January 20. Trump became the first US president since the 19th century to be elected to non-consecutive terms.

Read more …

“The EU is a peace project, and the war must be stopped.”

• Zelensky ‘Afraid War Will End’ – Slovak PM Fico (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is deeply concerned about Donald Trump’s triumph in the US presidential election, fearing it could lead to a suspension of military and financial aid from Washington, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said. In an interview with Radio Slovensko on Saturday, Fico discussed how Trump’s policies could impact global politics and the Ukraine conflict. The prime minister claimed that when he saw Zelensky during the EU summit in Budapest, Hungary, on November 7, the Ukrainian leader appeared visibly shaken. “Have you ever seen a person who is afraid that the war will end? I saw him, and his name is Vladimir Zelensky,” Fico told the host, adding that Zelensky seemed “shocked that Trump won and that there could be a halt to aid from the United States.”

Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to end the fighting in Ukraine within “24 hours,” without specifying how he might achieve this. Fico argued that the fighting will not stop as long as the West continues to send billions of dollars’ worth of weaponry into the conflict zone. “That means there will be some fundamental decisions regarding the war in Ukraine… He is someone who simply doesn’t like wars as such,” Fico remarked, reflecting on how Trump, as a businessman, “prefers” tariffs and sanctions to military confrontations. The Slovak leader suggested that the president-elect will take “decisive steps.” If Washington cuts financing to Kiev, the EU will need to adjust its policies and push for negotiations instead of doubling down on arming Ukraine in the hope that Russia will eventually lose. “We are again acting as a military cabinet in relation to Ukraine… Is the EU ready to assume all the costs of the war in Ukraine?” Fico wondered.

“There is still an opinion that if we keep supporting Ukraine, we will bring Russia to its knees, but that does not work,” he argued, urging the bloc to recognize that this logic is flawed. “The EU is a peace project, and the war must be stopped.” European Union leaders discussed in Budapest whether they can afford to continue financing the Ukrainian military if Trump decides to withdraw Washington’s support, Bloomberg reported on Friday. However, according to sources, rather than money, they are more concerned about “the available military resources that have come primarily from the US.” Meanwhile, Zelensky seemed more concerned about the money – as he demanded from the EU roughly $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets if the US cuts him off, claiming the money “rightfully belongs” to Ukraine. He also told the summit that he did not yet know Trump’s plans, and that only Kiev should “decide what should and should not be on the agenda for ending this war.”

Read more …

“.. if that is your priority of getting Crimea back and having American soldiers fight to get Crimea back, you’re on your own..”

• Zelensky Must Accept ‘Crimea Is Gone’ – Trump Strategist (RT)

The second administration of US President-elect Donald Trump will focus on achieving peace in Ukraine rather than enabling it to take back all the territory it has lost to Russia, Bryan Lanza, a senior campaign advisor to the US president-elect, has said. Lanza, a veteran Republican party strategist who has worked on campaigns with Trump since 2016, made the remarks to the BBC on Saturday. While he expressed respect for the Ukrainian people, Lanza said the US priority would be to achieve “peace and to stop the killing.” The strategist dismissed as unrealistic Kiev’s proclaimed goal of expelling Russian forces from all the territory it claims. Lanza specifically mentioned the Crimean peninsula, which broke away from Ukraine in the aftermath of the 2014 Maidan coup and joined Russia via a referendum. He did not say anything about four other formerly Ukrainian territories incorporated into the country in 2022.

When [Vladimir] Zelensky says we will only stop this fighting, there will only be peace once Crimea is returned, we’ve got news for President Zelensky: Crimea is gone. The US will not fight on Ukraine’s behalf to get the those areas back from Russia, Lanza stressed. “And if that is your priority of getting Crimea back and having American soldiers fight to get Crimea back, you’re on your own,” he said. Instead, the Ukrainian leadership should come up with a “realistic vision for peace” ahead of potential negotiations. Zelensky’s insistence that “we can only have peace if we have Crimea” just shows he is “not serious,” Lanza said. “What we’re going to say to Ukraine is, ‘You know what you see? What do you see as a realistic vision for peace? It’s not a vision for winning, but it’s a vision for peace. And let’s start having honest conversation,” he added.

Trump repeatedly promised to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in 24 hours during his election campaign. However, he has provided little detail on how he intends to do so. Meanwhile, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has suggested that the conflict could be frozen along the current front line, with Kiev forced to abandon its claims over the territories held by Russia, as well as its aspiration to join NATO. Lanza’s statements on the Ukraine issue do not reflect Trump’s position, Reuters reported on Saturday evening. “Brian was hired to work on the campaign,” the agency quoted a Trump campaign representative as saying. “He does not work for the president [now] and does not speak for him.”

Read more …

“J.D. Vance has previously called for Ukraine being “heavily fortified so the Russians don’t invade again” as part of a future peace process..”

• Musk Says “Time Is Up For The Warmonger Profiteers” (ZH)

The Wall Street Journal this week reported that President-Elect Donald Trump is being presented with an array of competing proposals from advisers related to his campaign promise to immediately end the war in Ukraine upon entering the White House. While he’s reportedly yet to approve a specific plan, and much might also depend on his team identifying who will fill the top national security and foreign policy posts in the administration, what’s clear is the Zelensky government will feel the pressure to immediately sit at the negotiating table with Moscow. The WSJ has revealed that the current options being considered all involve imposing a ‘freeze’ on the war, which to Kiev’s dismay would involve “cementing Russia’s seizure of roughly 20 percent of Ukraine” while imposing a 20-year suspension on Ukraine pursuing NATO membership.

The front lines in the east “would essentially lock in place” according to the proposed plan which is reportedly attracting most attention within Trump’s team, and this freeze would be enforced by European peacekeepers along an 800-mile demilitarized zone. Trump officials have told the WSJ that the president-elect is committed to seeing that no American troops are deployed as part of policing this buffer zone; instead the Europeans should shoulder the burden: “Who would police that territory remains unclear, but one adviser said the peacekeeping force wouldn’t involve American troops, nor come from a U.S.-funded international body, such as the United Nations. “We can do training and other support but the barrel of the gun is going to be European,” a member of Trump’s team said. “We are not sending American men and women to uphold peace in Ukraine. And we are not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British and French to do it.”

The degree to which this plan is actually being mulled and favored by Trump is unclear. Ukraine is likely to object to being forced to give up such a large chunk of what it sees as its legitimate sovereign territory. “Anyone—no matter how senior in Trump’s circle—who claims to have a different view or more detailed window into his plans on Ukraine simply doesn’t know what he or she is talking about or doesn’t understand that he makes his own calls on national-security issues, many times in the moment, particularly on an issue as central as this,” a former Trump National Security Council aide told WSJ by way of important caveat. However, Elon Musk, who was invited by Trump to join in on a phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelensky this week, has suggested the above peace plan is likely top of the list of what’s being considered.

“The senseless killing will end soon. Time is up for the warmonger profiteers,” Musk posted on X in direct response to X commentator Mario Nawfal, who wrote about “Trump’s plan for Ukraine.” Nawfal in his original post which caught Musk’s attention wrote that Trump “reportedly plans an 800-mile demilitarized zone between Russia and Ukraine, with British and European troops patrolling the area” – quoting Newsweek. “Under the proposal, Russia would retain its territorial gains, and Ukraine would agree not to join NATO for 20 years,” Nawfal’s post added.

Another controversial aspect to the plan would be Washington would continue to pump Ukraine full of weapons while declaring it ‘neutral’ regarding NATO. J.D. Vance has previously called for Ukraine being “heavily fortified so the Russians don’t invade again” as part of a future peace process. But this would probably be especially objected to by the Kremlin, given a stated aim of Putin’s in executing the war is precisely to ‘demilitarize’ Ukraine, and to halt the advance of NATO infrastructure into the former Soviet satellite. Putin might perceive that the West continuing to arm Ukraine for many years to come would just set things up for another major future clash and war in Eastern Europe.

Read more …

“Take away the subsidies. It will only help Tesla,” Musk posted on X in July..”

• Will Trump Clash With Musk Over EV Tariffs? (Sp.)

Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump has railed against Joe Biden’s climate policies, vowing to row back spending on green energy, and boost drilling for oil and gas to “further defeat inflation.” Donald Trump may help Tesla and the domestic EV industry by imposing very high tariffs on Chinese EV exports to the US, Dr. Mamdouh G. Salameh, a global energy expert, told Sputnik. “This will give a domestic boost to Tesla,” he said, “in return for the financial and political support” that Tesla CEO Elon Musk provided to his election campaign. Weighing in on Trump’s campaign pledges to “end the electric vehicle mandate on day one,” geopolitical commentator Thomas W. Pauken II speculated that Biden’s EV subsidies were “not exactly very business-orientated.”

“It was a case of having government spending on unpopular EVs… It didn’t make the cars cheaper. It just made it cheaper for the manufacturers to produce the cars and to even go head over heels over increasing automated manufacturing. So, the subsidies, rather than invest into human labor or to lower the cost, instead went to the manufacturers to automate their factories,” he underscored. The president-elect is “correct for opposing these types of subsidies,” the pundit said. “When Biden was having to decide on what companies would get the subsidy, I’m pretty sure that he looked at the DNC donors list to see who is more worthy of the subsidies and who is not,” Pauken II added.

Biden made EVs the centerpiece of his administration’s bid to fight climate change, allocating billions to manufacturers, the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program to install more EV chargers, incentives for battery factories, and tax credits for buyers. Trump, however, has slammed EVs as too expensive and undermining the American auto industry. In his nomination speech at the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump said that he would “end the electric vehicle mandate on day one,” adding that this would result in “saving the US auto industry from complete obliteration, which is happening right now, and saving US customers thousands and thousands of dollars per car.”

Elon Musk, who donated over $119 million to a political action committee in his support, according to Federal Election Commission filings, has dismissed concerns about a potential end to Biden’s EV tax credit. “Take away the subsidies. It will only help Tesla,” Musk posted on X in July. Shares of Tesla, Inc. soared 15% on the results of the November 5 election, adding roughly $15 billion in value to Musk’s net worth.

Read more …

“..this is a clash of the very principles on which relations between countries and peoples will be built at the next historical stage.”

• Putin Outlines The ‘Moment of Truth’ (Pepe Escobar)

President Putin’s plenary session performance (address + Q&A) at the annual Valdai Club meeting in Sochi felt like a high-speed train on cruise control. Totally cool, calm, comfortable, in full command of a Himalaya of facts, no political leader anywhere – recent past and present – would even come close to delivering what amounts to an extensive, detailed world view deeply matured over a quarter of a century at the highest geopolitical level. Putin began his address referring to the October 1917 revolution, drawing a direct parallel with our turbulent times: “The moment of truth is coming”. In a clear tribute to Gramsci, he stated how a “completely new world order” is “being formed before our eyes.” The subtle reference to the recent BRICS summit in Kazan could not possibly escape critical minds across the Global Majority.

Kazan was a living, breathing testimony that “the old order is irrevocably disappearing, one might say, has already disappeared, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the formation of a new one. Irreconcilable, first of all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence, this is a clash of the very principles on which relations between countries and peoples will be built at the next historical stage.” As concisely as possible, that should be taken as the current Big Picture framework: we are not mired inside a reductionist clash of civilizations or the “end of History” – which Putin defined as “myopic” – but facing a make-or-break systemic clash of fundamental principles. The result will define this century – arguably the Eurasia Century, as “the dialectics of History continues.” Putin himself quipped that he would drive into “philosophical asides” during his address.

In fact that went much further than a mere refutation of unilateral conceptual fallacies, as “the Western elites thought that their monopoly is the final stop for humanity” and “modern neoliberalism degenerated into a totalitarian ideology.” Referring to AI, he asked rhetorically, “will human remain human?” He praised the building of a new global architecture, moving towards a “polyphonic” and “polycentric” world where “maximum representation” is paramount and the BRICS are “coming up with a coordinated approach” based on “sovereign equality.”

Read more …

“Peace is possible if Trump can escape from the US military/security complex and the warmonger neoconservatives.”

• Neoliberalism Has “Become a Totalitarian Ideology” – Putin (Paul Craig Roberts)

At the Valdai Forum Putin said that neoliberalism stifles national sovereignty and traditional values and erodes national cultures, thus eliminating diversity. “There is no room for difference in the neoliberal order. It seeks to flatten diversity rather than celebrate it.” Washington’s unipolar system “only serves a small number of powerful elites.” Now that Putin has come to these realizations, perhaps he will replace his neoliberal central bank director. Putin thanks Washington for the economic sanctions that forced Russia off the mistaken path of globalism. “The sanctions have forced us to look inward, to focus on developing domestic industries.” Globalism is a one-way street to economic death. For Americans the consequence was the offshoring of American industry and middle class jobs, pressure on state and local budgets, and the loss of a trained work force.

Putin says that he respects Western civilization–probably more than do graduates and professors of Western universities. The problem is not Western culture. The problem is with the aggressive policies of Western governments. Putin is puzzled that such weak political and military countries are so aggressive toward such a powerful unified country as Russia. Putin said Trump was a capable leader who has shown courage and resilience. Putin declared willingness to work with Trump to normalize relations and put them on a more constructive path. Now that both powers have capable leaders perhaps the world can escape from war. Peace is possible if Trump can escape from the US military/security complex and the warmonger neoconservatives.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

WHO

 

 

RFK

 

 

CO2

 

 

Panther

 

 

Simple

 

 

Pick up

 

 

Yakutia

 

 

Plane

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 3 2024

Jul 032024
 
 July 3, 2024  Posted by at 8:49 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  57 Responses »


René Magritte The son of man 1946

 

• Trump Sentencing Delayed Two Months, ‘If Such Is Still Necessary’ (ZH)
• SCOTUS Ruled For The Office of the President, Not Trump (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Age of Rage: Critics Unleash Threats and Abuse on the Supreme Court (Turley)
• No, The Supreme Court Did Not Remove All Limits on the Presidency (Turley)
• Ex-Hillary Aide: Debate Setup “Soft Coup” By Democrats To Replace Biden (MN)
• Major US Democrat Donors Threatening Party Over Biden (RT)
• The Long Sordid Career of Creepy Joe Biden (Jeffries)
• What US Allies Should Learn From The Biden-Trump Debate (Amar)
• Democrats Hint At Assassination In Response To SCOTUS Immunity Decision (ZH)
• BBC Presenter Calls For Trump To Be Assassinated (RT)
• Trump Could End NATO Expansion – Politico (RT)
• UK Military Unprepared For Conflict Of Any Kind – Ex-Defense Official (RT)
• Zelensky’s New ‘Plan’ Possible ‘First Step’ To Negotiations (DeMartino)
• Le Pen Accuses Macron Of Preparing ‘Coup d’État’ (RT)
• France Rapidly Being ‘Brought to its Knees’ Regardless of Vote Outcome (Sp.)
• UniCredit Challenges Order To Leave Russia (RT)
• Chevron Deference (Spike Cohen)

 

 

 

 

Short
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807931860128854162

 

 

Trump lawfare
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807907184631861446

 

 

Poso
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807878480476156148

 

 

Tucker Obama
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807538203458683010

 

 

RFK Dr. Phil

 

 

Trump Taliban
https://twitter.com/i/status/1808179617397719127

 

 

 

 

All the charges and indictments appear to be -slowly- falling apart.

• Trump Sentencing Delayed Two Months, ‘If Such Is Still Necessary’ (ZH)

Update (1505ET): Donald Trump’s sentencing date has been kicked down the road more than two months – from July 11th to September 18th, ‘if such is still necessary.’

https://twitter.com/james_jinnette1/status/1808215098797838392

Interestingly, New York prosecutors agreed to a delay.

[..] Hours after the US Supreme Court granted Donald Trump immunity for official acts committed in office, the former president began an effort to toss his recent conviction in Manhattan and postpone his upcoming sentencing over 34 felony counts related to his cover-up of a sex scandal leading up to the 2016 US election. In a letter to judge Juan Merchan just hours after the Supreme Court ruling – and 10 days before he’s set for sentencing, Trump’s lawyers sought permission to file a motion to set aside the verdict while Merchan considers whether the Supreme Court ruling affects the conviction. That said, Trump’s attempt might be a long shot given the fact that the Manhattan case revolves around acts Trump took as a candidate, not as president.

As the NY Times notes, however, Trump’s lawyers are likely to argue that prosecutors partially built their case using evidence from his time in office. Under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors may not charge a president for official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts that affect other accusations. It is unclear how the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which brought the case, will respond, or whether the judge will delay the first sentencing of an American president. But Mr. Trump’s effort appeared to cause at least a brief interruption: The district attorney’s office did not on Monday make a sentencing recommendation to the judge about whether to imprison Mr. Trump, as was expected. Merchan may also punt on the request, as the deadline for filing post-trial motions ended last month. Instead, Merchan may instruct Trump’s attorneys to raise the issue when they appeal the conviction post-sentencing.

As the Times further notes, Merchan faces an ‘unprecedented conundrum’ with massive legal and political ramifications. Imprisoning Trump would drop-kick a hornet’s nest, while sparing Trump from prison would immediately draw the wrath of vengeful Democrats who say he gave Trump special treatment. While there’s no requirement that Trump be sentenced to time behind bars, Merchan could sentence him to months or several years in prison – or he could be sentenced to home confinement or probation. He could also postpone any sentence until after the election, or after Trump serves another term in office, should be he reelected. Meanwhile, Trump’s other criminal cases have been largely derailed or otherwise postponed – including his trial in Washington DC, where he stands accused of mishandling classified information while still in office.

Read more …

“..the legal machinery the corrupt Democrats have employed against Trump is too corrupt to be able to do its assigned political assassination.”

• SCOTUS Ruled For The Office of the President, Not Trump (Paul Craig Roberts)

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a president has immunity for official acts, but not for personal acts. Which is which will be a contentious issue. For example, if a president were to have the CIA, FBI, or Secret Service murder a political rival that would be a personal act. But when President Obama had the US military murder a US citizen suspected of being a terrorist, it was an official act. But was it? The justification for the murder was suspicion alone, a bare-faced accusation unconfirmed by a trial and therefore in violation of due process. Has it ever been established that it is an official act for a president to have a US citizen murdered without due process? Perhaps it has happened secretly by the CIA but my impression is that President Obama’s murder of the Muslim religious leader who was an American citizen was the first public murder without due process and conviction delivering a death penalty.

Nothing was made of the murder because Americans had been indoctrinated with fear of Muslim terrorists and regarded the murder as an act of war. When vice president Biden bragged on TV that he forced by withholding billions of dollars in US aid from the Ukraine government unless it fired the prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company that paid his son $50,000 a month as a director, was it an official act or a personal act? Why has there been no investigation of this self-serving use of presidential authority? The Supreme Court majority emphasized that a president must have immunity for official acts or he can be stopped by law suits and politically motivated charges from performing his designated functions. In other words, the Court’s decision is based on elementary common sense.

If a president believes an election is fraudulent, it is his responsibility, and thereby an official act, for him to have the election verified. However, the Democrats and whore media defined the issue as “Trump overthrowing the election.” Even experts with the evidence in their hands were indicted for aiding and abetting Trump’s attempted overthrow of the election. In other words, the criminal indictment brought against Trump assumed without justification that there was no evidence of election fraud. As Trump had appointed a Justice Department and an entire government consisting of his enemies, his own government treated his official action as his private action. A rally in support of Trump was mischaracterized by Democrats, whore media, and Republicans such as Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell as an “insurrection.”

What we should be disturbed about is the ability of the Democrats and the whore media to disrupt the 4-year term of a US president with a series of false charges that were never confirmed and then to use unconfirmed charges to indict a former president in an effort to prevent him from again running for president. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the indictments against Trump were falling apart. The biased “special counsel” prosecuting Trump was caught lying to the federal judge, who has put the case on hold. Fani Willis entrusted by the White House with Trump’s prosecution in Atlanta has been found to have given her lover $700,000 of taxpayers’ money with which he took Fani on vacations. Her case against Trump is also on hold. In other words, the legal machinery the corrupt Democrats have employed against Trump is too corrupt to be able to do its assigned political assassination.

Read more …

“The Supreme Court was designed to be unpopular; to take stands that are politically unpopular but constitutionally correct.”

• Age of Rage: Critics Unleash Threats and Abuse on the Supreme Court (Turley)

Within minutes of the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, liberal politicians and pundits seemed to move from hyperbole to hyperventilation. When not breathing into paper bags, critics predicted, again, the end of the republic. CNN’s Van Jones declared that it was “almost a license to thug, in a way.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) declared: “My stomach turns with fear and anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out-of-control court” and denounced six justices as “extreme and nakedly partisan hacks — politicians in robes.” Blumenthal has previously shown greater intestinal fortitude, as when he threatened the justices that they would either rule as Democrats demanded or face “seismic” changes to their court. Jones warned the justices that “politically it’s bad” for them to rule this way. The comment captures the misguided analysis of many media outlets. The Supreme Court was designed to be unpopular; to take stands that are politically unpopular but constitutionally correct.

Indeed, the Democrats have become the very threat that the court was meant to resist. Recently, senators demanded that Chief Justice John Roberts appear to answer to them for his own decisions. (Roberts wisely declined.) Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer previously declared in front of the Supreme Court, “I want to tell you, [Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Brett] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” Now Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced that she will seek the impeachment of all six of the conservative justices. She was immediately joined by other Democratic members. Notably, scholars have long disagreed where to draw the line on presidential immunity. The court adopted a middle approach that rejected extreme arguments on both sides. Yet, because Ocasio-Cortez disagrees with their decision, she has declared that this “is an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.”

Previously, Ocasio-Cortez admitted that she does not understand why we even have a Supreme Court. She asked “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” Other members, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have called for packing the Court with additional members to immediately secure a liberal majority to rule as she desires. For these pundits and politicians, justice is merely an extension of politics and subject to the whims of the majority. These are same voices who chastised Judge Aileen Cannon for “slowwalking” her decisions by holding hearings on constitutional questions. They pointed to Judge Tanya Chutkan, who supported the efforts of special counsel Jack Smith to try Trump before the election, turning her court into a rocket docket. Chutkan quickly set aside this challenge, as well as other objections from Trump.

Indeed, at the oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts marveled at the conclusory analysis by Patricia Ann Millett in upholding Chutkan. He referred to the opinion celebrated by the left as little more than declaring “a former president can be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted.” Chutkan and the DC Circuit were fast but ultimately wrong. Indeed, the Supreme Court noted that the judge created little record for the basis of her decisions. In a perverted sense, Democrats are giving the public a powerful lesson in constitutional law. As Alexander Hamilton stated in The Federalist No. 78, judicial independence “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.” This is the moment that the Framers envisioned in creating the Court under Article III of the Constitution. It would be our bulwark even when politicians lose faith in our Constitution and seek to dictate justice for those who they dislike.

Read more …

“President Biden’s hyper-ventilated response is crushingly ironic. He was vice president when President Barack Obama killed an American citizen without a trial or a charge. ”

• No, The Supreme Court Did Not Remove All Limits on the Presidency (Turley)

One of the most glaring moments in the address came when President Biden declared that “for all…for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.” That is not true. The Court found that there was absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions. The Court has often adopted tiered approaches in balancing the powers of the branches. For example, in his famous concurrence to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson broke down the line of authority between Congress and the White House into three groups where the President is acting with express or implied authority from Congress; where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area); and where the President is acting in defiance of Congress.

Here the Court separated cases into actions taken in core areas of executive authority, official actions taken outside those core areas, and unofficial actions. Actions deemed personal or unofficial are not protected under this ruling. It is certainly true that the case affords considerable immunity, including for conversations with subordinates. However, this did not spring suddenly from the head Zeus. As Chief Justice John Roberts lays out in the majority opinion, there has long been robust protections afforded to presidents. There are also a host of checks and balances on executive authority in our constitutional system. This includes judicial intervention to prevent violations of the law as well as impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. President Biden’s hyper-ventilated response is crushingly ironic. He was vice president when President Barack Obama killed an American citizen without a trial or a charge.

When former Attorney General Eric Holder announced the “kill list” policy (that included the right to kill any American citizen), he was met with applause, not condemnation. The Obama-Biden administration then fought every effort by the family to sue the government. President Biden would have been outraged by any attempt of a Republican district attorney to charge him or President Obama with murder. He would also be outraged by prosecutors pursuing criminal charges for the deaths associated with the deluge of undocumented persons over the Southern border. In his address, President Biden also claimed that “the law would no longer” define “the limits of the presidency.” That is also untrue. This case was remanded for the purpose of defining what of these functions would be deemed private as opposed to official. Even on official actions, former president Donald Trump could be prosecuted if the presumptive immunity is rebutted by prosecutors.

What was most glaring for many civil libertarians was President Biden’s portrayal of himself as a paragon of constitutional fealty. He declared that “I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers as I have for the last three-and-a-half years.” That was also untrue. President Biden has racked up an impressive array of losses in federal courts where he was found to have violated the constitution. This includes rulings that his administration has exceeded his authority and engaged in racial discrimination in federal programs. Indeed, Biden has often displayed a cavalier attitude toward such violations. For example, the Biden administration was found to have violated the Constitution in its imposition of a nationwide eviction moratorium through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Biden admitted that his White House counsel and most legal experts told him the move was unconstitutional.

But he ignored their advice and went with that of Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe, the one person who would tell him what he wanted to hear. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional. Biden showed the same disregard over the unconstitutionality of his effort to unilaterally forgive roughly half a trillion dollars in student debt. Courts have already enjoined that effort as presumptively unconstitutional (though an appellate court in one of those cases relaxed aspects of the injunction). The address was used to reinforce his “democracy is on the ballot” campaign theme. Pundits have repeated the mantra, claiming that if Biden is not elected, American democracy will perish. While some of us have challenged these predictions, the other presidential candidates are missing a far more compelling argument going into this election. While democracy is not on the ballot this election, free speech is.

Read more …

“They wanted to test him against Trump early while there was still time to replace him if he failed to rise to the occasion. Which, of course, he did spectacularly..”

• Ex-Hillary Aide: Debate Setup “Soft Coup” By Democrats To Replace Biden (MN)

Sources close to the Democratic Party have claimed that the debate last week was purposefully setup for Biden to fail as part of a “soft coup,” by insiders who know he is incapable of winning or serving a second term. A former Hillary Clinton aide told The Daily Mail that they wanted Biden to be exposed so he can be replaced by a more capable candidate. “There has never been a debate this early before,” the source stated, adding Traditionally, the debates are held after the Republican and Democratic conventions, which are in July and August.” “There is a growing belief this was a ‘soft coup’ because they know he isn’t fit to govern and have known for some time,” the aide further asserted. “They wanted to test him against Trump early while there was still time to replace him if he failed to rise to the occasion. Which, of course, he did spectacularly,” the source added.

Another insider told the Mail that “Publicly, the Democratic leadership has been backing Biden because they can’t appear to be disloyal to the President. But privately, there have been discussions going on for a long time that he’s too old to beat Trump.” “There were whispers for weeks that ‘Joe’s going down at the debate,’” the source further stated. The Mail also claims that Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer “secretly” sent out an advance team to Washington DC weeks ago to prepare a snap presidential campaign.

The report claims “The team has been ‘on manoeuvres’ and meeting with Democratic officials,” with one source saying “Gretchen was the first to act. Now the floodgates have been opened.” Despite these claims, prominent Democrats including the Clintons, Obama and Nancy Pelosi are still defending Biden and publicly stating he remain the nominee. Pelosi told CNN Sunday that Biden “has the stamina (to continue)” and that “there are uh, uh, health care professionals, who think that uh, Trump has dementia. That his connection, his thoughts do not go together.” Meanwhile, despite his public support for Biden, Obama is privately lobbying to get rid of him, telling insiders he cannot defeat Trump, according to another insider.

Read more …

“..72% of Americans say Biden does not have the mental and cognitive health capabilities to serve as president.”

• Major US Democrat Donors Threatening Party Over Biden (RT)

A growing number of top Democratic donors are fuming over US President Joe Biden’s performance in his debate with GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, the Daily Mail reported on Tuesday. Biden’s performance during Thursday’s face-off with Trump, widely seen as incoherent and fumbling, has also highlighted concerns about the US president’s ability to govern. Several US media outlets reported that the showdown had left many Democrats and their donors scrambling to find a replacement for Biden as the party’s presumptive presidential nominee. The British daily claimed that the discontent “appears to be turning into a full-blown party revolt” in the wake of the event, adding that key Democratic donors are threatening to “pull the plug” unless Biden drops out of the race.

Former hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson, who has donated several hundred thousand dollars to the Democratic Party, lashed out at the US president, telling the Daily Mail: “For Biden’s own good and the good of the country, he should step aside immediately.” He added that the incumbent had so far failed to reassure any party donors, which he claimed “confirms my worst fears.” Meanwhile, several Democrats interviewed by the tabloid vented their frustration at what they called attempts by Biden’s team to “gaslight” them into believing there was nothing to worry about. Tilson echoed this sentiment, saying: “They’re p**sing on our legs and telling us it’s raining… How stupid do they think we are?” An Axios report also provided insight into the campaign’s push to reassure donors during a Zoom call on Monday. The outlet claimed, citing sources, that while “there wasn’t much panic” during the call, there was a lot of skepticism. “It was a damage-control call,” one source said.

However, the report said Biden’s team had not tried to put a positive spin on the debate debacle, instead echoing the president’s own assessment, in which he acknowledged that “I don’t debate as well as I used to.” At the same time, Biden officials reportedly gave donors data and made arguments designed to prove that the president still has a chance of beating Trump. A CNN flash poll conducted after the debate found that 67% of the viewers thought Trump had performed better. Meanwhile, according to a CBS News poll, 72% of Americans say Biden does not have the mental and cognitive health capabilities to serve as president.

Read more …

“If you have a piece of crack cocaine no bigger than this quarter that I’m holding in my hand, one quarter of one dollar, we passed a law — with leadership of Sen. Thurmond and myself and others — a law that says: you’re caught with that, you go to jail for five years..”

• The Long Sordid Career of Creepy Joe Biden (Jeffries)

[..] people might not remember quite everything about Joe Biden’s lengthy career as a beloved resident of the Washington, D.C. swamp that Trump promised to drain. Biden was first elected as a U.S. Senator from Delaware in 1973. Even I was very young then. In 1981, the great “liberal” senator strongly supported the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, passed in the wake of CIA whistleblower Philip Agee’s disclosures about the Agency is his best-selling book Inside the Company. Biden declared that “I do not think anybody has any doubt about Mr. Agee. We should lock him away in my opinion.” The good senator really liked locking people up, it seems. As a strong supporter of the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, he took credit for a draconian provision that mandated a five year sentence for possessing small amounts of crack cocaine.

Little did Biden know that, decades later his own troubled son Hunter would be caught with enough crack cocaine to garner a long prison sentence under the original 1986 Act, which was softened a bit in 2010. With every ounce of “liberal” ardor that he could muster, Biden bragged at the time, “If you have a piece of crack cocaine no bigger than this quarter that I’m holding in my hand, one quarter of one dollar, we passed a law — with leadership of Sen. Thurmond and myself and others — a law that says: you’re caught with that, you go to jail for five years. You get no probation, you get nothing, other than five years in jail. Judge doesn’t have a choice.” Senator Biden also authored the horrendous 1994 crime bill which featured “three strike you’re out” and mandatory sentencing, significantly increasing the prison population.

A JFK assassination researcher attended a Joe Biden seminar in 2005. He was able to briefly question Biden about the assassination. As recounted on a discussion forum, this was the short conversation: “Senator Biden, do you believe JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy?” Answer: “No.” “So do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone and unaided, killed President Kennedy?” Answer: “Yes.” This is hardly surprising, of course, but reflects Biden’s ironclad establishment mindset. In 2019, the American Prospect published a piece headlined, “Joe Biden’s Love Affair With the CIA.” Biden was very helpful to Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey, who praised him in a classified early 1980s memo to his intelligence staff. Biden would state, in a speech at Stanford, that the intelligence community had been compromised by leaks.

Nasty piece of work

So Joe Biden was never one of the Democratic Party politicians I admired back in my misguided youth. He wasn’t going to expose the abuses of the intelligence agencies, like a Frank Church. He wasn’t interested in any “sunshine” laws that would make it easier for the People to be informed about their government. His concern then about “leaks” would evolve into concern over whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. In a January, 2023 tweet, Snowden would comment on Biden’s classified documents scandal, accusing the Department of Justice of suppressing the story until after the election, and declared, “Worth noting that the President seems to have absconded with more classified documents than many whistleblowers.” Biden is on the record as saying that Snowden should “face the consequences of his actions.”

Following Julian Assange’s release from exile last week, some assumed that the Biden administration had been responsible for it, given Biden’s recent statements that he was “considering” dropping the charges against the Wikileaks founder. However, the White House would issue a statement maintaining that they had not played a role in Assange’s plea deal. A deal which, incidentally, made the disappearance of all those troubling DNC emails a prerequisite for his release. So if you’re tempted to think that perhaps, after over fifty years of serving the interests of the corrupt Deep State, Joe Biden finally did something good, you’d be wrong. Why spoil a perfect record? Even Barack Obama commuted Bradley/Chelsea Manning’s sentence.

Read more …

“..Democratic Party apparatchiks are engaging in Orwellian falsifications to cover Biden’s catastrophic cognitive failure..”

• What US Allies Should Learn From The Biden-Trump Debate (Amar)

There is very little to say about the content of the recent televised debate between the current American president, Joe Biden, and the former and likely next president, Donald Trump. That’s because the one feature that mattered was so obvious: Biden is, as those with eyes to see have known for a long time, deeply senile. That is a personal if not uncommon tragedy. Given Biden’s many sins – a lifelong record of systematic, almost compulsive lying, of policies that have, for decades, abused the weak and the poor and pandered to the rich, and, last but not least, the Gaza genocide co-perpetrated with his Zionist friends – it is impossible to feel pity for him. But given the unfortunate power of America, his mental decline is also a global scourge. Yet another one the ‘indispensable’ nation is inflicting on the rest of us on this planet.

The difference between before and after the debate is simply that now even the most mendacious Democratic Party hacks and behind-the-scenes manipulators cannot deny this fact any longer. Don’t get me wrong: Many of them are at least pretending to try, including former president Barack Obama, despite ongoing, widespread, and irrepressible speculation that Michelle Obama, his wife, might enter the fray at the last minute in the melodramatic role of – nobly reluctant – savior. And, of course, Democrats are also blaming anyone but themselves and their atrocious president. Yet their efforts are largely in vain. Even in America, with its post-truth media, the “secret” that never really was, is out, and the taboo is broken.

Panicked by the return of Donald Trump, key outlets of extreme Centrism, such as, to name only three, the very popular TV ‘news’ (really, agitation and propaganda) show Morning Joe, the de facto Democratic Party newspaper the New York Times, and The Economist, the British Pravda of the American empire, are openly and insistently calling for Biden to quit. Polls in the US indicate that the public has had enough, too: According to a CBS News poll, only 28% of registered voters think Biden should stay in the race, while 72% acknowledge the obvious: Biden is mentally unfit for the presidency.

Yet none of this is a surprise. What is more interesting now is what the political fallout of Biden’s debate fiasco reveals about the nature of two things that, unfortunately, still shape much of our world: American ‘democracy’ and American empire. Regarding ‘democracy’, even in the US, some observers – such former President Jimmy Carter and researchers at Princeton University, have long understood that it’s silly to describe their country as a democracy. Instead, any halfway objective assessment of its real political system has to start from the fact that it is an oligarchy. But Carter and the Princeton researchers acknowledged that fact a decade ago. The question is where are we now?

Spoiler alert: Things have only gotten worse. Exhibit A – the manner in which the Biden dementia debate debacle is being handled. It is not only the fact that Democratic Party apparatchiks are engaging in Orwellian falsifications to cover Biden’s catastrophic cognitive failure that enables us to see with our own eyes. It is also the way in which Biden’s family (or would clan be a more exact term?) is still widely treated as having the apparently divine privilege to help him decide whether finally to drop out or not. A family matter? A political system in which issues of obvious and extremely urgent public interest are up to a totally unaccountable ‘family council’ – such as whether a dementia case should have final say over almost 5,000 nuclear weapons – does not qualify as a democracy. Indeed, it does not even qualify as a republic anymore. It may, with a ginormous dose of generosity, pass as a rather rotten monarchy. Less charitable observers would class it as a form of mafia or mobster rule.

Read more …

“..these “theories” on how Biden could respond to the Supreme Court are not simple hypotheticals for the sake of argument, there is an element of desperation and bloodlust.”

• Democrats Hint At Assassination In Response To SCOTUS Immunity Decision (ZH)

Nobody likes to lose but leftists take indignant defeat to a whole new level. Though they claim to “defend democracy” in their spare time, Democrats also have a tendency to abandon the democratic process when that process interferes with their intentions to remain in power. Case in point: The Supreme Court’s recent decision to give immunity from prosecution to Donald Trump in the case of “some official acts” taken during his tenure in office. Leftists have responded with outrage at the 6-3 decision with much of their political hopes resting on the strategy of burying Trump in as many legal battles as possible to keep him from running for president again. Democrats are now flooding social media and the news feeds with suggestions that the SC decision makes it possible for Joe Biden as president to eliminate the conservative competition “as a part of his official duties.”

The tools for legally punishing presidents already exist, including impeachment and charges of treason. And, keep in mind, if Trump does not have immunity for previous actions as president, then neither does any other president. How many skeletons are in the closets of men like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama? Beyond this, assassination of a political opponent or the conservative members of the Supreme Court is not recognized as an official duty of the presidency. Democrats, as usual, take their conclusions to the dramatic extreme in order to provoke public fear through emotionally energized disinformation. Leftists have been fantasizing publicly about murdering Trump for some time now. However, these “theories” on how Biden could respond to the Supreme Court are not simple hypotheticals for the sake of argument, there is an element of desperation and bloodlust.

Read more …

Satire? Switch around the names Trump and Biden, and see how that feels.

• BBC Presenter Calls For Trump To Be Assassinated (RT)

BBC presenter David Aaronovitch has called for the “murder” of former US President Donald Trump in a post on X (formerly Twitter). Aaronovitch later deleted his message following a backlash, claiming it had been “satire.” Aaronovitch, the voice behind the British state broadcaster’s Radio 4 program ‘The Briefing Room’, tweeted on Monday: “If I was Biden I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security.” The post was accompanied by the hashtag #SCOTUS, indicating that the comment had been triggered by Monday’s confirmation from the US Supreme Court that former presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for their official actions. Aaronovitch was forced to delete the post after an online backlash, and claimed in a follow-up message that he had been accused of inciting violence by “a far right pile.” The presenter insisted his tweet was “plainly a satire.”

On Monday, the highest US court ruled that under “our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”In an interview with Fox News Digital, Trump touted the verdict on presidential immunity as a “big win for our Constitution and for democracy.” President Biden attacked the Supreme Court ruling, urging citizens to “di ssent” against the verdict. US federal prosecutors have charged Trump with four criminal counts related to the 2020 presidential election, alleging that he “conspired” to overturn the results. The Supreme Court verdict still grants lower courts the right to hold evidentiary hearings to determine whether the actions are official or unofficial. Unofficial acts by the president are not covered by immunity from prosecution. Trump has repeatedly called his prosecution politically motivated, describing it as a “witch hunt” launched by Biden and his administration.

Read more …

“..EU countries are “plainly not prepared to fill a dramatically expanded military role anytime soon..”

• Trump Could End NATO Expansion – Politico (RT)

The former and possibly future US President Donald Trump is reportedly considering a deal with Russia not to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, according to a Politico article citing anonymous sources. Trump is the presumptive Republican challenger to the incumbent President Joe Biden in the November election. His campaign has not yet named a national security team, or published a new agenda for NATO, but Politico Magazine pieced together a possible one in a story published on Tuesday. “As part of a plan for Ukraine that has not been previously reported, the presumptive GOP nominee is mulling a deal whereby NATO commits to no further eastward expansion — specifically into Ukraine and Georgia — and negotiates with Russian President Vladimir Putin over how much Ukrainian territory Moscow can keep,” the story said, citing two “Trump-aligned national security experts.”

One anonymous source supposedly familiar with Trump’s thinking said he was “open to something foreclosing NATO expansion and not going back to the 1991 borders for Ukraine,” but did not exclude any other options, “including supplying large amounts of weapons” to Kiev. While Trump is “unlikely” to quit NATO outright, he is likely to overhaul the US-led bloc to make its European members take on more responsibilities – something Politico’s sources worry they are not actually capable of. European members of the bloc that don’t spend at least 2% of their GDP on the military “wouldn’t enjoy the defense largess and security guarantee” of the US, according to one anonymous Trump-aligned source. The US “does not have enough military forces to go around,” Elbridge Colby, Trump’s deputy assistant defense secretary for strategy, told Politico. “We can’t break our spear in Europe against the Russians when we know the Chinese and Russians are collaborating, and the Chinese are a more dangerous and significant threat.”

European members of the bloc “need to be producing combat credible forces to deal with a Russian attack, like now,” Colby added. As part of a “radical reorientation” of NATO under Trump, the US would maintain its air and naval bases in Europe, but leave the “bulk of infantry, armor, logistics and artillery” to be handled by the continental allies. According to Politico, EU countries are “plainly not prepared to fill a dramatically expanded military role anytime soon,” while the continent is “weaker economically and more dependent on US energy supplies than ever before.” “It’s important to note that all these opinions are not from Donald Trump,” Richard Grenell, his former acting director of national intelligence, said on X (formerly Twitter) in response to the Politico article. The Trump campaign did not respond to the outlet’s requests for comment.

Read more …

True for all of NATO. Yes, including the US.

• UK Military Unprepared For Conflict Of Any Kind – Ex-Defense Official (RT)

Britain’s military is in such a bad state that it may not be able to defend the country, let alone mount an expeditionary force of any significant strength, a former official tasked with assessing the armed forces has told the Financial Times. Rob Johnson, director of the Oxford Changing Character of War Centre, was appointed in May 2022 for a two-year term as head of the Defense Ministry’s Office for Net Assessment and Challenge (SONAC). The researcher told the FT he wanted to share his grim conclusions with the public because he is “deeply worried” about what he discovered. He insisted his assessment is realistic, rather than alarmist. The armed forces “cannot defend the British homelands properly” and have a “bare minimum” to conduct small-scale peacekeeping missions, disaster relief operations, evacuations of civilians from war zones and anti-sabotage activities, according to the article published on Monday.

“In any larger-scale operation, we would run out of ammunition rapidly” Johnson warned. “Our defenses are too thin, and we are not prepared to fight and win an armed conflict of any scale.” If the UK were to deploy an expeditionary force comparable to those dispatched during the Falklands (Malvinas) War of 1982 or the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it “would be under-equipped, leaving troops at risk.” The deficiencies are spread across the military branches, according to Johnson. British air defenses could be unable to stop large-scale long-range missile strikes, the Royal Navy does not have enough ships to patrol the North Atlantic, while the Royal Air Force needs to double its fleet of fighter jets.

“The government is not taking the public into its confidence about the scale of the threat because it knows it’s not ready,” Johnson said. The revelations do not damage national security because “the Russians already know this anyway,” he claimed, referring to the fact that London considers Russia an imminent military threat to Britain. The British government last year set out to restore the UK’s global prominence as part of its foreign policy. The state of the military does not support that, Johnson indicated, saying: “We have to cut our coat to fit our cloth.” The warning adds to a plethora of similar British media reports and remarks by officials, who advocate ramping up defense spending.

Read more …

“..still based in the fantasy land that he can dictate terms to Russia while losing the war..”

• Zelensky’s New ‘Plan’ Possible ‘First Step’ To Negotiations (DeMartino)

Ukraine’s illegitimate President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent promise to put forth a new “comprehensive plan” to end the conflict in Ukraine may be the first tentative steps by the regime to sit down at the negotiating table with Russia. Zelensky announced on Friday during a press conference in Kiev that he was creating a new plan that should be “supported by the majority of the world.” He also used the opportunity to, for the first time, admit high casualties on the battlefield. International relations and security expert Mark Sleboda told Sputnik’s Final Countdown that while Zelensky’s comments are still based in the fantasy land that he can dictate terms to Russia while losing the war, the change in tone could represent the regime’s first tentative steps towards admitting reality. “The fact that he said he’s willing to speak to Russia through an intermediary at some undisclosed point months in the future, I guess that is progress, but not much,” Sleboda explained.

“There is a possibility that this is a first tentative, one step forward, two steps back in the direction of eventual negotiations to end the conflict.” Zelensky made the comments not long after his so-called “peace summit” fell flat on its face, with China declining to attend and several influential countries outside of the West refusing to sign the final document, including Brazil, South Africa, India and Saudi Arabia. Iraq and Jordan asked for their signatures to be removed the day after they signed. “Certainly, I think [Zelensky’s] statement is representative of coming out of the failed Kiev regime war rally. Sentiment within the rest of the world outside of the West, i.e. the real international community – the global majority, that [said] they want real peace negotiations, and, perhaps, at least this is a nod in that direction,” Sleboda speculated.

The change in Zelensky’s tone is not just a reflection of the failed so-called “peace summit” but also the reality on the battlefield, where Ukraine is losing significant ground regularly. On Monday, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that they had liberated Stepovaya Novoselovka in the Kharkov region and Novopokrovskoye in the Donbass People’s Republic. “Even if [Zelensky’s comments] are a symbolic step in that direction [of negotiations], it is driven by the desperate state on the battlefield that the Kiev regime is facing,” Sleboda argued. “Once again, [Ukraine] stripped veteran troops from Toretsk in Nyu-York, they moved them to Kharkov. Russia knew about it immediately, of course, and launched a significant offensive in the area and has made significant progress. Now, the Kiev regime is scrambling and shuffling troops around again and again.”

Read more …

“Le Pen said that if her party came to power, it would reverse these appointments so it “could govern.”

• Le Pen Accuses Macron Of Preparing ‘Coup d’État’ (RT)

French President Emmanuel Macron is undertaking a last-minute reshuffling in government agencies in order to prevent National Rally leader Jordan Bardella from governing as he wishes, former party leader Marine Le Pen believes. The RN is widely expected to gain a plurality in this Sunday’s runoff. RN and its allies secured the lead in the first round of the snap parliamentary election last week, while projections in the French media anticipate the party ultimately winning between 230 and 280 seats in the 577-seat National Assembly. “It’s a kind of administrative coup d’état,” Le Pen told France Inter radio on Tuesday, commenting on press reports that claimed Macron was rushing to appoint senior civil servants, including to top EU jobs.

Over the past days, Macron reportedly appointed several top officials, including the military governor of Paris, the new chief of the General Staff of the French Air Force, the new director of the EU at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and three ambassadors. He also proposed in Brussels last week reappointing Thierry Breton as France’s European commissioner. According to Le Pen, “the aim” of such appointments is “to prevent Jordan Bardella from governing the country as he wishes,” should the RN win a majority in Sunday’s runoff. Le Pen said that if her party came to power, it would reverse these appointments so it “could govern.”

“When you want to counter the electorate’s vote, the results of elections, by appointing people of your own, so that they prevent you within the state from being able to carry out the policy that the French want … I call that an administrative coup d’état,” Le Pen concluded. Macron called early parliamentary elections after the RN’s strong performance in last month’s European Parliament elections. The party formerly led by Le Pen and now by Bardella won 30 of the 81 French seats in the EU legislature. The first round of early parliamentary elections was held on June 30. The RN and its allies came in first with 33.15% of the vote. The left-wing alliance New Popular Front took second place with 27.99%, while Macron’s Ensemble coalition garnered just 20.04%.

Read more …

“I remind you that France has an official public debt of 3,000 billion euros, and that this sum is absolutely non-repayable..”

• France Rapidly Being ‘Brought to its Knees’ Regardless of Vote Outcome (Sp.)

President Emmanuel Macron’s center-right alliance Ensemble was practically wiped out by Marine Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally (RN) in the first round of France’s snap legislative elections. Projections regarding the outcome of the second round on July 7 suggest that Macron’s coalition is set to hemorrhage seats in the National Assembly. Whatever the outcome of the parliamentary elections, France today “no longer has the means for its policy,” Emmanuel Leroy, president of the Institut 1717, for a new Franco-Russian alliance, told Sputnik. He underscored that quite possibly next Sunday, Marine Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally (RN) will not obtain an absolute majority required to govern in the country, creating “an objectively uncontrollable situation.” “Without an absolute majority, the country will be in a state of incapacity to be governed in a valid manner and we will probably observe a crisis situation which will bring France completely to its knees on the international political level,” speculated the French political scientist.

“Emmanuel Macron’s bet today is to play on the victory of this party [RN] in such a way as to create a situation of political chaos in France,” Leroy suggested. Prime Minister Gabriel Attal has already stated that Macron’s centrist coalition will pull out around 60 of its candidates to allow other contenders to have a chance at defeating the RN. But this could be nothing more than a “window dressing,” said Leroy. The analyst noted that whether France switches to a right-wing or left-wing policy, this wouldn’t change the fundamentals. And these fundamentals are that the France of Emmanuel Macron, which has been “at the forefront in the desire to completely engage in this war in Ukraine to help the regime [led] by Zelensky,” is in phenomenal debt. “I remind you that France has an official public debt of 3,000 billion euros, and that this sum is absolutely non-repayable,” the former Russia adviser to Marine Le Pen stressed.

Read more …

Too expensive.

• UniCredit Challenges Order To Leave Russia (RT)

UniCredit has appealed to the EU’s top court to clarify an order issued by the European Central Bank (ECB) for the Italian institution to reduce its presence in Russia. The lender has applied to the General Court of the European Union for “definitive legal clarification” of obligations set by the ECB for winding down its Russian business, UniCredit said in a statement on Monday. UniCredit said that while it is complying with the regulator’s request to slash its activities in Russia, it is concerned “about the terms upon which this reduction has to take place as provided for in the decision issued by ECB, that goes beyond the current legal framework.” The ECB has pressured EU banks with operations in Russia to speed up their exit from the country amid the threat of harsher US sanctions on Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine.

In May, the Frankfurt-based regulator sent letters to lenders with a request for an “action plan” to end their business in Russia as early as June. UniCredit currently has the second largest exposure to the Russian market among EU-based banks, and is included in the Russian central bank’s list of 13 systemically important credit institutions. Other EU banks – including Austria’s Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI), Dutch lender ING, Germany’s Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank, Hungary’s OTP Bank, Italy’s Intesa SanPaolo, and Sweden’s SEB – also maintain a presence in the Russian market despite Western sanctions. Announcing its legal challenge, the bank noted that it had reduced its cross-border exposure to Russia by 91% and its domestic exposure by 65% since February 2022. The Italian lender said the application could take several months and asked for an interim suspension of the regulator’s decision.

“Unprecedented circumstances, the complexities inherent in the geo-political and economic scenario and the lack of a harmonized regulatory framework applicable to it and the potential for serious unintended consequences of implementing the decision that would impact not only the Russian subsidiaries” compelled UniCredit to seek clarity. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani welcomed the bank’s challenge, saying the ECB “must take into account the situation in which Italian companies operate in Russia, in compliance with EU sanctions.” “Hasty decisions merely risk damaging Italian and EU companies,” Reuters quoted him as saying. UniCredit operates in Russia through a subsidiary, with some 3,100 employees and more than 50 branches.

Read more …

X thread. “It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we’ll all be better of for it. And that’s why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.”

• Chevron Deference (Spike Cohen)

For those who don’t understand what is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here’s the long and short of it: A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn’t afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company. The thing is, federal law doesn’t authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013. Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization? Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the “experts” in their field, and the courts should just defer to their “interpretation” of the law. So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to “interpret” laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.

It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country. It’s how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired. No law gave them that authority, they just made it up. It’s how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a “machine gun”. It’s how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a “protected wetlands”.

It’s how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the “experts”. Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you’d actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go. That’s what Chevron Deference was. It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone. Thankfully, it’s now gone. We haven’t even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we’ll all be better of for it. And that’s why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

SNL

 

 

Spaghetti dance

 

 

Dogslide

 

 

McDo
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807747770314588287

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 2 2024

Jul 022024
 
 July 2, 2024  Posted by at 9:14 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  48 Responses »


René Magritte Man in a bowler hat 1964

 

• US Supreme Court Rules Trump Has Presidential Immunity (RT)
• Trump Says Immunity Ruling ‘Big Win For Democracy’ (ZH)
• Biden Reacts To Trump Immunity Ruling (RT)
• Biden ‘United Democrats And Republicans’ With Debate Performance – Musk (RT)
• Obama Telling People Biden Can’t Win – Tucker Carlson (RT)
• Biden’s Family Urges Him To Fight On (ZH)
• DNC Weighs Early Nomination For Biden To Quash Internal Party Dissent (ZH)
• Surprise, Surprise! (Kunstler)
• Too Clever By Half (Turley)
• The Resurrection of French Nationalism? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• The West – Indubitably – Has Lost Russia, And Is Losing Eurasia Too (Crooke)
• ‘Unipolar US Dollar’ Mutated Into ‘Politically Weaponized’ Tool (Sp.)
• Charles Nenner Warns “Very Hard Times Are Coming” (USAW)

 

 

 

 


https://twitter.com/i/status/1807804054136856803
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807766810130796737

 

 

Tapper

 

 

Plan B
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807876540648047090

 

 

 

 

“The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers..”

• US Supreme Court Rules Trump Has Presidential Immunity (RT)

American presidents have “absolute immunity” for their official actions, the US Supreme Court ruled on Monday, addressing a series of charges against former President Donald Trump. Federal prosecutors have charged Trump with four criminal counts related to the 2020 presidential election, alleging that he “conspired” to overturn the results by spreading “knowingly false claims” of fraud to obstruct the collection, counting, and certification of the results. “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” the court said in a 6-3 decision. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which saw the six conservative-leaning justices opposed by the three liberal ones.

The decision favors the former president in terms of his tweets to the American public on January 6 and conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence about his presiding over the certification of election results, as both of those clearly fell within the scope of official duties. However, the verdict allows lower courts to hold evidentiary hearings to determine which actions by Trump may have been unofficial, such as when he contacted state and local election officials about the 2020 vote. “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” the court warned. “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts,” said the ruling.

The Supreme Court saved the immunity case for the last day of its term. The long-awaited decision puts a dent in the plans for special counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump in the federal court in Washington, DC before the November election. Trump challenged the 2020 election – marked by a series of unusual procedures, ostensibly adopted due to the Covid-19 pandemic – as irregular and possibly tainted by fraud, pointing to delays in counting mail-in votes that suddenly went in Democrat Joe Biden’s favor after the polls closed in a handful of states. Democrats have insisted that the election was the most secure and legitimate ever and that any questioning of the result is an attack on democracy.

Read more …

“.. ‘all but ensures’ that a trial won’t happen in Trump’s classified documents case before the November election..”

• Trump Says Immunity Ruling ‘Big Win For Democracy’ (ZH)

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in a 6-3 vote that former presidents, including Trump, enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct involving official acts during tenure in office, but he’s not immune from unofficial acts. As Bloomberg notes, the decision – which kicks the ball back to the lower court – ‘all but ensures’ that a trial won’t happen in Trump’s classified documents case before the November election.The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. The majority ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of the allegations that are off limits to prosecution.

“Just as former presidents have immunity from civil liability for official acts, they have immunity from criminal prosecution unless they are impeached and removed from office for the crime alleged. This decision is supported by the writings of the framers of the Constitution, the text of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,” wrote X user Martin Harry. As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley notes, now “the issue is whether what constitutes official acts,” adding that the ruling will “further delay the lower court proceedings, but Trump will have to argue that his actions fall within these navigational beacons.” “The lower court judge has been highly favorable for Jack Smith in the past. Yet the court is arguing that there is a presumption of immunity for their official acts beyond the absolute immunity on core constitutional powers.” Meanwhile, Justice Thomas called into question the legality of Smith’s office:

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sotomayor writes that the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.” “Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom… the court gives former President trump all the immunity he asked for and more.” Special counsel Jack Smith is leading two federal probes against Trump, both of which led to criminal charges. In Washington, Trump has been targeted over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, while a Florida case revolves around the mishandling of classified documents – for which Trump has claimed presidential immunity. In response to the ruling, Trump said on Truth Social that it was a “”BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.”

Read more …

No president should attack the Supreme Court.

• Biden Reacts To Trump Immunity Ruling (RT)

US President Joe Biden has attacked the Supreme Court, urging citizens to “dissent” against its ruling that American presidents have “absolute immunity” for their official actions. In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the highest US court ruled that under “our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.” Biden criticized the decision in a brief statement, calling it “a fundamentally new principle” and a “dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law.”

“There are no kings in America. Each, each of us is equal before the law. No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States,” Biden claimed – even as the Supreme Court ruling specifically stated that “the President is not above the law” and that “there is no immunity for unofficial acts.” Federal prosecutors have charged former President Donald Trump with four criminal counts related to the 2020 presidential election, alleging that he “conspired” to overturn the results. The Supreme Court verdict allows lower courts to hold evidentiary hearings to determine which actions by Trump may have been unofficial. Trump called the ruling – which puts a dent in the Democrats’ plans to prosecute him in the federal court in Washington, DC before the November election – a “big win for our constitution and democracy.”

Biden warned Americans about a possible presidential return for Trump, saying that “people must decide if they want to entrust … the presidency to Donald Trump, now knowing that he’ll be even more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.” Biden went on to quote Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, in which she wrote: “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” “So should the American people dissent, I dissent,” Biden added, concluding his prepared remarks and taking no questions from the press.

Read more …

Very presidential…

• Biden ‘United Democrats And Republicans’ With Debate Performance – Musk (RT)

US President Joe Biden has united Democrats and Republicans in a common recognition of his cognitive decline, following a debate with Donald Trump last week, businessman Elon Musk has argued. The billionaire, who is a vocal critic of some Biden administration policies, such as on border security, supported an assessment made on Sunday by vlogger Farzad Mesbahi on X (formerly Twitter). The Spanish-born YouTuber and self-proclaimed troll said: “America seeing Biden’s cognitive decline at the debate feels like one of the most uniting things this country has experienced in a long, long time.” “True, first time I’ve seen Republicans & Democrats agree on something in a long time,” Musk responded, adding an emoji of a face with tears of joy. The entrepreneur also weighed in immediately following the debate after former 2024 GOP hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy said that Biden’s presentation made him wonder who runs the US government. Musk replied: “Maybe nobody.”

This election cycle’s first faceoff between Trump and Biden took place last Thursday in Atlanta, Georgia. Political observers have widely agreed that the incumbent failed to counter the perception that he has neither the energy nor mental acuity to lead the country for four more years. Some Democrats, either publicly or in private communications with journalists, have said Biden should stop his campaign after his dismal performance. By contrast, former President Barack Obama maintained his support for Biden’s bid despite the flop, posting on Friday: “bad debate nights happen” and that “last night didn’t change,” the stakes in the November election. Former President Bill Clinton echoed that sentiment, stating that he will relegate “the debate rating to the pundits.” The US president’s family, who reportedly are among the few who could convince him to quit, urged him to stay in the race during a meeting on Sunday, CNN sources have claimed.

Read more …

“Carlson also claimed that relations between Obama and Biden – who served as vice president between 2009 and 2017 – have never been warm, and were at times even “hostile.”

• Obama Telling People Biden Can’t Win – Tucker Carlson (RT)

Former US President Barack Obama is telling Democrats that incumbent Joe Biden has no chance of being reelected after his recent debate against GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, American conservative journalist Tucker Carlson has claimed. According to Carlson, Obama’s recent public endorsement of Biden was not sincere. Biden and Trump faced off in an open debate on Thursday night, with the president’s performance widely seen as “incoherent” and “fumbling,” underscoring concerns about his age. Following the showdown, many Democrats and their donors reportedly scrambled to find a replacement for Biden as the party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Publicly, however, many Democratic heavyweights, including Obama, reaffirmed their support for Biden. While admitting that “bad debate nights happen,” the former president insisted that “this election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself.”

Writing on X (formerly Twitter) on Monday, Carlson said, citing an “unusually good source,” that Obama’s post had been “disingenuous.” “In private, Obama is telling people Biden can’t win, and he is therefore in favor of an open convention,” the journalist claimed. He added Obama is not saying whom he supports, but recently met with Biden in person to deliver the message. Carlson also claimed that relations between Obama and Biden – who served as vice president between 2009 and 2017 – have never been warm, and were at times even “hostile.” According to the journalist, those ties “recently… deteriorated further,” mostly due to First Lady Jill Biden, who allegedly “kept her husband cloistered away from anyone who might convince him to drop out” of the race for the White House after the disastrous debate.

Carlson added that Biden’s wife remains “the driving force behind her husband’s reelection campaign,” echoing a recent NBC report naming her as the only person who could convince the president to “change course.” However, CNN reported on Monday that Biden’s family, including Jill, had urged him not to end his campaign, blaming his poor performance on his team. While the Biden-Obama relationship has often been described as a “bromance” to the point of becoming meme material, numerous media reports indicated that things have been much more complicated. An Axios report in March suggested that Biden “often measures himself” against his predecessor, with a rivalry dynamic present in their relations. According to Politico, Obama also shared serious concerns about Biden’s ability to win the 2020 election.

Read more …

“..not telling Biden which camera would be on him as he blankly stared a thousand miles into space with his mouth agape..”

• Biden’s Family Urges Him To Fight On (ZH)

At a Camp David gathering on Sunday, President Biden’s extended family urged him to ignore the growing number of voices asking him to quit the race — and many of his loved ones blamed his disastrous debate on his advisors. According to Politico, the two who most forcefully encouraged the 81-year-old Biden to continue were his wife Jill and his son Hunter — the two people whose opinion he reportedly values most. The reports will strengthen a growing sense that Jill Biden is putting her own interests above that of her humiliated and failing husband. As one Democratic advisor told the New York Post over the weekend, “Jill Biden likes being First Lady…she doesn’t want to give that up.”

Meanwhile, Hunter, who doesn’t exactly have strong reputation for sound judgment, is said to long for Americans to see a version of his father that — as paraphrased by the Times — is “scrappy and in command of the facts.” Much as he once was in denial about his drug problem, Hunter now seems incapable of admitting that that version of his father is gone forever: Biden family members are said to have blamed the debate debacle on three advisors: Anita Dunn, her husband Bob Bauer — who played the role of Trump in practice sessions — and Biden’s former chief of staff Ron Klain, who was in charge of the debate training. Aides to Biden denied these reports from multiple outlets.

With Biden having spent a full week at Camp David gearing up for the debate, his family members and others are claiming the team worked the 81-year-old too hard, and tried to pack him full of too many statistics. They even fault advisors for a debate-night makeup job that transformed his summer-tanned face to one that was pale and unhealthy-looking. Relatives also blamed debate-host CNN for not “fact-checking” Donald Trump and not telling Biden which camera would be on him as he blankly stared a thousand miles into space with his mouth agape.

Jill

Read more …

“Democrats had already planned to nominate Biden, 81, before the convention in order to ensure he appears on the ballot in Ohio..”

• DNC Weighs Early Nomination For Biden To Quash Internal Party Dissent (ZH)

Bloomberg reports that the Democratic National Committee is considering formally nominating Joe Biden as early as mid-July to ensure that the president is on November ballots, while helping to stamp out intra-party chatter of replacing him after last week’s poor debate performance. Democrats had already planned to nominate Biden, 81, before the convention in order to ensure he appears on the ballot in Ohio, which had an Aug. 7 deadline for candidates to be certified. A potential date for Biden’s nomination is July 21, when the Democratic convention’s credentials committee meets virtually, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity.nThe panel is meeting to finalize procedures before the party’s convention in Chicago starts on Aug. 19.

Interestingly, former President Trump’s sentencing hearing is set for July 11th, so he may well be in prison by then given the amount of pressure we assume is being placed on Judge Merchan’s shoulders to “lock him up”. Additionally, July 21 is just three days after Trump is scheduled to accept his party’s nomination at the Republican convention in Milwaukee. The desperate attempted message from all this narrative-shaping is simple – …nothing to see here, move along. Except we all saw the fireworks factory exploding with our own eyes. [..] At a Camp David gathering on Sunday, President Biden’s extended family urged him to ignore the growing number of voices asking him to quit the race — and many of his loved ones blamed his disastrous debate on his advisors. According to Politico, the two who most forcefully encouraged the 81-year-old Biden to continue were his wife Jill and his son Hunter — the two people whose opinion he reportedly values most.

The reports will strengthen a growing sense that Jill Biden is putting her own interests above that of her humiliated and failing husband. As one Democratic advisor told the New York Post over the weekend, “Jill Biden likes being First Lady…she doesn’t want to give that up.” Meanwhile, Hunter, who doesn’t exactly have strong reputation for sound judgment, is said to long for Americans to see a version of his father that — as paraphrased by the Times — is “scrappy and in command of the facts.” Much as he once was in denial about his drug problem, Hunter now seems incapable of admitting that that version of his father is gone forever: Biden family members are said to have blamed the debate debacle on three advisors: Anita Dunn, her husband Bob Bauer — who played the role of Trump in practice sessions — and Biden’s former chief of staff Ron Klain, who was in charge of the debate training. Aides to Biden denied these reports from multiple outlets.

With Biden having spent a full week at Camp David gearing up for the debate, his family members and others are claiming the team worked the 81-year-old too hard, and tried to pack him full of too many statistics. They even fault advisors for a debate-night makeup job that transformed his summer-tanned face to one that was pale and unhealthy-looking. Relatives also blamed debate-host CNN for not “fact-checking” Donald Trump and not telling Biden which camera would be on him as he blankly stared a thousand miles into space with his mouth agape. John Morgan, a top donor and friend of Biden’s brother Frank, was not at the family meeting, but joined the delusional pile-up on Biden’s advisers, telling the Times that the week-long debate prep — which involved rehearsals at various times of the day — was excessive: “It would be like if you took a prizefighter who was going to have a title fight and put him in a sauna for 15 hours then said, ‘Go fight.’ I believe that the debate is solely on Ron Klain, Bob Bauer and Anita Dunn.”

Unlike his family, the president is said to still hold confidence in the trio. Klain assured the Times that Biden will see the race through, saying, “He is the choice of the Democratic voters…We had a bad debate night. But you win campaigns by fighting — not quitting — in the face of adversity.” Of course, Biden is “the choice of Democratic voters” largely because the Democratic National Committee made sure he was the only choice available. A post-debate CBS News poll found that just 54% of registered Democrats think Biden should be in the race. The poll found 41% of Democrats think Biden lacks has the requisite mental and cognitive health. More importantly, 72% of all voters give him a failing grade on mental health. The family gathering at Camp David was reportedly scheduled before the debate, with the expectation that it would be a celebration of his performance and an opportunity for the extended Biden family — including his children and grandchildren — to be photographed by famed celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz.

Read more …

“The Bidens flew off to the Hamptons Saturday to milk the showbiz cows and hedge-funders for a campaign that might not still exist..”

• Surprise, Surprise! (Kunstler)

Since his hiding-in-the-basement campaign in 2020 “Joe Biden’s” Party of Chaos has pretended that he is fit and alert for the job and now all of sudden they pretend to be shocked to see how far gone in the head he really is. The bullshit shovelers of the mainstream news media were especially rocked, not by the truth of the situation per se, but at being unmasked as the contemptible, confabulating tools that they’ve become. The New York Times wheeled around on a dime from their servile lionizing of the presidential hologram they helped create to its editorial board abjectly yelling for him to drop out and get gone. They were joined instantly by a long list of other opinion-shapers, campaign donors, political celebs, and Beltway players.

Right after the debate, First lady Dr. Jill led a cheerleading session before a roomful of partisans that went beyond cringeworthy into uncharted territory of mortification. (“You were great, Joe! You answered all the questions!”). By the time the entourage moved to a pre-planned event at a nearby Atlanta Waffle House, “JB” had gone full-on zombie. If all that was intended to be reassuring, the effect was the opposite. Someone handed the blank-faced old grifter a milkshake and they beat it out of there. The Bidens flew off to the Hamptons Saturday to milk the showbiz cows and hedge-funders for a campaign that might not still exist. “Everyone paid in advance. . .so it could be an opportunity to encourage him to drop out,” an invited guest told a New York Post reporter. “I wanted to go and see the train wreck,” another donor said. “I’d rather choose someone from a phone book than have Biden.”

That was generally the tone among the woke-gay-communist echelons all over the land — surprisingly vehement, considering that just forty-eight hours before they were all in on re-election. Some could probably see their lucrative hustles whirling around the drain, and others might fret about just how far and wide prosecutions under a Trump Attorney General might loom. “JB” and his family circle attempted to regroup over the weekend at Camp David where first son, Hunter (“the smartest man I know,” the president often says), led the buoying-up session, perhaps mindful of the many bank accounts set up by his lawyers in the name of Biden family members (including little grandchildren) for receipt of influence-peddling revenue gathered sedulously from entities abroad during “Joe Biden’s” post-veep high-earning years. The family emerged from that meet-up triumphantly, ready to forget the one bad evening and jump back into the election game.

Read more …

“Smith has long tended to push the law to the breaking point to bag defendants..”

• Too Clever By Half (Turley)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases. For some, it may lead to dismissals or, in the cases with multiple charges, resentencings. One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. However, it is not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith will yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence. Smith has long tended to push the law to the breaking point to bag defendants. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law.

It is doubtful that he will go quietly into the night after the Fischer decision. In most cases, a prosecutor would go back and secure a superseding indictment in light of the loss of the obstruction claims. Those claims were central to the narrative of the government under the current indictment. That is not Smith’s style. He may decide to push even harder for a trial before the election on the remaining counts. Smith has made the trial before the election an overriding priority throughout his appointment. He also has a very favorable and motivated judge in United States District Judge Tanya Chutkan. He could also take a not-so-subtle hint from Jackson in her concurrence. Jackson supported the majority in finding that the obstruction provision, Section 1512(c), was enacted after the Enron case to address the destruction of documents and records.

Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly obstructing an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. However, a second provision under subsection (c)(2) allowed for charges that would “otherwise” obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. The Court held that the obstruction cases under Section 1512(c)(2) must be tied to impairing the integrity or availability of evidence. However, in a single justice concurrence, she added a way that Smith and other prosecutors might still be able to shoehorn January 6th into a Section 1512 offense:

“That official proceeding [Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote] plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 65–67. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).” Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.” Notably, no other justice joined Jackson in the concurrence. However, Smith and Chutkan could reason that it was not expressly rejected and presumably, the three justices in dissent would support the broader reading since they were willing to sign off on the ultimate extension of the obstruction of justice statute. That includes Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

However, that still leaves less than a majority and an application that runs against the grain of the opinion. Just saying that a proceeding involves “certain records” is transparently artificial and forced. Even the submission of an alternative slate of electors is not the destruction of electors certified by the secretaries of state. The federal law allows for challenges in Congress, which Democrats previously utilized without claims of insurrections or attacks on democracy. J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), voted to challenge the certification of the 2004 results of President George W. Bush’s reelection; committee member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016. Both did so under the very law that Trump’s congressional supporters used in 2020. And Pelosi and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the challenge organized by then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in 2004.

Those challenges under the same loose theory could have been viewed as attempting to negate or destroy certifications from the states. It would likely, in my view, result in another reversal. It is, in my view, too clever by half. That may not concern Smith who may still want to use the obstruction counts to increase the likelihood of convictions on the other counts. In such a circumstance, the overturning of the two obstruction convictions might still leave the conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against the rights of citizens. We will see in the coming weeks, but Smith is likely waiting for the other shoe to drop in the Trump immunity case. That could add additional complications if the case is remanded by the Court for further proceedings. There is little time for a trial before November if the district court must hold hearings on claims that statements or actions were taken by Trump as part of his office.

Read more …

“If Putin does not immediately use sufficient force to terminate the conflict, World War Three seems certain..”

• The Resurrection of French Nationalism? (Paul Craig Roberts)

France was the last European nation to lose its sovereignty, and France might be the first to recover its sovereignty. In the 1960s France was still a nation of ethnic French as contrasted with the tower of babel and a geographical entity that it is today. During the ten-year presidency of Charles De Gaulle (1959-69) France’s policy was one of national independence. DeGaulle refused to join NATO, and he opposed a supranational Europe in which nations would subordinate themselves to a European Union.French independence could be on the point of return judging from the success of Marine Le Pen’s party yesterday in the current French elections. Her nationalist party has in the first round of the parliamentary elections taken 34% of the votes with President Macron’s centrist coalition receiving only 21% support. If the second round produces similar results, a restoration of French independence is possible.

For many years European governments have worked consistently to overwhelm their ethnic populations with third world immigrant-invaders. It has reached the point where ethnic European women raped by immigrant-invaders fear to report the crime as it can result in a charge of racism or worse against the victim. For example, in response to a gang-rape of an ethnic German female, a 20-year old ethnic German female citizen called one of the gang rapists a “disgraceful rapist pig.” The German citizen was sentenced to jail for defaming an immigrant-invader, a protected species under German law, while the rapist was given a suspended sentence and served no jail time. For many years the European working class has experienced their living standards reduced in the name of economy. Not long ago the French were protesting the rise in the retirement age, which forces them to work longer for their pension.

The French have noticed that economy measures only apply to their living standards and not to the vast sums that Macron pours into the West’s war against Russia in Ukraine. Now all of Europe hears continually that they must prepare, and cough up money for, war with Russia. The French don’t want war with Russia. Nor do the Germans, or the Italians. Only “their” governments do, and war is what Washington’s puppets have put on the agenda. Europeans don’t want the high energy cost and lost profit and employment opportunities imposed on them by Washington’s “Russian sanctions.” It seems to Europeans that the purpose of Washington’s sanctions is to make Europe more dependent on Washington, essentially reducing them to serfs. Finally, after suffering decades of abuse, insult, and total disregard by their leaders, Europeans protested in the recent European Union parliamentary elections. The ruling parties were repudiated across the board.

The Belgian prime minister had to resign. The French president had to call national elections. I wrote that if the repudiation carries over into the national elections, we could see the unravelling of NATO, the European Union, and a return of sovereign European nations. World War II gave control of Europe to the US instead of to Germany. The Soviet collapse gave Washington control over the Warsaw Pact, placing NATO on Russia’s border. Washington’s policy was to de-Germanize Germany and to destroy a national awareness. Washington controlled German education and indoctrinated Germans that nationalism was racist, produced Hitler and the Holocaust. Legislation was passed essentially criminalizing a positive attitude toward German nationalism. It meant that you were a Nazi. It still does. It is unclear if a German state can ever be resurrected.

Rid of the Germans, Washington turned its efforts on France. De Gaulle’s departure weakened France. It took time, but eventually Washington controlled who the French president would be. With France, Germany, and the British in Washington’s pocket, the rest of Europe went along. Today European nations that shared the rule of the world are puppets of a criminal regime in Washington. The notion that there is any military power in these puppet states is laughable. The self-confidence that made the British the ruler of the world has long departed. It was destroyed at Oxford and Cambridge. No Western country has a positive opinion of itself. All are being keyed for war with Russia, China, Iran, while they themselves are being overrun by immigrant-invaders who are paid tribute for their support and permitted to rape European women as a form of restitution.

The Kremlin does not understand the hollowed out, empty, West where there is no support for any government. Western peoples are brainwashed into impotence and cannot even protect their constitutional rights. Why would anyone fight for these governments, and if forced, with what spirit? Putin sits there in his legalistic way accepting insult after insult, provocation after provocation, as his way of avoiding war with the West. It is not only Western provocations that are widening the Ukraine conflict into World War III. Putin has permitted the conflict to go on and on and on, and this has enabled Washington to get more and more and more involved, thus widening the conflict. If Putin does not immediately use sufficient force to terminate the conflict, World War Three seems certain. There is hope that if Le Pen wins France and does not sell out to Washington, the unravelling of NATO and resurrection of European independence will begin. But this can be a slow process, while the developments in Ukraine toward wider war are accelerating. The time is rapidly ending during which Putin can use sufficient force to end the conflict before it results in World War Three.

Read more …

“The West has ‘lost’ Russia much more profoundly than is understood..”

• The West – Indubitably – Has Lost Russia, And Is Losing Eurasia Too (Crooke)

There perhaps was a momentary shrugging-off of slumber in Washington this week as they read the account of Sergei Lavrov’s démarche to the U.S. Ambassador in Moscow: Russia was telling the U.S. – “We are no longer at peace”! Not just ‘no longer at peace’, Russia was holding the U.S. responsible for the ‘cluster strike’ on a Crimean beach on last Sunday’s Pentecost holiday, killing several (including children) and injuring many more. The U.S. thereby “became party” to the proxy war in Ukraine (it was an American-supplied ATACM; programmed by American specialists; and drawing on U.S. data), Russia’s statement read; “Retaliatory measures will certainly follow”. Evidently, somewhere an amber light flashed hues of pink and red. The Pentagon grasped that something had happened – ‘No going around it; This could escalate badly’. The U.S. Defence Secretary (after a pause since March 2023) reached for the phone to call his Russian counterpart: ‘The U.S. regretted civilian deaths; the Ukrainians had full targeting discretion’.

The Russian public however, is plain furious. The diplomatic argot of ‘there now being a state of betweenness; not war and not peace’ is but the ‘half of it’. The West has ‘lost’ Russia much more profoundly than is understood. President Putin – in his statement to the Foreign Ministry Board in wake of the G7 sword-rattling – detailed just how we had arrived at this pivotal juncture (of inevitable escalation). Putin indicated that the gravity of the situation demanded a ‘last chance’ offer to the West, one that Putin emphatically said was to be “No temporary ceasefire for Kiev to prepare a new offensive; nor a freezing the conflict – but rather, needed to be about the war’s final completion”. It has been widely understood that the only credible way to end the Ukraine war would be a ‘peace’ agreement emerging through negotiation between Russia and the U.S. This however is rooted in a familiar U.S.-centric vision – ‘Waiting on Washington …’.

Lavrov archly commented (in paraphrase) that if anyone imagines we are ‘waiting for Godot’, and ‘will run for it’, they are mistaken. Moscow has something much more radical in mind – something that will shock the West. Moscow (and China) are not simply waiting upon the whims of the West, but plan to invert completely the security architecture paradigm: To create an ‘Alt’ architecture for the ‘vast space’ of Eurasia, no less. It is intended to exit the existing bloc zero-sum confrontation. A new confrontation is not envisaged; however the new architecture nevertheless is intended to force ‘external actors’ to curtail their hegemony across the continent. In his Foreign Ministry address, Putin explicitly looked ahead to the collapse of the Euro-Atlantic security system and to a new architecture emerging: “The world will never be the same again”, he said.

What did he mean? Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s principal Foreign Policy adviser (at the Primakov Readings Forum), clarified Putin’s ‘sparse’ allusion: Ushakov reportedly said that Russia increasingly has come to the view there is not going to be any long-term re-shaping of the security system in Europe. And without any major re-shaping, there will be no ‘final completion’ (Putin’s words) to the conflict in Ukraine. Ushakov explained that this unified and indivisible security system in Eurasia must replace the Euro-Atlantic and Euro-centric models that are now receding into oblivion. “This speech [of Putin at the Russian Foreign Ministry], I would say, sets the vector of further activities of our country at the international stage, including the building of a single and indivisible security system in Eurasia,” Ushakov said.

Read more …

“.. the United States has massively over-extended itself and damaged its own reliability as a global trade partner.”

• ‘Unipolar US Dollar’ Mutated Into ‘Politically Weaponized’ Tool (Sp.)

“In essence, the more the United States prints and spends USD, the more the rest of the world is expected to invest in US government paper, and subsidize this debt-spending. The BRICS nations and their adherents are advocating for the use of national currencies for cross-border trade, eventually de-linking from the increasingly unipolar and visibly unreliable US Dollar,” Goncharoff explained. Furthermore, analysts at the Russia’s Pivot to Asia website wrote that two “main global financial evolutionary events” are unfolding right now. These involve changes to the role of the US dollar, and “technology and the digitization of financial transactions.” America has itself to blame for the loss of the greenback’s credibility as a global currency, mainly due to the mind-boggling US-dollar issued debt – a whopping $32.72 trillion.

“It has created a scenario where foreign governments are increasingly wary of investing in additional US dollar debt until a management system is put in place that will be able to support such a load,” Goncharoff noted. He forecasts that the US dollar “will become prone to increasing shocks, leading to uncertainty and mistrust on the global financial markets.” If the US were to default on its debt, American bondholders would carry losses on their investments, and the negative impacts on global trade would be huge, he warned. He underscored that the US treasury norm of printing of more dollars to cover up the fiscal debt “debases the actual value of the currency and encourages inflation.”

While Moscow has effectively “inoculated” itself from looming future problems with the US economy, other countries, like China, are doing the same. The trade focus is shifting away from the United States, fueling a geopolitical evolution of trade blocs like BRICS, the Eurasian Economic Union and Shanghai Cooperation Organization, with some like BRICS discussing alternative currency platforms. “One proposal for a unified BRICS trade unit is the “BRICS Bridge” allowing the ten current members to exchange units based 60% of their sovereign currencies and 40% backed by their gold reserves,” noted Goncharoff, and summed up:. “For Russia, and most other nations, there is a far bigger picture – where non-US dominated, global trade opportunities beckon.” Furthermore, the US has used the dollar as a trade and geopolitical weapon, said the pundit, seeking to abuse economies of Venezuela, Iran, Turkey and Russia amongst others.

“It has done this in two main areas, firstly by manipulating the US dollar currency exchange rates in order to damage other national currencies when the US wants to inflict fiscal punishments or seek trade advantages,” remarked the analyst, adding that Washington “has also used the global SWIFT payment network as a switch to turn US dollar trade on and off according to its policies.” “Other governments are becoming concerned that these punishments could in future be meted out to them, which also creates mistrust and fear of US dollar over-exposure. Any one of these problems are serious. It appears ultimately unlikely the United States will be able to fend off the repercussions of them all. In short – the United States has massively over-extended itself and damaged its own reliability as a global trade partner.”

Read more …

“The children here have not gone to school for a year, and we are under rocket fire day and night. It is a very strange situation.”

• Charles Nenner Warns “Very Hard Times Are Coming” (USAW)

This week, Nenner’s war cycle “turned straight up” and his economic cycle “turned straight down.” The next big conflict is not going to be in Ukraine or Taiwan–just yet. On Saturday, this headline: “Iran Threatens Israel With ‘Obliterating War’ If It Attacks Lebanon.” Nenner says all hell is about to break loose. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran and Turkey are key players in an escalating war with Israel. Nenner, who lives on the border with Lebanon in Northern Israel, interviewed with USAW just after a barrage of 100 rockets hit near his location. Nenner reports, “The children here have not gone to school for a year, and we are under rocket fire day and night. It is a very strange situation. What I don’t understand is the Arab resistance, led by Iran, did not see what happened in Gaza. If this really goes, Lebanon is going to disappear from the map…

How do I know these things? I know these things because I work with several governments in the world… In the 1960’s, there was a war, and half of Cypress ended up Turkish and half of Cypress is Greek. Turkey never accepted that. . . . Israel is using airfields in Cypress. . . . If this really gets going, Turkey is going to take over Cypress because they support Hamas (and Hezbollah). Turkey will invade Cypress, and this will lead to a war between Greece and Turkey. Of course, Iran is going to be involved also. Big boats are heading to Israel, so America is going to be involved. Russia has its ideas too… I don’t think Americans have any clue what is going on there, and they have no background. They are only busy with trying to win the Election, and it’s going to lead to catastrophe. If there is a war, Turkey is going to be involved, Cypress is going to be involved, NATO is going to be involved, and it is going to be much more serious than people think.”

Nenner says, “We are already in the next big war cycle.” Nenner still thinks China is going to be a big problem and says, “I would say if the world is busy with all this nonsense, then this is a time for China to take Taiwan over. The war cycle is extra up, so we have to be very careful. A lot of my wealthy clients are busy trying to get visas . . . to Caribbean islands. I know many wealthy people busy trying to get visas and trying to get out of America. This is what is going on below the surface, and most small investors don’t know what is going on… They are worried about a nuke strike or terrorists blowing stuff up left and right because they came through the border. This is a very dangerous situation. They are not leaving right now, but they are preparing now… The war cycle has turned up, and it is going to be extra dangerous from the 3rd of July on.”

Nenner says his big clients are also leaving the cities and buying houses in rural locations. Nenner told me this is a trend that has been going on for about 5 years, but it has picked up speed in the last year and a half. Nenner says his economic cycles have turned straight down. In NYC, Nenner points out, “I have very wealthy clients that just got out of commercial real estate with a 67% loss. I also know the banks, they are holding all these bad loans.” “The banks have US bonds coming to maturity that they have lost a fortune on. So, the banks, especially the regional banks, are going to be in big trouble… The regional banks are very weak. A lot is burning below the surface, which nobody tells you about.” Nenner still likes gold, but it’s going to consolidate here. Inflation is getting ready to take off again, and Nenner says, “Layoffs are coming soon. . . . Very hard times are coming.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Macgregor
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807746047541694893

 

 

Thomas

 

 

Issa

 

 

Silicone

 

 

Wave

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 1 2024

Jul 012024
 
 July 1, 2024  Posted by at 8:52 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  46 Responses »


René Magritte The human condition 1935

 

• Le Pen’s Conservative National Rally Crushes Macron, Socialists (ZH)
• Orban Announces New EU Parliament Alliance (RT)
• Russia Will Recover, ‘Not Disappear’ Due to Sanctions – Jim Rogers (Sp.)
• EU, Euro Will Break Up Someday – Jim Rogers (Sp.)
• Major Democratic Donors Weighing Biden’s Future – NYT (RT)
• Biden Campaign’s Future Hinges On His Wife – NBC (RT)
• Nikki Haley Urges Republicans To Prepare For Biden’s Replacement (RT)
• Biden Beat Trump In The Spinach Debate (Helmer)
• West Loses $257 Billion on Trade Restrictions With Russia (Sp.)
• Zelensky Outlines Model For Talks With Russia (RT)
• Ukraine Aid Hits Record Low of $2Bln Per Month Since February 2022 (Sp.)
• Alan Dershowitz Compares Lawfare Against Trump To McCarthyism (JTN)
• Supreme Court Downsizes the “Insurrection” to Largely Trespassing (Turley)
• Klaus Schwab Reportedly Facing Sexual Harassment Allegations (Sp.)
• DOJ to Charge Boeing With Criminal Fraud (Sp.)

 

 


© Sebastien SALOM-GOMIS/AFP

 

 

Stolen election

 

 

Bannon

 

 

Marc Elias has the answer: Blame SCOTUS!

 

 

Vivek

 

 

Galloway
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807113580803743754

 

 

Democracy

 

 

 

 

“..a 28 year old kid may soon be a prime minister of the 2nd largest European economy…”

Far right? Not strong enough. In Holland, someone’s come up with “radical right”.

• Le Pen’s Conservative National Rally Crushes Macron, Socialists (ZH)

As expected, Le Pen’s conservative (or in the world’s of the liberal media, “Far Right”) National Rally (RN) party won the first round of France’s parliamentary election on Sunday, exit polls showed, but the final result will depend on several days of horsetrading before next week’s run-off. The RN was seen winning around 34% of the vote, exit polls from Ipsos, Ifop, OpinionWay and Elabe showed. That was ahead of both far-left and centrist rivals, including President Emmanuel Macron’s Together alliance, whose bloc was seen winning a paltry 20.5%-23%, a far cry from his crushing victory several years ago. The New Popular Front (NFP), a hastily assembled left-wing coalition, was projected to win around 29% of the vote, the exit polls showed. The exit polls were in line with opinion polls ahead of the election, but provided little clarity on whether the anti-immigrant, eurosceptic RN will be able to form a government to “cohabit” with the pro-EU Macron after next Sunday’s run-off.

The RN’s chances of winning power next week will depend on the political dealmaking made by its rivals over the coming days. In the past, centre-right and centre-left parties have teamed up to keep the RN from power, but that dynamic, known as the “republican front,” is less certain than ever. If no candidate reaches 50% in the first round, the top two contenders automatically qualify for the second round, as well as all those with 12.5% of registered voters. In the run-off, whoever wins the most votes take the constituency. According to Reuters, the high turnout on Sunday suggests France is heading for a record number of three-way run-offs. These generally benefit the RN much more than two-way contests, experts say. Sure enough, the horsetrading began almost immediately on Sunday night. In a written statement to the press, Macron called on voters to rally behind candidates who are “clearly republican and democratic”, which, based on his recent declarations, would exclude candidates from the RN and from the hard-left France Unbowed (LFI) party.

The problem, of course, is that Macron’s party was crushed in the recent European parliamentary elections precisely because the people have had enough with “clearly republican and democratic” puppets of the World Economic Forum and want actual change. LFI leader Jean-Luc Melenchon said the second-placed NFP alliance will withdraw all its candidates who came third in the first round.”Our guideline is simple and clear: not a single more vote for the National Rally,” he said. It is, however, unlikely that many will care what the French socialists want: after all, last week the French socialist leftist alliance said it would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 90% if it were to take over the government. Meanwhile, Jordan Bardella, the 28-year-old RN party president, said he was ready to be prime minister – if his party wins an absolute majority. That’s right, a 28 year old kid may soon be a prime minister of the 2nd largest European economy.

He has ruled out trying to form a minority government and neither Macron nor the NFP will form an alliance with him. “I will be a “cohabitation” Prime Minister, respectful of the constitution and of the office of President of the Republic, but uncompromising about the policies we will implement,” he said. While the RN is seen winning the most seats in the National Assembly, only one of the pollsters – Elabe – had the party winning an absolute majority of 289 seats in the run-off. Experts say that seat projections after first-round votes can be highly inaccurate, and especially so in this election. Voter participation was high compared with previous parliamentary elections, illustrating the political fervour Macron aroused with his stunning decision to call a parliamentary vote after the RN trounced his party in European Parliament elections earlier this month.

His decision plunged France into political uncertainty, sent shockwaves around Europe and prompted a sell-off of French assets on financial markets. A longtime pariah, the RN is now closer to power than it has ever been. Le Pen has sought to clean up the image of a party known for racism and antisemitism, a tactic that has worked amid voter anger at Macron, the high cost of living and growing concerns over immigration. At 1500 GMT, turnout was nearly 60%, compared with 39.42% two years ago – the highest comparable turnout figures since the 1986 legislative vote, Ipsos France’s research director Mathieu Gallard said. In short, the people have had enough and they finally want to be heard.

Read more …

More right wing. Orban chairs the EU as per today, July 1.

• Orban Announces New EU Parliament Alliance (RT)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has announced the creation of a new EU Parliament alliance, in cooperation with right-wing parties from Austria and the Czech Republic. The announcement comes a day before Budapest takes on the rotating six-month EU presidency. The new group, presented as “Patriots for Europe” comprises Fidesz, the party led by Orban; the Czech Republic’s largest opposition bloc, ANO, chaired by the country’s former prime minister, Andrej Babis; and the Austrian Freedom Party (FPO), headed by Herbert Kickl. “Today we are creating a political formation that I believe will very quickly become the largest faction of the European right-wing,” Orban said during a press briefing which was also attended by Babis and Kickl. The Hungarian leader expressed hope that the alliance would dominate the right of the EU’s political spectrum.

The bloc’s policies must be altered in accordance with the results of the latest European Parliament elections, according to the Hungarian leader, who stressed that the current parliamentary groups will inevitably split. The results of the election carried out on June 9 revealed that citizens across the 27-nation bloc had mostly shifted away from the left, although the performance of the right-wing and conservative parties varied from country to country. The ruling coalitions in Germany, France and Italy were effectively trounced by the right. Orban’s Fidesz won 11 seats in the EU parliament, while FPO and ANO have six and seven seats respectively, with all three parties becoming strongest in their countries’ elections. According to the current rules, 23 members are needed to form a political group in the European Parliament, and at least one-quarter of the member states must be represented within the alliance.

In a statement to the media, the leaders of the three parties expressed hope that the new group would be joined by many other European parties in the coming days. Hungary is set to take over the presidency of the Council of the European Union on July 1 and will remain in charge until the end of the year. During the period, Hungarian diplomats will chair meetings in Brussels and shape the EU’s political agenda. Orban has faced sharp criticism in the EU for pursuing policies that run counter to those of Brussels. Since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Budapest has refused to provide weapons to Kiev, calling for a diplomatic solution instead, and has maintained economic ties with Russia. The prime minister had previously said that the results of the election had won time for the bloc and “slowed the train hurtling towards war.”

Read more …

“Russia is a huge country, America is too. Of course, there will be communication and trade again someday. There always has been and there always will be after the war.”

• Russia Will Recover, ‘Not Disappear’ Due to Sanctions – Jim Rogers (Sp.)

Anti-Russia sanctions imposed by the West will not make Russia’s economy disappear, the country will recover, renowned US investor Jim Rogers told Sputnik. “Russia is not going to disappear. There have been sanctions against Russia in history, there will be again. There have been sanctions against everybody in history. Russia will recover,” Rogers said. The investor noted that Russia is experiencing a record number of sanctions, which would hurt any country. Rogers said that many people in such circumstances would turn to the black market and go around the sanctions, while many others would abide by them, and Russia will have to deal with the reality of sanctions. “If any country has a lot of sanctions against it, they would hurt the country for a while. So, Russia is going to have to deal with the fact that there are many sanctions against it,” Rogers said.

The investor emphasized that Russia has a lot of oil and agricultural products, which are needed around the world, and has so far done a good job of working around the sanctions. “Russia is finding a way to get around the sanctions. But this always happens whenever somebody imposes sanctions. Many people try to find a way to get around the sanctions and they do,” Rogers said. Once the conflict in Ukraine is over, Russia will start opening up again and people will open up to Russia again, Rogers added. The countries of the collective West stepped up sanctions pressure on Russia after the start of the special military operation in Ukraine in 2022. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the collective West’s long-term strategy of containing Russia was instead hurting the global economy.

Rogers is also optimistic that Russian-US relations will improve, and begin communicating and trading as both are huge countries with consequential economies, renowned US investor Jim Rogers told Sputnik. When asked whether he thinks that relations between Russia and the United States will improve one day, Rogers stated, “Of course, they will someday.” “I can remember when Americans wouldn’t even talk to Russians. And the Russians wouldn’t talk to Americans. That will change again,” he said. “Russia is a huge country, America is too. Of course, there will be communication and trade again someday. There always has been and there always will be after the war.”

Read more …

“Whenever people have economic problems they blame somebody and that always leads to change.”

• EU, Euro Will Break Up Someday – Jim Rogers (Sp.)

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is slowing down the European countries’ economies and some will not be as prosperous as they used to be, renowned US investor Jim Rogers told Sputnik. “It [the Ukraine conflict] causes economies to slow down and some countries will not be as prosperous as they have been,” Rogers said. “Whenever people have economic problems they blame somebody and that always leads to change.” Rogers said the issues facing the global economy will affect not only Europe but also other parts of the world in the next couple of years. “There are many countries in Europe that will try to get around the European problems. So there may be more countries that will leave the European Union,” Rogers said. The investor noted that the United Kingdom left the European Union despite some people speculating such a move would destroy its economy, but added he believes other politicians will start “doing the same thing.”

Rogers expressed doubt that the European Union would survive given that few blocs have lasted for very long. “Most of them have broken up. I’m afraid the Euro will break up someday,” Rogers said. In early June, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the Eurozone economy was gradually recovering from the coronavirus pandemic measures, the cut in gas supplies from Russia and the consequences of the Ukraine conflict, but the bloc’s aging population and sluggish productivity present risks to growth in the medium term. The IMF warned that intensifying geopolitical tensions, trade disputes and distortive industrial policy could further complicate economic prospects and the policy making environment for a region highly open to trade. The collective West stepped up sanctions pressure on Russia after the start of the special military operation in Ukraine in 2022. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the West’s long-term strategy of containing Russia hurts the global economy.

Read more …

“..discussions were being held with political advisers on “arcane rules” that may allow Biden to be forced off the 2024 ballot..”

• Major Democratic Donors Weighing Biden’s Future – NYT (RT)

US Democratic Party donors are looking at ways Joe Biden can be removed from the presidential race against his will, and replaced with a stronger candidate, The New York Times reported on Sunday, citing sources familiar with the efforts. The discussions follow Biden’s poor performance in Thursday’s debate with Republican challenger Donald Trump. A flash poll conducted by CNN revealed that 67% of registered voters who watched the televised clash in Atlanta, Georgia, felt that Trump had won. People close to the situation told the New York Times that discussions were being held with political advisers on “arcane rules” that may allow Biden to be forced off the 2024 ballot before the Democratic National Convention, scheduled for August .

One Silicon Valley donor who had planned to host a fundraiser featuring Biden later this summer has reportedly called off the event, and a major California sponsor left a debate watch party and emailed a friend with the subject line “Utter disaster,” according to a copy of the email obtained by the NYT. Other wealthy Democrats have reportedly expressed hope that Biden will “have an epiphany and decide to exit on his own.” The idea of reaching out to first lady Jill Biden is also being considered, the sources said. NBC News earlier quoted sources as saying that the only person who can impact Biden’s decision is his wife. The couple will reportedly join their children and grandchildren on Sunday at Camp David, where Biden expected to “decide whether to move forward or to end his campaign early.”

Read more …

He’s done. The GOP should hope he stays on.

• Biden Campaign’s Future Hinges On His Wife – NBC (RT)

US President Joe Biden is expected to discuss the future of his re-election campaign with his family following a disastrous debate with Republican challenger Donald Trump, NBC News reported on Saturday. The network cited sources as saying the only opinion that can influence Biden’s decision will be that of his wife, Jill. Thursday’s televised face-off highlighted concerns about the 81-year-old president’s fitness for office, with Biden’s performance described in the media as “incoherent,” “stumbling” and “unclear”. Senior Democrats and their donors are now actively pushing for his withdrawal from the race, according to multiple reports.

NBC cited five people familiar with the matter as saying Joe and Jill Biden would join their children and grandchildren at Camp David on Sunday as part of a pre-planned trip. The network said there is “an understanding among top Democrats that Biden should be given space to determine next steps” and that “only the president, in consultation with his family, can decide whether to move forward or to end his campaign early”. One source told the outlet that only two people have a genuine say on the matter – the president and his wife. “Anyone who doesn’t understand how deeply personal and familial this decision will be isn’t knowledgeable about the situation,” he added.

The view was echoed by another NBC source, saying: “The only person who has ultimate influence with him is the first lady. If she decides there should be a change of course, there will be a change of course”. Despite the debate being widely seen as a humiliation for Biden, his team has publicly insisted that he has no plans to drop out of the race. The president has acknowledged his poor performance against Trump, saying at a rally on Friday: “I don’t debate as well as I used to,” but “know how to tell the truth… I know right from wrong. And I know how to do this job, I know how to get things done. And I know what millions of Americans know: When you get knocked down, you get back up.”

Read more …

She found a way to make the news…

• Nikki Haley Urges Republicans To Prepare For Biden’s Replacement (RT)

The US Democratic Party is going to replace Joe Biden with a younger presidential candidate after his failure in the debate, and the Republicans must be ready for this, Nikki Haley, who lost to Donald Trump in the race for the GOP nomination, has said. The 81-year-old president’s display during his televised face-off with Trump in Atlanta on Thursday was “shocking,” Haley said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Saturday. “What we saw was that Trump was strong, but I don’t even think that mattered because Biden was so amazingly unfit. The way he lost his train of thought, the way he couldn’t grasp topics of what he needed to talk about,” she said.

The US president’s performance projected weakness and “our enemies just saw that they have between now and [the inauguration day on] January 20 to do whatever it is they want to do,” the former US envoy to the UN and ex-governor of South Carolina added. Since the debate, reports have emerged that some Democratic donors are insisting that Biden be dropped as the party’s nominee for the November 5 election, and Haley expressed her belief that their demands will be met. The Democrats “are going to be smart about it: they’re going to bring somebody younger, they’re going to bring somebody vibrant, they’re going to bring somebody tested,” the Republican politician predicted. “This is a time for Republicans to prepare and get ready for what’s to come because there is no way that there will be a surviving Democratic Party if they allow Joe Biden to continue to be the candidate,” she said.

Haley reiterated her call for cognitive testing of all federal candidates, which she made as she competed with 78-year-old Trump in the primaries earlier this year. Washington is “full of older people” and voters should be able to see “who is up to the challenge and who is not,” Haley argued. If the Democrats “continue down this path and they have Biden as their nominee, they are committing to hurting America,” the Republican politician stressed. The president should be replaced on the rival party’s ticket “for the good of the country,” she added. On Friday, Axios published the results of a poll by Morning Consult, which suggested that 60% of voters believe that Biden should “definitely” or “probably” be replaced as the Democratic presidential nominee. When asked by journalists after the debate if the president was planning to step aside, the Biden campaign said “of course not.”

Read more …

“We’re needed to protect the world because our own safety is at stake..”

• Biden Beat Trump In The Spinach Debate (Helmer)

If you think that Popeye beat Bluto because he ate spinach, this US presidential cartoon, I mean debate, was for you. That President Joseph Biden, handicapped as he was by Parkinson’s Disease and Lewy body dementia, won the 120-minute television fight with Donald Trump seems so obvious to Russians, they express surprise at the near-unanimity in the US that the opposite was the outcome. While the Russian state propaganda organs are repeating the “Joe Must Go” line — the US-funded Russian opposition media also — military and intelligence analysts in Moscow are concluding that Biden and Trump proved they are equally dangerous for Russia, but that Trump is now the candidate for much bigger wars in the Middle East and against China. Replacing Biden, Russian sources believe, is now an operation of the Zionist and Taiwan lobbies in Washington.

“The Democratic party elites started to think of ways to get Biden out of the way,” according to one Moscow source. “so sending him into a long debate, so early in the campaign, was exactly meant to achieve this – he will look bad but there is enough time to replace him. Republicans have always been this racist but Trump says it more plainly. Biden has always been a wolf in sheep’s clothing but he can no longer find new words to keep up the charade. What is there to see? America has never been weaker. The important thing to see here [Moscow] is the reluctance to drive American imperial power off the cliff.” “Despite Biden’s obvious handicap, I thought he won,” adds a second source. “Biden telling Trump ‘you have the morals of an alley cat’, won it as far as I’m concerned. He also called Trump out on the racism and fascism, something Trump had no answer for except to double down. Didn’t anyone notice Trump’s compulsive repetitiveness? He repeated the same lies and aspersions over and over again. He’s more lucid than Biden, but not by much. He’s an ageing, narcissistic, racist crook.”

The Russian sources also believe that support for Trump in Moscow is an oligarch operation with a similar fondness for Israel. That has been the line of Roman Abramovich since his abortive attempts to save himself from sanctions and defeat the Russian Army failed at the beginning of the Special Military Operation in March and April 2022. “I believe,” said one source, “ ‘Joe must go’ because he expressed some trepidation regarding Israel. He was set up — the guns were loaded and cocked before the debate even started.” There were nineteen references in all to Russia in the debate; seventeen to President Vladimir Putin. Leaving aside mentions by the CNN moderators of the debate, Trump referred to Russia fourteen times; Biden none. Trump named Putin seven times, Biden the same number. The Ukraine was named twenty-two times, Vladimir Zelensky twice. NATO was named thirteen times.

This count reveals that the war in Europe was significantly more important to both candidates than any other foreign policy issue. Compared to the war in the Ukraine, there were eighteen mentions of Israel; thirteen of Hamas; fourteen of China; six of Iran; one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of President Xi Jinping. North Korean President Kim Jong-Un got three. Both Biden and Trump claimed to be tougher and the other weaker in the war against Russia. Said Biden: “we found ourselves in a situation where, if you take a look at what Trump did in Ukraine, he’s – this guy told Ukraine – told Trump, do whatever you want. Do whatever you want. And that’s exactly what Trump did to Putin, encouraged him, do whatever you want. And he went in. And listen to what he said when he went in, he was going to take Kyiv in five days, remember?

Because it’s part of the old Soviet Union. That’s what he wanted to re-establish, Kyiv. And he, in fact, didn’t do it at all. He didn’t – wasn’t able to get it done. And they’ve lost over – they’ve lost thousands and thousands of troops, 500,000 troops…If you want a World War Three, let him follow and win, and let Putin say, do what you want to NATO – just do what you want…I can’t think of a single major leader in the world who wouldn’t trade places with what job I’ve done and what they’ve done because we are a powerful nation…right now, we’re needed. We’re needed to protect the world because our own safety is at stake. And again, you want to have war, just let Putin go ahead and take Kyiv, make sure they move on, see what happens in Poland, Hungary, and other places along that border. Then you have a war.”

Read more …

That’s more than the aid..

• West Loses $257 Billion on Trade Restrictions With Russia (Sp.)

Western trade restrictions forced Russian companies to focus on markets in the Global South with enormous purchasing power. Importers from unfriendly countries received less Russian goods in the amount of $256.5 billion, while Russia managed to sell these goods to other states and made a profit of almost $31 billion, Sputnik calculated using open data. According to the trade statistics, Russian exports to unfriendly countries were uneven – while some items grew, others shrank. Russia saw an increase in exports compared to the pre-sanctions period, with companies earning an additional $31 billion from trade with friendly countries, data from the Federal Customs Service show.

Western importers were mostly undersupplied with Russian minerals ($107 billion), jewelry ($38 billion) and metals ($21 billion). Russia has repeatedly stressed that it is happy to trade with friendly nations in the wake of Western economic sanctions and warned that these restrictive measures will backfire, spurring inflation and triggering a cost-of-living crisis. In January-February trade between Russia and China grew by 9.3%, with exports from Russia exceeding $20 billion. Earlier, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping set the goal of doubling bilateral trade. The goal was reached in November 2023.

Read more …

You’re done. Get out of the way..

• Zelensky Outlines Model For Talks With Russia (RT)

Kiev is not ruling out peace talks with Moscow, but they can only be held through intermediaries, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky told the Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday. He suggested that the format used to broker the 2022 Black Sea grain deal could provide a foundation for negotiations. Ukraine has previously refused to accept Russia’s terms as the basis for talks and has accused Moscow of being incapable of good-faith negotiations. In late 2022, Zelensky issued a decree proclaiming the “impossibility” of talks with Moscow while Russian President Vladimir Putin remains in power. Moscow, meanwhile, has maintained that it is ready to restart negotiations, but only if Kiev renounces claims to former territories that have become part of Russia. In autumn 2022, four former Ukrainian territories – the two breakaway Donbass republics and the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye – formally joined Russia following a series of referendums.

Ukraine has never recognized the results and continues to lay claim to these regions, as well as Crimea, which joined Russia following a similar referendum in 2014. In his interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Zelensky claimed that Ukraine “can find a model” for a potential settlement with Russia. He pointed to the deal brokered two years ago by Türkiye and the UN that allowed the establishment of a corridor for agricultural exports from Ukrainian ports. According to Zelensky, Ankara and the UN signed separate agreements with Moscow and Kiev. “It worked,” he said, adding that the grain corridor then existed “long enough.” Moscow and Kiev were close to reaching another grain deal in March, but Ukrainian negotiators abruptly walked away after two months of talks, according to Reuters.

Agreements on “territorial integrity, energy and freedom of navigation” could be struck between Moscow and Kiev in the same format, Zelensky stated. He suggested that other countries could be invited to mediate. “No one should say that it is… just Europe and the US,” he said, adding that nations from Asia, Africa, and South America should participate and help prepare the documents that would be presented to Moscow and Kiev. “So far, there is only this model,” Zelensky added. He stressed, however, that the final agreement must “suit” Kiev and be based on Ukraine’s terms. Zelensky has long sought to promote his own ten-point “peace formula,” most recently during the summit in Switzerland on June 15-16, to which Russia was not invited. Moscow has flatly rejected Zelensky’s terms, insisting that the status of its newly acquired territories is non-negotiable.

Putin further demanded in June that Kiev withdraw all its troops from the areas of the four Russian regions it currently controls. According to Putin, Ukraine must also renounce its plan to join NATO and become a neutral country, as well as limit the size of its army. Despite rejecting Russia’s terms, Kiev has recently signaled its willingness to end the fighting. In June, the deputy head of Vladimir Zelensky’s office, Igor Zhovkva, said Ukraine wanted “peace as soon as possible.” Zelensky said last week that Kiev does not want to “prolong the war” or make it “last for years.”

Read more …

Confusing numbers.

• Ukraine Aid Hits Record Low of $2Bln Per Month Since February 2022 (Sp.)

Foreign financial assistance to Ukraine has hit record lows since February 2022 after falling to a monthly average of 1.9 billion euros ($2 billion) in the first half of 2024, an analysis of the Ukrainian Finance Ministry’s data conducted by Sputnik showed on Saturday, adding that Kiev received no funds in May. In 2022, Ukraine’s budget received an average of 2.9 billion euros per month from 17 countries and the European Union, with the United States providing the largest disbursement of 11.4 billion euros, the EU 7.6 billion euros and Canada 1.8 billion euros, the data showed. In 2023, 13 countries and the European Union, which became the largest donor (18.1 billion euros), provided Ukraine with a monthly average of 3 billion euros, the data said. The United States took the second place with 10.1 billion euros, followed by Japan with 3.4 billion euros, the data showed.

Austria, Albania, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania and Latvia did not provide any financial assistance to Ukraine last year, the data said. This year, Kiev received financial support from the European Union, Canada, Japan, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom and the monthly allocations dropped to 1.9 billion euros, the data showed. Earlier in June, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that Ukraine would receive 1.5 billion euros from profits generated by frozen Russian assets in July. Kiev is also set to receive 1.9 billion euros from the European Union by the end of June for reforms and investment, she said.

Earlier experts explained to Sputnik that Western voters are gradually getting tired of the Ukrainian crisis and do not want to see their governments sending more aid to the corrupt Kiev regime. Western countries have been providing massive military and financial aid to Kiev since the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in February 2022. The Kremlin has consistently warned against continued arms deliveries to Kiev, saying it would lead to further escalation of the conflict.

Read more …

“The new McCarthyism is by young people, and it represents our future. So we have a dark future unless we can reverse this new McCarthyism.”

• Alan Dershowitz Compares Lawfare Against Trump To McCarthyism (JTN)

Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz is comparing the political lawfare occurring against former President Donald Trump to McCarthyism which began in the late 1950s. “I know lawyers who have been asked to defend Donald Trump on First Amendment grounds,” Dershowitz said on the Wednesday edition of the Just the News, No Noise TV show. “They would normally take the case, but they say, ‘we can’t afford it for our family because they’re coming after our bar license.’ It’s exactly what happened during McCarthyism.” McCarthyism, also called the “Red Scare,” started when Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., said he obtained a list of over 200 card-carrying communists that worked at the U.S. Department of State. This resulted in congressional hearings about “communist subversion” in the United States and it led to repression and targeting of left-wing individuals for fear of spreading communist ideas.

“I’m seeing a return of it now,” Dershowitz said. “But it’s much more dangerous today. Because the old McCarthyism…..it was a thing of the past where you were communist in the 1930s. The new McCarthyism is by young people, and it represents our future. So we have a dark future unless we can reverse this new McCarthyism.” Last month, Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree for his reimbursement of a $130,000 payment his then-lawyer Michael Cohen made to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Trump had argued that this lawsuit and lawsuits on other states were part of a political witch hunt, which other GOP politicians have echoed. Recently, Missouri GOP Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced he would be filing a lawsuit against the state of New York for using ‘lawfare’ against former President Donald Trump.

“This is a lawsuit to vindicate Missourians rights to have access [and] to and hear from a chosen candidate for President of the United States in the heat of a campaign in the most consequential election in this nation’s history,” Bailey said on a “Just the News, No Noise” special. Trump recently had a gag order lifted that was imposed on him by the New York judge. Trump’s lawyers argued the gag order was stifling his campaign speech, and said it might limit his ability to respond to attacks from Democratic President Joe Biden during the first presidential debate. Bailey argued that lawfare and the politicization of the judicial system is a sign that the U.S. is headed towards a banana republic. “We are absolutely slouching towards a tyrannical dictatorial Banana Republic where the law becomes a joke,” he said. We used to be a country of laws……certainly the law under the Biden administration has hastened this departure from those basic principles of the rule of law. ”

Bailey said that Biden does not respect the rule of law and Trump needs to get back into office. “If the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America doesn’t support the law and doesn’t support the United States of America, we lose credibility,” he said. “President Trump put America first. He enforced the rule of law.” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., suggested that if former President Donald Trump gets back into office, he should go after federal agencies like General Ulysses S. Grant attacked Richmond, Virginia, during the Civil War. “When Trump gets back in, he better go through these departments like Grant through Richmond — you can look it up. Grant, during the Civil War, went through Richmond pretty brutally,” Burchett said on the Just the News, No Noise TV show.

Read more …

Now investigate the Jan 6 committee. They locked up 100s of people for insurrection.

• Supreme Court Downsizes the “Insurrection” to Largely Trespassing (Turley)

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday in Fischer v. U.S. struck down one of the most common charges against January 6 defendants. “Obstruction of an official proceeding” had been used in hundreds of cases, and those convictions are now invalid. But the biggest impact of the decision may occur elsewhere. For years, calling January 6 an “insurrection” has been a litmus test for press, pundits and politicians. Members of Congress such as Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) claimed a conspiracy of “armed and organized insurrectionists.” The claim is legally absurd but politically advantageous. It now seems like the insurrection increasingly looks more like a legal case of mass trespass and unlawful entry. I have always believed that criminal charges were warranted for the riot of Jan. 6, 2021. But this week’s decision shows how the Justice Department has wrongly prosecuted hundreds of people for the obstruction crime.

It was all part of what Justice Department official Michael Sherwin proudly declared in a television interview, that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe…it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re, like, ‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ …We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.” The Fischer opinion will bring an end to a minority of cases that were based entirely on the charge under 1512(c)(2). The section had been enacted after the Enron scandal in 2001 with the collapse of an energy company accused of corporate fraud. It was designed to allow criminal charges for the destruction of evidence in the form of documents and records. The Justice Department chose to interpret that provision to broadly include any obstruction of any legal proceeding, and then used it in hundreds of Jan. 6 cases.

At least a quarter of the prosecutions included this charge. Most also included other charges, including trespass and unlawful entry. A small number involved serious offenses like violence against officers and an even smaller number involved charges for “seditious conspiracy.” For most cases, the decision may require resentencing. Others with pending charges will go to trial without an obstruction claim. One of those is former President Donald Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith brought four charges in Washington, D.C.: obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against rights. The Fischer ruling means that half of the indictment would be dropped. Smith could be compelled to seek a superseding indictment. The loss of the obstruction counts seemed to rip the wings off the plane that Smith has been trying to get off the ground before November.

It was the obstruction theory that held the indictment together — the notion that Trump was directing his followers to stop the certification from occurring by charging the Congress. The court rejected this theory and noted that that the “novel interpretation would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.” Smith has been here before. He was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in his conviction of Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. Notably, as with today, the court found his theory to be dangerously “boundless.”

[..] Biden has also become the most anti-free speech president since John Adams, including the establishment of a massive censorship system described by one court as “Orwellian.” As I discuss in my new book, the Biden administration has brought together an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate and academic interests to target and silence those with opposing views. These, combined with the weaponization of the legal system and his party’s efforts at ballot cleansing, hardly make Biden look like the defender of democracy to many citizens. For those who have been found guilty under these unlawful charges, it is a bit late to convert the Justice Department’s “shock and awe” into a mere “aw shucks.” It can also seem just awful for many citizens who see the political rage of Jan. 6 replaced by a type of state rage. As a result, Fischer suggests for many that democracy may be on the ballot, but the threat is not exactly what the press and the pundits have suggested.

Read more …

“It’s particularly distressing when contrasted with the eagerness and earnestness with which many of us joined the forum..”

• Klaus Schwab Reportedly Facing Sexual Harassment Allegations (Sp.)

Under Klaus Schwab’s decades-long oversight, the World Economic Forum “has allowed to fester an atmosphere” of sexual harassment and discrimination against women and Black people, the World Street Journal has cited numerous sources, including current and former forum employees, as saying. An array of female staffers described sexual harassment they experienced at the hands of senior managers, some of whom remain at the forum, “a tone that was set at the very top of the organization,” according to the WSJ. “Since the Forum’s earliest years, staffers say women received warnings about Schwab: If you find yourself alone with him, he may make uncomfortable comments about your appearance. They describe his behavior as more awkward than menacing, but inappropriate for a leader,” the newspaper pointed out.

Former forum staffer Farid Ben Amor, for his part, told the WSJ, “It was distressing to witness colleagues visibly withdraw from themselves with the onslaught of harassment at the hands of high-level staff, going from social and cheerful to self-isolating, avoiding eye contact, sharing nightmares for years after.” “It’s particularly distressing when contrasted with the eagerness and earnestness with which many of us joined the forum,” Ben Amor added. In separate incidents, white managers reportedly used the N-word around Black employees, who also raised formal complaints to its leaders about being passed over for promotions or left out of Davos. Forum spokesman Yann Zopf has, meanwhile, rejected all the accusations, insisting that the WSJ article purportedly mischaracterizes “our organization, culture and colleagues, including our founder,” who “does not and has never engaged in the vulgar behaviors” the newspaper described.

Read more …

They will have to listen to the victims’ families. There are too many to ignore.

“.. the families oppose the plea deal because it does not include any company executives being prosecuted..”

• DOJ to Charge Boeing With Criminal Fraud (Sp.)

The US Department of Justice will indict US aerospace company Boeing on criminal fraud charges over its alleged breach of a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement, a source familiar with the matter told Sputnik.
The source said Sunday that Boeing will face one charge of defrauding the US government regarding the safety of its planes. The Justice Department notified Boeing in May that it was subject to criminal prosecution after it determined the company had breached a 2021 agreement to avoid criminal charges for two fatal 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019. Under the agreement, Boeing paid $2.5 billion in penalties and vowed to improve its safety and compliance protocols. But federal prosecutors recently recommended to senior Justice Department officials that Boeing be prosecuted for failing to improve the safety of its aircraft after a series of mishaps this year, including a door panel that blew off an Alaska Airlines flight shortly after takeoff.

The legal team representing the families of victims of the 737 MAX aircraft crashes was notified of the decision the Justice Department reached to prosecute Boeing, but they do not believe it does enough to hold the company accountable. “The Justice Department is preparing to offer to Boeing another sweetheart plea deal. The deal will not acknowledge, in any way, that Boeing’s crime killed 346 people. It also appears to rest on the idea that Boeing did not harm any victim. The families will strenuously object to this plea deal,” the legal team said in a press release without disclosing details of the expected charge against Boeing. The release added that the families oppose the plea deal because it does not include any company executives being prosecuted and there are also issues with the amount of the fine federal prosecutors intend to ask the court to impose.

Trouble began for the aircraft manufacturer in 2018 when a Boeing 737 MAX plane operated by Lion Air in Indonesia crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 189 on board. The same model aircraft experienced another catastrophic failure just five months later, when all 157 people on board a flight from Ethiopia were killed under similar circumstances. It was later revealed the two aircraft lacked optional safety features Boeing sold to airlines at a premium, a decision that was sharply criticized.

A series of shocking whistleblower testimonies have offered troubling details about the company’s safety practices, including reports of employee drug use and allegations that contractors use substandard parts and ignore manufacturing defects. One former employee claimed he was pressured to overlook hundreds of production faults in order to ensure that Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems continued to meet its quotas. Whistleblower Santiago Paredes claimed he was demoted and moved to a different part of the factory after reporting numerous concerns. Two Boeing whistleblowers, Joshua Dean and John Barnett, suddenly died shortly after going public with their concerns.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Neuralink 1st patient

 

 

Cow pool

 

 

Fibonacci

 

 

Bowie Ricky
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807092337610240080

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 29 2024

Jun 292024
 
 June 29, 2024  Posted by at 9:08 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  87 Responses »


Ivan Aivazovsky The Galata tower by moonlight 1845

 

• Biden Won’t Drop Out Of Presidential Race – Campaign Official (RT)
• Robert Hur Emerges as the Clear Winner in the Presidential Debate (Turley)
• Biden’s Team Offers Excuse For Debate Performance – Axios (RT)
• The New York Times Editorial Board Urges Biden To Quit The 2024 Race (RT)
• Kamala to Be ‘Leapfrogged’ in Quest to Find Biden Replacement (Sp.)
• Debate Debacle: Democrats Need to Find New Candidate ASAP (Sp.)
• Joe Biden Catches Cold (Kunstler)
• Ukraine: US Starts Conflict And Tasks Europe With Fueling It (Dionísio)
• Zelensky Preparing ‘Plan To End War’ (RT)
• Putin – Behind the Shoji (Patrick Lawrence)
• SCOTUS Overturns ‘Chevron Deference’ In Massive Blow To ‘Administrative State’ (ZH)
• Supreme Court Casts Doubt On Hundreds Of Jan 6 Cases (BBC)
• Supreme Court Rejects Bannon Bid To Avoid Monday Prison Deadline (ZH)
• Assange Agreed to Destroy Unpublished Classified Material (Lauria)
• Inquisition Redux at the Vatican (Karganovic)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1806525328036073626

 

 

 

 

Macgregor

 

 

 

 

“..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.

Read more …

“..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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“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.”

Read more …

“..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.

Read more …

“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?”

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“..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.

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

Read more …

“..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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“..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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Reagan

 

 

Garland

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 27 2024

Jun 272024
 
 June 27, 2024  Posted by at 9:08 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  75 Responses »


Paul Gauguin The Vision after the Sermon (Jacob wrestling with the Angel) 1888

 

• Julian Assange: Free At Last, But Guilty Of Journalism (Pepe Escobar)
• ‘No Physical Harm To Anyone By Leaks’ (ZH)
• Bitcoin Donor Pays For Julian Assange’s $520,000 Charter Jet (ZH)
• You Saved Julian Assange (Chris Hedges)
• How The Deal To Free Julian Assange Was Agreed (BBC)
• ‘Every Citizen on the Planet’ Subject to US Persecution (Miles)
• Macron’s Brand ‘Toxic’ – Bloomberg (RT)
• France Faces Threat Of ‘Civil War’ – Macron (RT)
• West ‘Unable To Negotiate’ – Lavrov (RT)
• Farage Tells Zelensky Only Peace Can Save Ukraine (RT)
• UK’s Cameron Dashes Ukraine’s NATO Summit Hopes (RT)
• How Obama’s Intel Czar Rigged 2016 and 2020 Debates Against Trump (Sperry)
• Age of Rage: America’s Anti-Free Speech Movement (Turley)
• Supreme Court Tosses Case Over Biden Coercion Of Social Media (ZH)

 

 


Free as a Bird — by Mr. Fish

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1806072950510002264
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806056785469374481

 

 

Debate

 

 

 

 

RFK jr

 

 

Vivek

 

 

Zelaya

 

 

Pool
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806058499282969012

 

 

 

 

Lots of Assange articles again today. Well, he deserves it.

• Julian Assange: Free At Last, But Guilty Of Journalism (Pepe Escobar)

The United States Government (USG) – under the “rules-based international order” – has de facto ruled that Julian Assange is guilty of practicing journalism. Edward Snowden had already noted that “when exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals.” Criminals such as Mike “We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal” Pompeo, former Trump Secretary of State, who had planned to kidnap and kill Julian when he was head of the CIA. The indomitable Jennifer Robinson and Julian’s U.S. lawyer Barry Pollack sum it all up: the United States has “pursued journalism as a crime”. Julian was forced to suffer an unspeakably vicious Via Crucis because he dared to expose USG war crimes; the inner workings of the U.S. military in their rolling thunder War Of Terror (italics mine) in Afghanistan and Iraq; and – Holy of Holies – he dared to release emails showing the Democratic National Committee (DNC) colluded with the notorious warmongering Harpy Hillary Clinton.

Julian was subjected to relentless psychological torture, and nearly crucified for publishing facts that should always remain invisible to public opinion. That’s what top-notch journalism is all about. The whole drama teaches the whole planet everything one needs to know about the absolute control of the Hegemon over pathetic UK and EU. And that bring us to the kabuki that may – and the operative word is “may” – be closing the case. Title of the twisted morality play: ‘Plead Guilty or Die in Jail’. The final twist in the plot line of the morality play runs like this: the combo behind the cadaver in the White House realized that torturing an Australian journalist and publisher in a maximum security U.S. prison in an electoral year was not exactly good for business. At the same time the British establishment was begging to be excluded from the plot – as its “justice” system was forced by the Hegemon to keep an innocent man and family father hostage for 5 years, in abysmal conditions, in the name of protecting a basket of Anglo-American intel secrets.

In the end, the British establishment quietly applied all the pressure it could muster to run towards the exit – in full knowledge of what the Americans were planning for Julian. Cue to the kabuki this Wednesday in Saipan, the largest of the Northern Mariana Islands, unincorporated Pacific land administered by the Hegemon. Free at last – maybe, but with conditionalities that remain quite murky. Julian was ordered by this U.S. Court in the Pacific to instruct WikiLeaks to destroy information as a condition of the deal. Julian had to tell U.S. judge Ramona Manglona that he was not bribed or coerced to plead guilty to the crucial charge of “conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified information relating to the national defense of the United States”. Well, his lawyers told him he had to follow the ‘Plead Guilty or Die in Jail’ script. Otherwise, no deal.

Judge Manglona – in an astonishing brush aside of those 5 years of psychological torture – said, “it appears that your 62 months in prison was fair and reasonable and proportionate.” So now the – oh, so benign and “fair” – USG will take the necessary steps to immediately erase remaining charges against Julian in the notoriously harsh Eastern District of Virginia. Julian was always adamant: he stressed over and over again that he would never plead guilty to an espionage charge. He didn’t; he pleaded guilty to a hazy felony/conspiracy charge; was given time served; was set free; and that’s a wrap. Or is it? Australia is a Hegemon vassal state, intel included, and with less than zero capability to protect its civilian population.

Moving from the UK to Australia may not be exactly an upgrade – even with freedom included. A real upgrade would be a move to a True Sovereign. Like Russia. Yet Julian will need U.S. authorization to travel and leave Australia. Moscow inevitably will be a sanctioned, off-limits destination. There’s hardly any question Julian will be back at the helm of WikiLeaks. Whistleblowers may be even lining up as we speak to tell their stories – supported by official documents. Yet the stark, ominous message remains fully imprinted in the collective unconscious: the ruthless, all-powerful U.S. Intel Apparatus will go no holds barred and take no prisoners to punish anyone, anywhere, who dares to expose imperial crimes. A new global epic starts now: The Fight against Criminalized Journalism.

Read more …

We’ve known this for years.

• ‘No Physical Harm To Anyone By Leaks’ (ZH)

These are the images the world has been waiting for (with the exception of all Neocons, Liberal interventionists, natsec hawks, and Killary types…). “Free at last,” WikiLeaks said in a post on X, upon Julian Assange emerging rom his plane after landing in the Australian capital of Canberra. Assange raised his fist on the tarmac, and lovingly embraced his wife Stella and his children and family. His guilty plea arrangement with the United States was a success. During the Wednesday morning stopover and court appearance in a US district court in Saipan, the 52-year old Assange formally pleaded guilty to obtaining and publishing US military secrets.

One of Assange’s lawyers, Jennifer Robinson, said after the hearing that the whole ordeal “sets a dangerous precedent that should be a concern to journalists everywhere.”During the hearing he appeared emotional and there were moments of humor and laughter in interaction with the judge and with the court, according to The Guardian. For example, when the judge questioned whether satisfied with the plea conditions, Assange responded: “It might depend on the outcome.” This immediately drew some laughter in the courtroom. Chief Judge Ramona Manglona said at the start: “Not many people recognize we are part of the United States, but that is true.” By the end she pronounced: “It appears this case ends with me” and followed with “I hope there will be some peace restored.”

Crucially, the judge said something which marks a significant blow to Assange’s and WikiLeaks’ detractors, who have long maintained that the leaks – particularly the Iraq and Afghan war logs – put intelligence officers and foreign assets in danger and may have gotten some killed. Manglona explained that key to the deal for his freedom was that he already served years in a notorious and harsh UK prison, but also that no actual physical harm was actually caused due to Assange’s actions. “You stand before me to be sentenced in this criminal action,” the judge said. “I would note the following: Timing matters. If this case was brought before me some time near 2012, without the benefit of what I know now, that you served a period of imprisonment… in apparently one of the harshest facilities in the United Kingdom.”

The Australian parliament had also begun publicly lobbying for Assange’s freedom starting months ago, and this was also essential in building pressure with the Biden administration. “There’s another significant fact – the government has indicated there is no personal victim here. That tells me the dissemination of this information did not result in any known physical injury,” the judge continued. “These two facts are very relevant. I would say if this was still unknown and closer to [2012] I would not be so inclined to accept this plea agreement before me,” Manglona added. “But it’s the year 2024.”

Former intelligence officials and national security pundits have been livid and disappointed over the plea deal, claiming Assange’s leaks got people killed and harmed US operations abroad.

Importantly, as a condition of the plea WikiLeaks is required to destroy information pertaining to US state secrets that was provided to Assange and his team. While the WikiLeaks site is a large repository of world-wide leaks on various governments, it appears that sections devoted to classified US documents have now been removed. Upon Assange’s celebratory landing in Australia, his wife Stella said in a press conference that he “just arrived in Australia after being in a high-security prison for over five years and [on] a 72-hour flight.”

She said it would be “premature” for Julian to address the press and that he “has to recover”. She then declared: “The fact is that Julian will always defend human rights, will always defend victims – that’s just part of who he is.” “I hope journalists and editors and publishers everywhere realize the danger of the US case against Julian that criminalizes, that has secured a conviction for, newsgathering and publishing information that was true, that the public deserved to know,” she continued in the press conference. “That precedent now can and will be used in the future against the rest of the press. So it is in the interest of all of the press to seek for this current state of affairs to change through reform of the Espionage Act,” said Stella Assange. “Through increased press protections, and yes, eventually when the time comes – not today – a pardon.”

Read more …

“..required to pay $520,000 to the Australian government..”

• Bitcoin Donor Pays For Julian Assange’s $520,000 Charter Jet (ZH)

In an anonymous effort to help secure Julian Assange’s freedom, an anonymous Bitcoiner donated over 8 Bitcoin, worth around $500,000, to help Assange’s family pay off the debt incurred by his charter jet and settlement expenses, CoinTelegraph reported. On June 24, Assange was released from the high-security Belmarsh prison in the United Kingdom after reaching a plea agreement with U.S. authorities. Shortly after his release, he departed the U.K. on a private plane from a London airport to Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory. Assange appeared in a district court in Saipan on June 26, where he pleaded guilty to one charge of breaching the U.S. Espionage Act by leaking classified documents. The journey was planned to prevent Assange from touching foot on American soil.

In an interview, Stella Assange, Assange’s wife, stated that “freedom comes at a cost.” Assange is required to pay $520,000 to the Australian government for the “forced” chartering of flight VJ199 to travel to Saipan and Australia. Stella started a crowdfunding page to help the jailed founder with his debts after his return home to Australia. The donation link was posted by Stella Assange on June 25, and within 10 hours, an anonymous Bitcoiner paid over 8 Bitcoin to the fund, almost clearing the goal of $520,000. He has also received over 300,000 British pounds ($380,000) in fiat donations so far. The single Bitcoin donation was the largest donation to the fund, more than all other donations in all currencies combined. As a result, Assange will arrive in Australia debt free.

Read more …

“..to my delight, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Old Bailey court overseeing Julian’s case, complained about the noise protestors were making in the street outside..”

• You Saved Julian Assange (Chris Hedges)

The dark machinery of empire, whose mendacity and savagery Julian Assange exposed to the world, spent 14 years trying to destroy him. They cut him off from his funding, canceling his bank accounts and credit cards. They invented bogus allegations of sexual assault to get him extradited to Sweden, where he would then be shipped to the U.S. They trapped him in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for seven years after he was given political asylum and Ecuadorian citizenship by refusing him safe passage to Heathrow Airport. They orchestrated a change of government in Ecuador that saw him stripped of his asylum, harassed and humiliated by a pliant embassy staff. They contracted the Spanish security firm UC global in the embassy to record all his conversations, including those with his attorneys. The CIA discussed kidnapping or assassinating him. They arranged for London’s Metropolitan Police to raid the embassy – sovereign territory of Ecuador – and seize him.

They held him for five years in the high security HM Prison Belmarsh, often in solitary confinement. And all the while they carried out a judicial farce in the British courts where due process was ignored so an Australian citizen, whose publication was not based in the U.S. and who, like all journalists, received documents from whistleblowers, could be charged under the Espionage Act. They tried over and over and over to destroy him. They failed. But Julian was not released because the courts defended the rule of law and exonerated a man who had not committed a crime. He was not released because the Biden White House and the intelligence community have a conscience. He was not released because the news organizations that published his revelations and then threw him under the bus, carrying out a vicious smear campaign, pressured the U.S. government.

He was released — granted a plea deal with the U.S. Justice Department, according to court documents — in spite of these institutions. He was released because day after day, week after week, year after year, hundreds of thousands of people around the globe mobilized to decry the imprisonment of the most important journalist of our generation. Without this mobilization, Julian would not be free. Mass protests do not always work. The genocide in Gaza continues to exact its gruesome toll on Palestinians. Mumia Abu-Jamal is still locked up in a Pennsylvania prison. The fossil fuel industry ravages the planet. But it is the most potent weapon we have to defend ourselves from tyranny.

This sustained pressure — during a London hearing in 2020, to my delight, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Old Bailey court overseeing Julian’s case, complained about the noise protestors were making in the street outside — shines a continuous light on injustice and exposes the amorality of the ruling class. This is why spaces in the British courts were so limited and blurry eyed activists lined up outside as early as 4 a.m. to secure a seat for journalists they respected, my spot secured by Franco Manzi, a retired policeman. These people are unsung and often unknown. But they are heroes. They move mountains. They surrounded parliament. They stood in the pouring rain outside the courts. They were dogged and steadfast. They made their collective voices heard. They saved Julian. And as this dreadful saga ends, and Julian and his family I hope, find peace and healing in Australia, we must honor them. They shamed the politicians in Australia to stand up for Julian, an Australian citizen, and finally Britain and the U.S. had to give up. I do not say to do the right thing. This was a surrender. We should be proud of it.

Read more …

MSM view. Where was the BBC all that time?

• How The Deal To Free Julian Assange Was Agreed (BBC)

In the end, it was a mixture of diplomacy, politics and law that allowed Julian Assange to take off in a private jet from London’s Stansted airport on Monday, bound ultimately for Australia and freedom. The deal that led to his liberty – after seven years of self-imposed confinement and then five years of enforced detention – was months in the making but uncertain to the last. In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the possibility of a plea deal “first came to our attention in March”. Since then, it had been advising the United States “on the mechanics” of how to get Mr Assange released and to appear before a US federal judge “in accordance with his wishes and those of the US government”. But the origins of the deal – after so many years of deadlock – probably began with the election of a new Australian government in May 2022 that brought to power an administration determined to bring home one of its citizens detained overseas.

Anthony Albanese, the new Labor prime minister, said he did not support everything Mr Assange had done but “enough was enough” and it was time for him to be released. He made the case a priority, largely behind closed doors. “Not all foreign affairs is best done with the loud hailer,” he said at the time. Mr Albanese had cross-party support in Australia’s parliament too. A delegation of MPs travelled to Washington in September to lobby US Congress directly. The prime minister then raised the issue himself with President Joe Biden at the White House during a state visit in October. This was followed by a parliamentary vote in February when MPs overwhelmingly supported a call to urge the US and the UK to allow Mr Assange back to Australia. They lobbied hard the influential US ambassador to Australia, Caroline Kennedy. A key player was Stephen Smith, who arrived in London as the new Australian High Commissioner in early 2023. Diplomatic sources said he “did a lot of the heavy lifting, making it a personal thing to get this over the line”.

Mr Smith – who paid an early visit to Mr Assange in Belmarsh prison in April 2023 – was also foreign minister in a former Australian government led by Kevin Rudd, the current ambassador in Washington who was also involved in the negotiations. Simon Jackman, Honorary Professor of US Studies at the University of Sydney, told the BBC there was a “natural inclination” for Australian governments to support the US but public and political sentiment had shifted just enough in both countries to give Mr Albanese “cover” to agitate for Mr Assange’s release behind closed doors. Australian ministers even at times compared the detention of Mr Assange to other Australian nationals held as political prisoners by Iran and China. Greg Barns, a barrister and legal adviser to the Australian Assange campaign, said it was the politics that made a difference. “The Albanese government was the first to elevate the matter with the US. And Albanese got support from the opposition. “The treatment [of Assange] stuck in the craw of many Australians. People would ask, ‘where’s the public interest in that?'”

Then came the law. On May 20, the High Court in the UK gave Julian Assange a legal lifeline. It ruled that he could bring a new appeal against attempts to have him extradited to stand trial in the US for obtaining and publishing military secrets. At this point, he faced multiple charges under the US espionage act: 17 of publishing official secrets, each of which carried a maximum 10-year prison term, and one of hacking, which was punishable by up to five years. One key part of the judgement was about whether Mr Assange – as an Australian citizen – would be able to use the US constitutional First Amendment right to free speech as a defence. Nick Vamos, former head of extradition at the CPS and head of business crime at the law firm Peters & Peters, said that the May ruling put pressure on both sides to come to the table and complete the deal. He said the ruling potentially allowed Mr Assange to argue that publishing secret US information was protected by the First Amendment, something that could have led to “months if not further years of delays and pressure”.

“Faced with this uncertainty and further delay, it looks as if the US have dropped the publishing charges in exchange for Mr Assange pleading guilty to hacking and ‘time served’, finally bringing this saga to end,” he said. Mr Vamos added that Mr Assange’s legal team would however have recognised that the First Amendment would have made no difference to the separate charge related to hacking. So even if they eventually saw off the charges relating to the publication of the secret material, there would be no protection against the hacking charges that went alongside them. “Both sides saw the risks and that brought them to the table,” he said. Whitehall sources said the date of the next High Court hearing was fast approaching on July 9 and 10 and both sides knew that if they were to agree a deal, it had to happen now.

Read more …

“On the contrary, Assange worked meticulously with sources and partnered media outlets to redact information that could’ve endangered or exposed anyone referenced within the leaked documents.”

• ‘Every Citizen on the Planet’ Subject to US Persecution (Miles)

The last decade saw a string of revelations about the inner workings of the US government that shocked the world. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange published a series of leaked documents that implicated the United States in everything from foreign political meddling to surveillance of allies and adversaries. He was aided in his efforts by US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who exposed gross violations of international law in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Edward Snowden, an NSA contractor who revealed the security agency’s sweeping spying capabilities. The international scope of US influence was a common thread among each of the revelations. Various governments throughout history have violated their citizens’ rights, but few global powers have ever possessed the ability to bend the entire planet to their will. By the 2010s the United States had become just such a power, with political, technological, and economic might that could be imposed on any person at any place in the world.

“It sounds like they’re now saying every citizen on the planet is susceptible to being charged under the US Espionage Act,” said independent journalist Steve Poikonen on Sputnik’s The Critical Hour program. Poikonen was among a number of Sputnik contributors who weighed in on news of Assange’s plea deal with the Biden Justice Department Tuesday, questioning the implications of the agreement even as press freedom advocates everywhere celebrate the liberation of the longtime US political prisoner. “The thing that I found most surprising about all of this is the way that the plea deal was written, mostly because it’s a charge that we’ve historically only seen for government contractors or employees,” said Poikonen, the host of the online news program AM Wake Up. “The argument that the US prosecution was making the entire time hinged on ‘Julian Assange isn’t a journalist.’”

“If they’re charging him as a private citizen for mishandling classified information, and that’s something that before this they could only charge an employee or a contractor with, then doesn’t that put the rest of us under even more of a hot seat than we were before?” “He never should have been charged,” insisted cartoonist and syndicated columnist Ted Rall of Assange’s 12-year struggle against the US government. “He never committed a crime. He was never an American citizen and, therefore, not subject to American law. The Espionage Act is disgusting and probably unconstitutional and shouldn’t be on the books, and certainly never should apply to journalists.”

The United States’ pursuit of Assange was frequently justified under the pretense that his activity endangered the lives of American citizens or service members. Similar claims were made decades prior against Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, who former Secretary of State Henry Kissenger dubbed “the most dangerous man in America.” US Congress passed legislation making it a crime to reveal the identity of CIA employees after the former head of the agency George H.W. Bush blamed whistleblower Philip Agee for the killing of an officer by militants in Greece. But no concrete details ever emerged of anyone targeted, or even placed under threat, by Julian Assange’s journalist. On the contrary, Assange worked meticulously with sources and partnered media outlets to redact information that could’ve endangered or exposed anyone referenced within the leaked documents.

Read more …

“..He has vowed to stay on as president until his five-year term ends in 2027..”s

• Macron’s Brand ‘Toxic’ – Bloomberg (RT)

French President Emmanuel Macron’s allies could distance themselves from him ahead of snap elections as the leader has become a “toxic brand” due to his waning popularity, Bloomberg has reported, citing sources. The heads of communication at the Elysee Palace have admitted they have “no polls or data to suggest candidates should publicly align themselves with Macron to retain their seats,” the outlet said on Wednesday, citing attendees at an emergency meeting of top French government officials. Soon after Macron called snap elections earlier this month, dozens of lawmakers who initially supported the French leader now want him to keep a “low profile” as his behavior grows increasingly “erratic,” Bloomberg claimed. Even political heavyweights such as French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire and Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, once Macron’s closest allies, are keeping their distance, the outlet stated.

Most pro-government candidates have not placed the president’s image in their campaign posters or leaflets as the Macron brand is feared to be toxic, Bloomberg added. A person close to the president claimed that it’s normal for candidates not to use his image, arguing that the election is about the parliament, not the presidency. Speaking on Monday on the ‘Generation Do It Yourself’ podcast, Macron claimed that upcoming legislative elections in France could lead to civil war, should the far right or the leftist bloc sweep to power. Only his centrist ruling coalition can prevent such a scenario, Macron insisted, arguing that both the right-wing National Rally party and the left-wing France Unbowed party have espoused divisive policies that stoke tensions. Macron’s popularity has tumbled in recent months, and opinion polls indicate that his party is lagging far behind National Rally.

Macron, who has presented himself as a leading backer of Ukraine in the conflict with Russia, has floated the possibility of sending French – and other Western – troops to the battlefield. Jordan Bardella, the National Rally leader, recently said that if he becomes prime minister, he will not send troops or long-range missiles to Ukraine, describing any such moves as “very clear red lines.” Macon dissolved the country’s parliament and called snap elections earlier this month, after the National Rally party trounced his ruling coalition in the European Parliament elections. He has vowed to stay on as president until his five-year term ends in 2027, but an opposition-controlled legislature and government would dramatically shift the balance of power. The first round of the elections will be held on Sunday, while the second round is scheduled for July 7.

Read more …

You. Lost.

• France Faces Threat Of ‘Civil War’ – Macron (RT)

Upcoming legislative elections in France could lead to civil war if political parties on either the far-left or the far-right sweep to power, President Emmanuel Macron has warned. Only his centrist ruling coalition can prevent such a scenario, he added. Speaking on Monday in an interview on the “Generation Do It Yourself” podcast, Macron argued that both the right-wing National Rally party and the left-wing France Unbowed party have espoused divisive policies that stoke tensions. The first round of the elections will be held on Sunday, while the second round is scheduled for July 7. Macron labeled the opposition parties as extremist and claimed that their rhetoric would trigger more conflict. “When you are fed up and daily life is hard, you can be tempted to vote for the extremes that have quicker solutions,” he said. “But the solution will never be to reject others.”

The French president dissolved the country’s parliament and called for snap elections earlier this month, after the National Rally party trounced his ruling coalition in the European Parliament elections. He has vowed to stay on as president until his five-year term ends in 2027, but an opposition-controlled legislature and government would dramatically shift the balance of power in Paris. National Rally’s response to France’s problems would be to “reduce people to their religion or their origin,” Macron said, which “pushes people toward civil war.” Likewise, he added, Jean-Luc Melenchon’s France Unbowed party also promotes civil war “because it reduces people to their religious or ethnic group.” An Ipsos poll conducted last week showed that National Rally is favored by 35.5% of French voters. A leftist coalition that includes France Unbowed was pegged at 29.5%, while Macron’s alliance came in at 19.5%.

Macron has acknowledged that voters made their desire for change clear in the European Parliament election. “Yes, the way we govern must change profoundly,” he noted in announcing the snap elections. However, he added, “The government to come, which will necessarily reflect your vote, will, I hope, bring together republicans of different persuasions who have shown courage in opposing the extremes.” Macron and his allies have portrayed their opposition as dangerous and bigoted. “In our country, some people have hatred, impulses, desires to attack certain communities or certain French people,” Prime Minister Gabriel Attal said on Monday. He added, “Probably the victory of the extremes would release these impulses and could lead to violence.”

Read more …

“Our interest was much broader and more comprehensive, but the West was not ready for mutually beneficial, equal cooperation..”

• West ‘Unable To Negotiate’ – Lavrov (RT)

The West has repeatedly displayed its “inability to negotiate,” which has now become evident to everyone, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Western “vassals” of the US are willing to breach “any agreements” and violate international law upon receiving “orders” from Washington, Lavrov claimed at the Primakov Readings International Forum in Moscow. Russia had been interested in a mutually beneficial relationship with the collective West, but building one has proven to be effectively impossible, the top diplomat argued. “Our interest was much broader and more comprehensive, but the West was not ready for mutually beneficial, equal cooperation,” Lavrov stated. “When it needs to do something on orders from Washington, it resorts to breaking any agreements, any violations of international law.”

Moscow is now seeking to ensure its security and prevent any threats emanating from the “Western direction,” Lavrov said. The collective West, at the same time, is trying to make an example of Russia to assert its neocolonial policies, the diplomat claimed. “The Westerners are seeking to punish our country, using our example to intimidate everyone who is pursuing or seeks to pursue an independent foreign policy, who puts national interests above all, and not the whims of the former colonial powers,” Lavrov stated. The Western efforts to “punish” Russia, however, are doomed to fail and are “already producing effects opposite to the intended ones,” the minister insisted.

Leading Western officials have repeatedly said they are seeking to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia in the Ukraine conflict, or at least ensure that it does not emerge victorious. Moscow perceives the hostilities as a proxy conflict being waged by the collective West. Russia has insisted it will fully achieve its stated military goals, but has nonetheless signaled it is ready to negotiate an end to the hostilities through a diplomatic settlement.

Read more …

The only sane voice in Britain.

• Farage Tells Zelensky Only Peace Can Save Ukraine (RT)

Ukraine has no hope against Russia on the battlefield due to a lack of manpower, British politician Nigel Farage stated on Tuesday. The Reform UK leader has been embroiled in a row with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson after arguing that NATO expansion in Europe contributed to the ongoing hostilities. Farage defended his position on the BBC’s Panorama program last week, prompting Zelensky’s office to claim that the politician is infected with a “virus of Putinism.” Johnson branded Farage’s remarks “nauseating ahistorical drivel” and “Kremlin propaganda,” calling him “morally repugnant.” Speaking to British journalists on Tuesday, Farage took aim at his critics, in particular Johnson, who he accused of pushing Zelensky into rejecting a peace deal with Russia in 2022. The former Tory leader “very clearly did [that] for his own reasons. How many people have died as a result of that, I don’t know,” Farage said.

He estimated that there have been “a million battle casualties” in the conflict. Considering the heavy losses, “there may be no young men left in Ukraine” to achieve Kiev’s stated goal of defeating Russia, Farage pointed out. He said it was Zelensky’s choice whether to cede territory to stop the bloodshed and lamented that “no one is even talking about peace.” “All we are talking about is ‘Ukraine is going to win’. Really? I’m pretty skeptical about that,” Farage added. “I just think some attempt to broker negotiations between these two sides needs to happen,” the politician said, after citing his past opposition to Western military campaigns in Iraq and Libya.

Farage issued a similar rebuke during a campaign rally in Maidstone on Monday, when he suggested that Johnson is the one who is “morally repugnant.” He showed supporters a Daily Mail article from 2016 featuring a pro-Brexit speech by Johnson, a key figure in the campaign. In it, Johnson blamed the EU’s expansionist foreign policy for stoking tensions with Russia in Ukraine. He was accused of being an “apologist” for Russian President Vladimir Putin for the remarks. Farage told the crowd that Johnson was a hypocrite for criticizing him for saying similar things.

Read more …

Vovan and Lexus.

• UK’s Cameron Dashes Ukraine’s NATO Summit Hopes (RT)

Ukraine will not receive an invitation to join NATO at the bloc’s summit next month, UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron has said. He added that Kiev can only expect a strong declaration of support regarding its conflict with Moscow. In a phone call with Russian prankster duo Vovan and Lexus – one of whom posed as former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko – which was made public on Wednesday, Cameron confirmed that Ukraine should not hope to make strides on its path to become a NATO member when the military bloc’s leaders convene in Washington July 9-11. ”There is not going to be an invitation because America won’t support one,” Cameron said, adding that he told Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky that Kiev and the West should come up with the best language possible with regard to NATO’s support for the country and its eventual inclusion in the bloc.

”But we can’t have an argument between NATO and Ukraine before the summit… Let’s make sure we go into the conference united. We can’t afford a sort of public argument about where Ukraine is vis-à-vis NATO in the run-up to the July summit,” the foreign secretary said, adding that he personally supports the country’s accession to the US-led military bloc. “I’m sure it will happen. But we are not going to get there this time.” NATO first announced that Ukraine would become a member of the bloc back in 2008, without giving an exact timeline. In 2019, after the Western-backed coup in Kiev several years prior, Ukraine officially declared NATO membership to be a strategic objective. In 2022, after the conflict with Russia escalated and four of its former regions voted to join the neighboring country, Ukraine formally applied to join the bloc.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that Ukraine will not be able to join the bloc while it is embroiled in the conflict, amid widespread concerns that the move could trigger a direct clash with Russia. Moscow has for years sounded the alarm about NATO’s expansion towards its borders, with President Vladimir Putin citing Ukraine’s aspirations to join the bloc as one of the main reasons for the conflict. Earlier this month, Putin said Russia is ready to begin peace talks with Ukraine once it withdraws from its four former regions and commits to neutrality. Both Kiev and its Western backers have rejected the offer.

Read more …

Excellent Paul Sperry.

• How Obama’s Intel Czar Rigged 2016 and 2020 Debates Against Trump (Sperry)

Just before Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton faced off in their second presidential debate, then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper met in the White House with a small group of advisers to President Obama to hatch a plan to put out a first-of-its-kind intelligence report warning the voting public that “the Russian government” was interfering in the election by allegedly breaching the Clinton campaign’s email system. On Oct. 7, 2016 – just two days before the presidential debate between Trump and Clinton – Clapper issued the unprecedented intelligence advisory with Obama’s personal blessing. It seemed to lend credence to what the Clinton camp was telling the media — that Trump was working with Russian President Vladimir Putin through a secret back channel to steal the election. Sure enough, the Democratic nominee pounced on it to smear Trump at the debate.

And that wouldn’t be the only historically consequential maneuver for Clapper, whose role in skewing presidential campaigns might deserve a special place in the annals of nefarious election meddling – by, in this case, a domestic, not foreign, intelligence service.

In 2020, he was the lead signatory on the “intelligence” statement that discredited the New York Post’s October bombshell exposing emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, which documented how Hunter’s corrupt Burisma paymasters had met with Joe Biden when he was vice president. It was released Oct. 19, just three days before Trump and Biden debated each other in Nashville. Fifty other U.S. “Intelligence Community” officials and experts signed the seven-page document, which claimed “the arrival on the U.S. political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” In hindsight, Clapper’s well-timed pseudo-intelligence in 2016 and 2020 helped Clinton and Biden make the case against Trump as a potentially Kremlin-compromised figure, charges that crippled his presidency and later arguably denied him reelection.

The phony laptop letter actually helped Biden seal his narrow victory since many of his voters in the close election told pollsters they would have had second thoughts about backing him had they known of the damning materials contradicting his denials he knew anything about his son’s shady foreign dealings. A post-election survey by The Polling Company, for one, found that thanks to the discrediting and suppression of the laptop story, 45% of Biden voters in swing states said they were “unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son” and that full awareness of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal would have led more than 9% of these Biden voters to abandon their vote for him – thereby flipping all six of the swing states he won over to Trump and giving Trump the victory.

In effect, Joe Biden was elected president because millions of voters were steered away by Clapper and his intelligence colleagues from learning about the damning contents on Hunter Biden’s laptop. In 2016, Clapper appeared to use his authority as Obama’s chief of intelligence to try to trip up Trump on behalf of Clinton. But not everyone in the administration was on board with releasing his official statement about supposed Kremlin meddling. Then-FBI Director James Comey had also met in the Situation Room in early October to discuss the plan. But Comey balked at accusing “Russia’s senior-most officials” of authorizing the “alleged hack” of the Clinton campaign and trying “to interfere in the U.S. election process,” as the two-page document claimed. Conspicuously, the FBI did not sign on to the intelligence.

Still, Clapper implied in his statement that this was the finding of the entire “U.S. Intelligence Community” and that it was “confident the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails.” Aside from Clapper’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the only other agency that attached its name to the assessment was the Department of Homeland Security. Also remarkable was the paucity of underlying evidence. The joint ODNI-DHS statement based its conclusion primarily on a report by a cybersecurity contractor hired by the Clinton campaign’s law firm, who later walked back his finding in a sworn congressional deposition, allowing: “We did not have concrete evidence [Russian agents stole campaign emails].” At best, Clapper’s finding was shoddy tradecraft. At worst, it was manufactured, or simply “dreamed up,” as one former FBI counterintelligence official described it to RealClearInvestigations.

Read more …

“The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”

• Age of Rage: America’s Anti-Free Speech Movement (Turley)

Time and again, this country has abandoned our free speech values as political dissidents were met with state rage in the form of mass crackdowns and imprisonments. It is an unvarnished story of free speech in America and for better or worse, it is our story. Yet, we have much to learn from this history as this pattern now repeats itself. The book explains why we are living in the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history. In the past, free speech has found natural allies in academia and the media. That has changed with a type of triumvirate — the government, corporations, and academia — in a powerful alliance against free speech values.

Ironically, while these groups refer to the unprecedented threat of “fake news” and “disinformation,” those were the very same rationales used first by the Crown and then the U.S. government to crack down on free speech in the early American republic. The difference is the magnitude of the current censorship system from campuses to corporations to Congress. Law professors are even calling for changing the First Amendment as advancing an “excessively individualistic” view of free speech. The amendment would allow the government to curtail speech to achieve “equity” and protect “dignity.” Others, including President Biden, have called for greater censorship while politicians and pundits denounce defenders of free speech as “Putin lovers” and “insurrectionist sympathizers.”

Despite watching the alarming rise of this anti-free speech movement and the rapid loss of protections in the West, there is still reason to be hopeful.For those of us who believe that free speech is a human right, there is an inherent and inescapable optimism. We are wired for free speech as humans. We need to speak freely, to project part of ourselves into the world around us. It is essential to being fully human. In the end, this alliance may reduce our appetite for free speech but we will never truly lose our taste for it. It is in our DNA. That is why this is not our first or our last age of rage. However, it is not the rage that defines us. It is free speech that defines us.

Read more …

“If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” wrote Doughty.”

• Supreme Court Tosses Case Over Biden Coercion Of Social Media (ZH)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday tossed a case claiming that the Biden administration unlawfully coerced social media companies into removing content and banning users based on political views. In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue – as opposed to tossing the case on merit – just like the vast majority of election fraud cases which didn’t make it past lower courts. Clearly it was easier to punt this one than focus on the mountain of evidence that the Biden administration and US intelligence agencies were directly pressuring social media platforms to censor free speech disfavorable to the regime. GOP attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, filed the underlying lawsuit claiming that US government officials exceeded their authority by pressuring social media platforms to moderate content. The individual plaintiffs include Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff and Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya, as well as Gateway Pundit owner Jim Hoft.

Turley

The laws sought to prevent social media companies from banning users based on their political views, even if users violate platform policies. The lawsuit included various claims relating to activities that occurred in 2020 and before, including efforts to deter the spread of false information about Covid and the presidential election. Donald Trump was president at the time, but the district court ruling focused on actions taken by the government after President Joe Biden took office in January 2021. In July last year, Louisiana-based U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty barred officials from “communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” -NBC News. “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” wrote Doughty.

“The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition.” Dozens of people and agencies were bound by the injunction including President Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, the Treasury Department, State Department, the US Election Assistance Commission, the FBI and entire Justice Department, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, who are among the originators of the Great Barrington Declaration that denounced the lockdown regime, have been victims of social media censorship. For example, the pair says their censorship-triggering statements included assertions that “thinking everyone must be vaccinated is scientifically flawed,” questioning the value of masks, and stating that natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity.

While the case was dominated by Covid-19 censorship, it also encompasses the Justice Department’s efforts to suppress reporting about Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” in the run-up to the 2020 election. Doughty gave credence to that accusation. “The evidence thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario,” wrote Doughty in a 155-page ruling. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’.” “The White House defendants made it very clear to social-media companies what they wanted suppressed and what they wanted amplified,” wrote Doughty. “Faced with unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world, the social-media companies apparently complied.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

13 dogs
https://twitter.com/i/status/1805852394946712055

 

 

Rematch

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 5 2024

Jun 052024
 
 June 5, 2024  Posted by at 8:54 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  81 Responses »


Vincent van Gogh The good Samaritan (after Delacroix) 1890

 

• Trump Calls For Supreme Court To Intervene Before Sentencing (MN)
• Dershowitz: Trump Could Fast-Track His Appeal To Supreme Court (ZH)
• Republicans Vow To Scorch the Earth After Trump Conviction (RCW)
• The Fake Conviction (Newt Gingrich)
• Joe Biden’s Health Is About To Be Put To A Severe Test (Sadygzade)
• Biden Does ‘We Gotta Secure The Border!’ Routine (ZH)
• “A Blatant Lie” (Turley)
• Freedom of Speech in the USA? Think again! (Gilbert Doctorow)
• Swiss Senate Votes Against Aid For Kiev (RT)
• NATO Member Turkiye Would Like to Join BRICS – Top Diplomat (Sp.)
• NATO Preparing Troop Plans For Potential Russia Conflict – Telegraph (RT)
• Punish Hungary To Ensure EU’s Future – Bloc Presidency Holder Belgium (RT)
• Orban Believes Trump, EU Could End Ukrainian Conflict In 24 Hours (TASS)
• People are Not Reading Your Stuff: Publisher Drops Truth Bomb at WaPo (Turley)
• The Military-Industrial Complex Is Killing Us All (Vine/Arriola)
• Musk Corrects “Liar” CNBC Journo Over Nvidia Report (ZH)
• Pakistan Overturns Imran Khan’s Treason Conviction (RT)

 

 

 

 

“He’s polling right up there with fungal infections!”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1798001509697032668

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1797758238215016770

 

 

 

 

Hunter jurors

 

 

 

 

Border poll

 

 

Gaetz
https://twitter.com/i/status/1798004447362343011

 

 

O’Leary Musk
https://twitter.com/i/status/1798142196753048004

 

 

 

 

Before July 11th.

• Trump Calls For Supreme Court To Intervene Before Sentencing (MN)

Donald Trump has called for the Supreme Court to step in before he is sentenced in the ‘falsified business documents’ case on July 11th. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he has not done anything wrong and referred to the prosecutors as “Fascists.” He added “A Radical Left Soros backed D.A., who ran on a platform of ‘I will get Trump,’ reporting to an ‘Acting’ Local Judge, appointed by the Democrats, who is HIGHLY CONFLICTED, will make a decision which will determine the future of our Nation?” “The United States Supreme Court MUST DECIDE!” Trump asserted. The sentencing date has been set a few days before the RNC Convention in Wisconsin. Trump is currently at the mercy of Judge Merchan, with the potential sentence being up to four years in jail for each of the 34 charges.

Merchan is a Columbian immigrant whose daughter is president of a political consulting firm that works closely with Democratic candidates. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was literally funded into office by George and Alex Soros’ Open Society, with the latter gloating about the verdict last week and calling for Democrats to repeatedly label Trump a “convicted felon.” “Repetition is the key to a successful message,” Soros declared. In the wake of the verdict, there was a massive spike in Google searches for how to donate to Trump, and he has raised over $200 million and counting since. It is an unprecedented amount for a candidate. Despite Trump being convicted on 34 counts, there has been no negative impact on his support and even a slight increase in favorability, especially amongst independent voters.

Read more …

“..the Supreme Court has an obligation to review the case before the election so that the American public has resolution..”

• Dershowitz: Trump Could Fast-Track His Appeal To Supreme Court (ZH)

In a Friday interview with Megyn Kelly, Dershowitz suggested that Trump’s legal team should immediately push to get their appeal heard before the New York Court of Appeals, asking them to bypass the Appellate Division – which, Dershowitz suggested, are elected and more likely to work against Trump. “The Appellate Division or Manhattan judges that are elected and they don’t want to have to face their families and say you were the judge who allowed Trump to become the next President of the United States. They don’t want to be Dershowitz’ed,” he said, referring to the fact that he defended Trump during his first impeachment trial in the Senate. “They don’t want to be treated in New York, the way I have been treated in Martha’s Vineyard and Harvard and New York because I defended Donald Trump, so they should skip the Appellate Division.”

And so, to avoid the politicized Appellate Division, Trump’s attorneys should ask the Court of Appeals for an expedited appeal while preparing to argue in front of the US Supreme Court that the Manhattan case was rushed to try and get a verdict before the election. Dershowitz further suggested that the Supreme Court has an obligation to review the case before the election so that the American public has resolution. As Tom Ozimek of the Epoch Times notes further, Dershowitz has in the past accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of unfairly building the case against the former president by using a novel legal theory to elevate misdemeanor business falsification charges into a felony by alleging that the records fraud was carried out to conceal an underlying crime. In the Trump case, the underlying crime that was alleged was seeking to interfere in the 2016 election by using non-disclosure agreements to prevent unfavorable media coverage about an alleged affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels that the former president has denied.

Mr. Dershowitz said that Trump attorneys should consider supporting their petition to the New York Court of Appeals by highlighting two issues, with the first relating to the fact that the state’s highest court recently reversed Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction because the trial judge prejudicially allowed testimony on allegations unrelated to the case. The retired law professor alleged that Judge Juan Merchan “improperly” allowed irrelevant salacious details of President Trump’s alleged tryst with Ms. Daniels to be admitted into the record, while also raising the so-called “missing witness” issue. The second point that Mr. Dershowitz said would bolster a petition for an expedited review to the New York Court of Appeals is that the judge allegedly didn’t instruct the jury properly on why prosecutors didn’t call former Trump Organization CFO Alan Weisselberg to testify in the case. The judge was open to having Mr. Weisselberg testify but the prosecution didn’t call him, framing him as an unreliable witness due to earlier perjury charges in an unrelated case, while the defense also didn’t call him, citing the fact that prosecutors had undermined his credibility.

Mr. Dershowitz argued that failure to call Mr. Weisselberg left a hole in proving the case because it was expected that his testimony would have undermined some of the claims from another witness, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who testified against the former president. “Number two, I think would be the failure to give an instruction on the missing witness,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “The way the judge and the prosecution handled Allen Weisselberg really denied the defendant the right to a presumption that the only reason he wasn’t called was because he would not have corroborated the very important testimony, lying testimony of Michael Cohen.” Mr. Dershowitz said those two issues are what Trump attorneys should highlight in their request for an expedited appeal. “This is a winnable appeal,” he insisted.

Read more …

“They’ve broken a seal,” Lee said of the Trump conviction. “I don’t know that it can be contained.”

• Republicans Vow To Scorch the Earth After Trump Conviction (RCW)

Spurred by the volcanic temper of their base, Republicans are now preparing to scorch the earth in the wake of former President Donald Trump’s conviction, potentially setting off a chain reaction that could fundamentally alter the American political system entirely. No one knows exactly how far they will go in their response. What is clear is that conservatives have no patience for President Biden’s argument Friday morning that justice was served in Manhattan, that “the American principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed.” They see the conviction instead as unprecedented “lawfare” meant to interfere with the coming election and, some say, an unprecedented response is now in order. “The good guys must be as tough as the villains or freedom is doomed,” senior Trump advisor Stephen Miller told RealClearPolitics without offering exact details. Rep. Mike Collins, meanwhile, was explicit. “Time for Red State AGs and DAs to get busy,” the Georgia Republican said Thursday, floating the idea that Republicans should begin using the courts to pursue their political enemies.

“Hillary Clinton’s campaign-funded Steele dossier is a good start,” Collins continued, referencing how the former Secretary of State’s presidential campaign misreported their spending on the infamous opposition research document. Clinton was later fined $11,000 by the Federal Election Commission. No criminal charges were brought. “The statute of limitations expired but I’m told that’s not a thing anymore,” Collins said. Republicans on Capitol Hill are preparing a more traditional counter-offensive, one within established parliamentary rules. Led by Utah Sen. Mike Lee, eight Republicans have vowed to oppose all major legislation “not directly relevant to the safety of the American people” and blockade all judicial nominees in protest of Trump’s conviction. “We can’t pretend that our political world didn’t change yesterday pretty dramatically and for the worse,” Lee told RCP. The Utah Republican admitted that legislation normally slows ahead of an election but White House efforts to get anything through the Senate “just got a lot harder for them.”

A legislative blockade alone may not satisfy a conservative base hell-bent on retribution. “I don’t want to hear elected Republicans complaining. I don’t need to see their tweets and statements condemning the verdict. The only thing I want to hear from these people is which Democrats they will have arrested. Don’t tell us that you’re sad about the verdict. We don’t give a shit about your feelings. We want to see corrupt Democrats frog marched on camera in handcuffs. If you won’t do that, then shut up,” Matt Walsh, a Daily Wire columnist with a following in the millions, wrote on the social media website X. Replied conservative influencer Chaya Raichik: “Exactly. Where’s the list! Here’s a start: Obama Hillary Joe Biden Hunter Biden.”

Mike Davis, a longtime Republican strategist floated as a potential Trump attorney general, told Axios he wants prosecutors in red states like Georgia and Florida to open criminal probes into Democrats for allegedly conspiring to interfere in the election by indicting the former president. For his part, Lee stopped short of endorsing those efforts. He likened it to some campaigns on the left to pack the Supreme Court, an initiative he has long opposed, warning that it would lead to “lawlessness” and “politicization.” “I think this is an analogous circumstance,” the senator said of the prosecution of a major presidential candidate, something that the Department of Justice has long avoided. “They’ve broken a seal,” Lee said of the Trump conviction. “I don’t know that it can be contained.”

He held out one remote possibility: If Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his team experience a change of heart during the appeals process. “They could confess error on appeal,” Lee said. “Other instances of lawfare, wherever they exist, could be dropped. You could put this genie back in the bottle still, but not for very much longer.”

Read more …

“..You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”

• The Fake Conviction (Newt Gingrich)

Americans are now being forced to think through the first fake conviction in the history of presidential politics. As an historian, I am really bothered when I hear lawyers on television describe these proceedings as though they were somehow related to the rule of law and the normal legal process. It is clear that what happened to President Donald J. Trump in Judge Juan Merchan’s court was not a legitimate conviction. Nearly every element of the prosecution was false. Therefore, the outcome is false. To say President Trump is now a convicted felon – as the left and its propaganda media allies are practically singing – is to legitimize the most corrupt judicial event in American presidential history. The burden of proof is not on President Trump. He remains an innocent citizen framed by an astonishingly corrupt district attorney, judge, and Biden Justice Department. Don’t take my word for it alone. Consider what a host of experts have to say.

Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard, sat through much of the trial and condemned it with strong language in his newsletter: “I have observed and participated in trials throughout the world. I have seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France, Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states. But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the courthouse yesterday. “The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn.” George Washington Law professor and legal analyst Jonathan Turley said, “Before jurors left, however, Judge Juan Merchan framed their deliberations in a way that seemed less like a jury deliberation than a canned hunt.” Attorney Mike Davis on the Just the News “No Noise” TV show said: “I would say the first one is there is no crime here. They waited until after this multi-week trial to even tell the criminal defendant what the legal allegations he was supposed to defend himself in that prior trial. He had no opportunity to defend himself.”

An innocent citizen being “hunted,” in Turley’s language, cannot be honestly convicted. That is why I argue this is a fake conviction. Again, I’m not the only one who thinks this. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is hardly a fan of President Trump, said, “These charges never should have been brought in the first place. I expect the conviction to be overturned on appeal.” House Speaker Mike Johnson called it “a shameful day in American history,” and continued, “Alvin Bragg targeted a political opponent, made up unprecedented charges, and denied him his Constitutional right to a fair trial.” House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik summarized the corruption and dishonesty brilliantly: “The facts are clear: this was a zombie case illegally brought forward by a corrupt prosecutor doing Joe Biden’s political bidding in a desperate attempt to save Joe Biden’s failing campaign. She pointed out that the case hinged on the word of Michael Cohen, who has a history of perjury and an axe to grind with Trump.

She pointed out that Judge Merchan’s own family members benefited financially from the case, that he levied unconstitutional gag orders on Trump, and repeatedly sided with the prosecution throughout the case. Mark Steyn captured why we must insist that the conviction is fake and reject any effort to suggest that Trump is guilty. As Steyn wrote: “pretending that there is anything ‘great’ about this that should command our ‘respect,’ is making evil and corruption respectable and bi-partisan.” Ironically, in a Senate hearing involving smears and sexually salacious accusations chaired by then-Sen. Joe Biden 33 years ago, we were taught how to stand up to outrageous, corrupt, and disgusting behavior by then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas. After being repeatedly slandered by senators on Biden’s committee, on Oct. 11, 1991, Thomas said:

“This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.” A generation later, President Trump, is learning what Justice Thomas learned in 1991: Challenge the establishment, and it will go all out to destroy you. Every time you talk with someone who says President Trump is a convicted felon, point out it is a fake conviction. Challenge them to defend the dishonest, corrupt people who are putting the nation through this mess – starting with President Biden, the leader of the corrupt and dishonest.

Read more …

“Biden is described as a “healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency, to include those as Chief Executive, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief.”

• Joe Biden’s Health Is About To Be Put To A Severe Test (Sadygzade)

The Biden administration managed to keep the discourse surrounding his health out of the mainstream political discussion, and all stumbles and falls were attributed to fatigue and a heavy schedule, or written off as commonplace. However, the situation changed with the publication of Robert Hur’s report in February 2024, where the special prosecutor responsible for investigating a scandal involving Biden’s handling of secret documents commented on his health. Hur’s report states that during his investigation “evidence was found that President Biden intentionally retained and disclosed secret materials after the end of his vice-presidency when he was a private individual.” However, Hur concluded that “the evidence does not support guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” He reasoned that “in court, Mr. Biden would likely appear before the jurors just as he was during our interview with him – a charming, affable elderly man with poor memory.”

In Hur’s opinion, “it would be difficult to convince jurors that they should convict him – the by then former president, deep into his eighties – for a serious criminal offense requiring intent.” The widespread resonance of Hur’s report required immediate action by the Biden administration to mitigate the damage caused by its publication. This response was the publication of the president’s current health report on February 28, 2024. The examination was conducted by the president’s physician Kevin O’Connor from The George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences. According to the document, addressed to the president’s assistant and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Biden is described as a “healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency, to include those as Chief Executive, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief.”

This triggered an additional flurry of discussions about Biden’s health. Questions also arose about the position of the Democratic administration members regarding their support for Biden’s nomination for another presidential term, as Robert Hur is a subordinate of US Attorney General Merrick Garland, a very influential person in the structure of the Democratic party. Given the realities of political life in the US, it is fair to say that a new presidential campaign begins on the day of the inauguration of the elected president. However, the last year, especially the last six months before federal elections, are the most challenging for the candidate. This stage is characterized by frequent trips to undecided states, public appearances at rallies, and participation in debates. All this requires the candidate to have robust health and a significant amount of energy. For the incumbent president, this stage is even more challenging, as he is forced to combine election campaigning with the duties of the President of the United States.

In April of this year, Biden stated in an interview on “The Howard Stern Show” that he plans to participate in debates with the likely candidate from the Republican party, Donald Trump. “I’m happy to debate him,” Biden said, dispelling doubts about his participation in presidential debates, which traditionally take place in three different states. Later, in May, Biden’s team agreed to participate in debates organized by CNN, which are tentatively scheduled for June 27. Biden’s decision to participate in the debates pursues two important goals: to change the public narrative that Biden avoids direct discussion with his Republican opponent, and to improve his standing in the polls (according to most voter surveys, Biden is either trailing Trump or is on par).

If, in order to solve the first task, Biden simply needs to appear on stage at the appointed time; the second task may prove to be more challenging. The incumbent president, like any politician defending his position through participation in debates, needs to be persuasive, logical, and demonstrate mental agility. And all this in the conditions of a 90-minute live broadcast with a very strong debater – Donald Trump. Predicting the possible consequences of Joe Biden’s health on the upcoming elections is mere speculation and guesses. The analysis of possible scenarios directly depends on the actual state of health of the president and his diagnoses, which are unknown to the general public. But undoubtedly, Joe Biden’s health will become one of the main elements of Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric, including during the first face-to-face debates scheduled for June. However, how convincing these arguments will be will depend on Biden’s public appearance during the main summer-autumn phase of the 2024 presidential race.

Read more …

40-odd months of open borders later, and 10-20 million illegals, the story will now be: see, we secured the border, as the GOP refused. And half the population will buy that.

• Biden Does ‘We Gotta Secure The Border!’ Routine (ZH)

After shredding Donald Trump’s ‘xenophobic’ Executive Orders on border security his first day in office more than three years ago, resulting in what some estimate to be upwards of 20 million illegal migrants pouring into the United States (which Trump plans to deport), President Joe Biden is quietly signing an executive order on Tuesday aimed at slowing migrant crossings. As we noted on Friday, the EO would slash asylum claims by roughly two-thirds of where they stand today – and would cap the number of daily encounters at an average of 2,500 crossings per day (or 912k per year), however Biden would allow mass asylum claims to resume once border encounters fall to around 1,500 per day. US Border Patrol recorded approximately 4,300 daily encounters in April – which of course doesn’t include ‘gotaways’ – those who enter the US without notice. The move comes three months after the White House said Biden was no longer considering using executive action to secure the border.

According to Bloomberg, lawmakers and others have been invited to a Tuesday afternoon event at the White House. The order is Biden’s most aggressive move yet to address the crisis on the US-Mexico border, which has seen record levels of migrants and taxed communities across the country struggling to deal with the influx of new arrivals. A bipartisan Senate plan that would have given Biden similar powers was blocked by Republicans at Trump’s behest earlier this year, denying the president a political win and prompting him to act unilaterally. Tuesday’s order is politically risky. It will invite criticism from Biden’s left flank, which has blasted moves to ramp up deportations as an inhumane approach to the crisis. That has the potential to stymie his efforts to shore up an electoral coalition already riven by divisions over his handling of the Israel-Hamas war and overarching concerns over his age and fitness to serve a second term. -Bloomberg

The Biden administration’s move underscores how the administration has been compelled to act just months before the 2024 US election – as it’s become a centerpiece issue for Republicans on the campaign trail. Donald Trump has been constantly hammering Biden over the border as polls continue to show that voters think the border and immigration are critical issues. The Executive Order is also timed to reflect an effort to deter a seasonal increase in crossings that typically occurs each summer and early fall (right before the election), and comes as Mexico welcomes a new president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who was elected on Sunday. She doesn’t take office until Oct. 1, and it’s unknown what actions she will take on the border situation.

In recent weeks the Biden administration has taken other steps to tighten immigration rules. Last month, they proposed a rule that would allow the US to expedite the expulsion of certain undocumented migrants trying to claim asylum. According to the report, Biden will use Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act – which Trump invoked – which are anticipated to invite legal challenges. House Speaker Mike Johnson told Fox News Sunday that the move is “too little too late,” adding “The only reason he’s doing that is because the polls say that it’s the biggest issue in America.”

Read more …

It’s a pattern: taking credit for other people’s achievements. And again: half the population will buy that.

• “A Blatant Lie” (Turley)

Winston Churchill once said that “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” It often seems like the Biden White House and campaign has embraced that warning as an operating principle. The most recent target was the veteran Fox news anchor John Roberts, who was accused of airing “a blatant lie” in questioning Biden’s claim that he was the first president to push through a cap of $35 on insulin treatments. Roberts was entirely correct, but the campaign has still not removed the false attack on his integrity and accuracy. In the interests of full disclosure, I am a legal analyst for Fox News and I have known Roberts for decades. There is no one who I hold in higher regard for his integrity or his intellect than John Roberts. We have known and worked with each other at different networks through the years. Roberts is an old-school journalist with impeccable credentials.

Yesterday, the Biden campaign launched the attack on Roberts for his questioning of the claim of President Joe Biden that he solely secured the insulin cap. Roberts remarked that he had a recollection that it was former President Donald Trump who pushed the cap. “I seem to remember that back in May of 2020, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid said that President Trump had signed an executive order to cap the price of insulin for Medicare recipients at 35 bucks. Now, maybe I’m misremembering that, but I think it kind of already happened.” The Biden campaign then called it “a blatant lie” in a posting on X that has reached over a million people. Contrary to the Biden campaign’s claims, Roberts’s recollection was entirely correct. Under the Trump Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in May 2020 that the Part D Senior Savings Model participating plans would cap insulin copays to $35 per month’s supply, and over 1,750 Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D plans applied to offer lower insulin costs.

Trump praised the new policy, which was widely covered by the press. There was a Rose Garden event where Trump was praised for his actions: Trump later, in July 2020, signed four executive orders aimed at lowering the cost of insulin. That included Executive Order 13937, which required Federally Qualified Health Centers to pass 340B discounts on to patients. Notably, Biden later reversed Executive Order 13937 before those cost-saving measures could take effect.

This is obviously not the first false statement from the President. However, it is notable that his campaign spread obvious disinformation that was picked up by over a million people but then declined to take down the false claim. The campaign is now in a worse position. To take down the posting is to acknowledge not just that it has lied about Roberts, but that the President lied in taking sole credit for this cap. This is the same administration supporting the banning, blacklisting, and throttling of those responsible for disinformation. I would not support such censorship of the campaign. This and other columns refuting the false account is sufficient to combat a “blatant lie” by the Biden campaign. Whether it is his uncle being eaten by cannibals or insulin caps, free speech can correct false claims without government regulation. However, President Biden and his administration continue to push for censorship of others accused for false or misleading statements. The fact that John Roberts was right is hardly surprising. However, there remains a “blatant lie” on the Biden campaign’s social media that must still be corrected.

Read more …

Not only Scott Ritter was pulled off that plane to St Petersburg, so was Judge Nap(olitano).

• Freedom of Speech in the USA? Think again! (Gilbert Doctorow)

First there was the news that Scott Ritter, a former U.S. military intelligence officer, was pulled off his plane which, with further flight connections would have taken him to St Petersburg, Russia where he was designated as a high level invited guest and would speak at the International Economic Forum that opens tomorrow. Upon being removed from the plane, his documents were taken from him. He was eventually released but his U.S. passport was kept by officials. Clearly Scott is not headed anywhere for some time. For those of you who have not been paying close attention to the U.S. “dissident movement,” allow me to explain that Scott Ritter has been a very active and widely listened to critic of American foreign policy, particularly as it relates to Russia and the Ukraine war. The weight of his messaging has been reinforced by his having been an insider and implementer of U.S. policies a couple of decades ago. Scott was one of the few U.S. inspectors of Iraq’s alleged programs of weapons of mass destruction. When snippets from his interviews are aired by Russian state television, they never fail to remind audiences of his past in U.S. intelligence.

Following his visit to Russia a year ago to promote a book he had just published, Scott became especially warm to the Putin ‘regime,’ as they would say in Washington. My first reaction upon hearing about this blatantly political act by the Biden Administration to knee-cap its critics and stifle free speech, was to look for an explanation in Ritter’s past military service. This viciousness of powers-that-be against one of their own sounded like what happened in Canada in the year before the onset of Covid to a very widely read and authoritative blogger, Patrick Armstrong. He was a former diplomat and had served in the Canadian embassy in Russia. Armstrong was visited by Justin Trudeau’s storm troopers who advised him to close his blog lest he lose not only his state pension but all of his savings. Patrick understood where things stood and fell silent. However, the follow-up news on the Yandex-Dzen website regarding events in Scott Ritter’s plane yesterday is still more damaging to my vision of free speech in the U.S.A. at present.

One other passenger was taken off the plane by U.S. government officials to prevent his appearing at the St Petersburg Economic Forum: Judge Andrew Napolitano. Judge Napolitano is the moderator of the very widely watched interview program “Judging Freedom” which is disseminated on youtube as well as on the main social media. He is a very responsible and informative critic of U.S. foreign policy, as are his regular guests. He is at the higher level of intellectual discourse a peer to the journalist Tucker Carlson who caters to the hoi polloi. He also is known for defending Donald Trump’s positions on a variety of issues. The deprivation of travel rights served on Judge Napolitano is a gross infringement of freedom of speech that the Biden administration cannot live down. All talk from the Oval Office of defending American democracy is shown through actions like these to be crass lies and utter hypocrisy. It is a long way to the November elections, but hopefully American voters will ‘throw the bums out’ and save what is left of freedom of speech.

Read more …

“..Lavrov argued that Switzerland was no longer a neutral party and had “turned from neutral to openly hostile.”

• Swiss Senate Votes Against Aid For Kiev (RT)

Switzerland’s upper house of parliament rejected a 5 billion Swiss franc ($5.58 billion) aid package to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine on Monday. Lawmakers cited concerns that it would violate borrowing restrictions in the neutral country, Reuters has reported. The proposed aid was part of a wider package that also included additional funding for the Swiss military, the outlet said. The Council of States, one of Switzerland’s two houses of parliament, announced plans to set up a special 15-billion-franc ($16.7 billion) fund in April, proposing to allocate 10.1 billion francs to the Swiss Army and send the rest to Ukraine to support its economic development and reconstruction. The fund, despite initially being backed by a Swiss parliamentary committee, had faced opposition from right-wing lawmakers and was widely expected to be defeated, the report noted.

With 28 votes against and 15 in favor, the House rejected both the additional funding for the Swiss Army and the reconstruction aid for Ukraine. Opposition came from the conservative Swiss People’s Party (SVP) and the liberals from the Free Democratic Party (FDP), as well as from left-wing parties. According to the report, lawmakers argued that the package would breach a so-called “debt brake” provision in Switzerland, and would result in budget restrictions.In May, the Federal Council indicated that neither the funding for the Swiss military nor the aid for Ukraine met the “statutory requirements for extraordinary expenditure.” “The contribution amount can be controlled, which is why this expenditure cannot be recognized as extraordinary,” the government said.

The Council noted that the creation of such a fund under special legislation would have to be properly financed, whether through savings or additional revenue. The latest funding was rejected two weeks before the Swiss government is due to host a summit on the Ukraine crisis. The so-called ‘peace conference’ is scheduled to take place on June 15 and 16 at the Burgenstock Resort near Lucerne. Russia has not been invited to the summit. Switzerland has been under increased pressure from Western countries urging Bern to provide more help to Kiev. While refusing to supply Ukraine with military aid, citing its long-term neutrality policy, Bern has provided economic and humanitarian funding worth over $3 billion since the start of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, according to Swiss government data. In April, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov argued that Switzerland was no longer a neutral party and had “turned from neutral to openly hostile.”

Mearsheimer

Read more …

Might not go smooth.

• NATO Member Turkiye Would Like to Join BRICS – Top Diplomat (Sp.)

BRICS was established in 2009 as a cooperation platform for the world’s largest emerging economies, bringing together Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. On January 1, 2024, the bloc was expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. Turkiye would like to become a member of BRICS and will monitor the developments in the organization, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said on Tuesday. “Certainly, we would like to become a member of BRICS. So we’ll see how it goes this year,” Fidan said during an event at the Centre for China and Globalisation (CCG) in Beijing, as quoted by the South China Morning Post newspaper. The BRICS bloc outperformed the G7 – the conglomerate of wealthy industrialized nations – in GDP in 2022. According to a forecast, BRICS economies will account for more than 50 percent of global GDP by 2030. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization have become key pillars in the emerging multipolar world.

Economic experts stress that BRICS is also a locomotive of de-dollarization of the global economy since members of this bloc are increasingly switching to national currencies in trade relations – for instance, 90% of settlements between Russian and Chinese companies are now made in rubles and yuans The BRICS doubled its membership last year, becoming the BRICS+ after including Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on January 1, 2024. Russia welcomes Turkiye’s interest towards BRICS, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on uesday. “We, of course, all welcome this increased interest in BRICS on the part of our neighboring states, including our important partners such as Turkiye. Of course, the topic of this interest will be on the agenda of the BRICS summit, which will be chaired by Russia,” Peskov told reporters.

Read more …

“..training exercises have exposed red tape and infrastructure bottlenecks that prevent the rapid transfer of personnel and materiel across the continent.”

• NATO Preparing Troop Plans For Potential Russia Conflict – Telegraph (RT)

NATO is working on plans to rush tens of thousands of US troops along “land corridors” in Europe in the event of war with Russia, a senior strategist has told The Telegraph. Last year, members of the US-led military bloc agreed to keep 300,000 troops ready for deployment, purportedly in response to a potential Russian attack. However, training exercises have exposed red tape and infrastructure bottlenecks that prevent the rapid transfer of personnel and materiel across the continent. NATO military leadership is therefore working to ensure that the flow of troops would not be stopped by likely Russian strikes on ports used by the US military to unload its cargos, The Telegraph reported on Tuesday.

“It is clear that huge logistics bases, as we know it from Afghanistan and Iraq, are no longer possible because they will be attacked and destroyed very early on in a conflict situation,” Lieutenant General Alexander Sollfrank, head of NATO’s JSEC logistics command, told the newspaper. The primary route for American troops in the event of war with Russia would be via the Dutch port of Rotterdam to Germany and Poland, the report said. Alternative corridors would start in Italy, Greece, and Türkiye, and would respectively run through Slovenia and Croatia to Hungary and through Bulgaria and Romania. There are also plans to involve Norway, Sweden, and Finland for backup logistics.

The US and its allies have claimed that Moscow could attack NATO, and that sending arms to Ukraine to fight Russia will help stall or prevent that outcome. Moscow has denied having any such intentions, and has accused Western governments of creating false threats to deceive their populations over the Ukraine conflict. Russian officials have described the hostilities with Ukraine as a US-initiated proxy war aimed at undermining Russian development, in which Ukrainian soldiers serve as “cannon fodder” while weapons, intelligence, training, and planning is contributed by the West. A direct conflict with NATO would be an existential threat to Russia, according to Moscow, considering the bloc’s superiority in conventional forces. Consequently, any such clash would warrant the deployment of nuclear weapons under Russian nuclear doctrine, it has warned.

Read more …

“If we go all the way with this mechanism, it must work. If it doesn’t work, we have to reform it. That’s the future of the European Union.”

• Punish Hungary To Ensure EU’s Future – Bloc Presidency Holder Belgium (RT)

The EU should strip Hungary of its voting rights to safeguard the union’s future, Belgian Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib has argued. Budapest is scheduled to take over the EU Council’s rotating presidency in July. Belgium, the current holder, is in a group of countries voicing frustration over Hungary’s opposition to key EU plans – including support for Ukraine in the conflict with Russia. “I think we need to have the courage to make decisions: go right to the end of Article 7, activate Article 7 right to the end, which provides for the end of the right of veto,” the Belgian diplomat told Politico on Sunday. Article 7, which involves a suspension of voting rights, is often referred to as a “nuclear option” against member states considered to have breached the EU’s values.

The European Parliament voted to launch the procedure against Hungary in 2018, accusing Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government of undermining the rule of law through alleged attacks on the media and judiciary – but the process stalled due to disagreements between member states. Orban is a vocal critic of the Western stance on the Ukraine crisis. He has argued that the arming of Kiev against Moscow has failed to stop the hostilities, and that sanctions have inflicted more harm on the EU than on Russia. Budapest has repeatedly used its veto power to block trade restrictions on Russia that it views as a threat to Hungarian interests, and to restrict funding for Ukraine. Lahbib accused the Orban government of “increasingly adopting a transactional, blocking and veto attitude” to the bloc’s affairs.

“This is a moment of truth,” she said of the Article 7 threat. “If we go all the way with this mechanism, it must work. If it doesn’t work, we have to reform it. That’s the future of the European Union.” Hungary is the only EU member currently facing such proceedings. In May, Brussels dropped a similar inquiry into Poland’s domestic policies. Warsaw aligns with Brussels on Ukraine, but until recently had a conservative government that opposed it on other matters, including refugees and LGBT rights. This changed last December, when Donald Tusk – a longtime EU supporter and former president of the European Council – returned to office as Polish prime minister. “You can do anything as long as you’re one of them, as long you’re part of the Brussels mainstream,” Polish MEP Radoslaw Fogiel said at the time, in an interview with the news outlet Hungarian Conservative.

Read more …

The man that Belgium thinks should be punished:

“We must not forget that the war is waged by people, and these very people, if they are willing, have every opportunity to make peace..”

• Orban Believes Trump, EU Could End Ukrainian Conflict In 24 Hours (TASS)

Donald Trump, the potential Republican candidate in the US presidential election, and the European Union could put an end to the conflict in Ukraine in 24 hours, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said. “If Trump and the EU wanted to end the war [in Ukraine], they could have done it in 24 hours. We must not forget that the war is waged by people, and these very people, if they are willing, have every opportunity to make peace. I think that if Trump became president, he could achieve a ceasefire in Ukraine in one day, and then start talks,” the prime minister told the Il Giornale newspaper. According to him, the EU strategy on the Ukrainian issue has failed even from a tactical point of view. “We don’t understand that we are playing with fire. We should ask ourselves what are Europe’s strategic interests and demand a ceasefire. Our citizens want peace, not war, which could be a political game,” Orban added.

The prime minister said that he expects a new right-wing majority in the European Parliament after the elections scheduled for June 8-9. “The current European Commission has failed on the agricultural issue, on the conflicts, on the migration issue, on the economy, and now its leadership must go. Strengthening democracy means electing a new commission, different from the current one, which was the worst in my memory,” Orban said. At the same time, he hinted that much depended on the decision of his Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni, the leader of the European conservatives, and Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French National Rally party’s parliamentary group. “The right-wing parties must cooperate, we are in the hands of two women who must come to an agreement,” the Hungarian prime minister concluded.

Read more …

“..you need to return to being reporters and not advocates; you need to start reaching an audience larger than yourself and your friends.”

• People are Not Reading Your Stuff: Publisher Drops Truth Bomb at WaPo (Turley)

Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis is being denounced this week after the end of the short-lived tenure of Executive Editor Sally Buzbee and delivering a truth bomb to the staff. Lewis told them that they have lost their audience and “people are not reading your stuff.” It was a shot of reality in the echo chambered news outlet and the response was predictable. However, Lewis just might save this venerable newspaper if he follows his frank talk with meaningful reforms to bring balance back to the Post. As someone who once wrote for the Washington Post regularly, I have long lamented the decline of the paper following a pronounced shift toward partisan and advocacy journalism. There was a time when the Post valued diversity of thought and steadfastly demanded staff write not as advocates but reporters. That began to change rapidly in the first Trump term.

Suddenly, I found editors would slow walk copy, contest every line of your column, and make unfounded claims. In the meantime, they were increasingly running unsupported legal columns and even false statements from authors on the left. When confronted about columnists with demonstrably false statements, the Post simply shrugged. One of the most striking examples was after its columnist Philip Bump had a meltdown in an interview when confronted over past false claims. After I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims, the Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that they stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden laptop and other stories. That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.

The decline of the Post has followed a familiar pattern. The editors and reporters simply wrote off half of their audience and became a publication for largely liberal and Democratic readers. In these difficult economic times with limited revenue sources, it is a lethal decision. Yet, for editors and reporters, it is still professionally beneficial to embrace advocacy journalism even if it is reducing the readership of your own newspaper. Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake: “We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.” Other staffers could not get beyond the gender and race of those who would be overseeing them. One staffer complained “we now have four White men running three newsrooms.”

The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around. The question is whether, after years of creating a culture of advocacy journalism and woke reporting, the Post is still capable of reaching a larger audience. If you want to read about certain stories, you are not likely to go to the Post, NPR or other outlets. Likewise, with reporters referring to the January 6th riot as an “insurrection,” there is little doubt for the reader that the coverage is a form of advocacy. Again, such stories can affirm the bona fides for reporters, but they also affirm the bias for readers. I truly do hope that the Washington Post can recover. The newspaper has played a critical role in our history and a towering example of journalism at its very best from the Pentagon Papers to Watergate. If you want people to “read your stuff,” you need to return to being reporters and not advocates; you need to start reaching an audience larger than yourself and your friends.

Read more …

“Americans should pray it never actually has to defend the United States..”

• The Military-Industrial Complex Is Killing Us All (Vine/Arriola)

The Emergence of a Monster: To face what it would take to dismantle the MIC, it’s first necessary to understand how it was born and what it looks like today. Given its startling size and intricacy, we and a team of colleagues created a series of graphics to help visualize the MIC and the harm it inflicts, which we’re sharing publicly for the first time.

The MIC was born after World War II from, as Eisenhower explained, the “conjunction of an immense military establishment” — the Pentagon, the armed forces, intelligence agencies, and others — “and a large arms industry.” Those two forces, the military and the industrial, united with Congress to form an unholy “Iron Triangle” or what some scholars believe Eisenhower initially and more accurately called the military-industrial–congressional complex. To this day those three have remained the heart of the MIC, locked in a self-perpetuating cycle of legalized corruption (that also features all too many illegalities). The basic system works like this: First, Congress takes exorbitant sums of money from us taxpayers every year and gives it to the Pentagon. Second, the Pentagon, at Congress’s direction, turns huge chunks of that money over to weapons makers and other corporations via all too lucrative contracts, gifting them tens of billions of dollars in profits. Third, those contractors then use a portion of the profits to lobby Congress for yet more Pentagon contracts, which Congress is generally thrilled to provide, perpetuating a seemingly endless cycle.

But the MIC is more complicated and insidious than that. In what’s effectively a system of legalized bribery, campaign donations regularly help boost Pentagon budgets and ensure the awarding of yet more lucrative contracts, often benefiting a small number of contractors in a congressional district or state. Such contractors make their case with the help of a virtual army of more than 900 Washington-based lobbyists. Many of them are former Pentagon officials, or former members of Congress or congressional staffers, hired through a “revolving door” that takes advantage of their ability to lobby former colleagues. Such contractors also donate to think tanks and university centers willing to support increased Pentagon spending, weapons programs, and a hyper-militarized foreign policy. Ads are another way to push weapons programs on elected officials.

Such weapons makers also spread their manufacturing among as many Congressional districts as possible, allowing senators and representatives to claim credit for jobs created. MIC jobs, in turn, often create cycles of dependency in low-income communities that have few other economic drivers, effectively buying the support of locals. For their part, contractors regularly engage in legalized price gouging, overcharging taxpayers for all manner of weapons and equipment. In other cases, contractor fraud literally steals taxpayer money. The Pentagon is the only government agency that has never passed an audit — meaning it literally can’t keep track of its money and assets — yet it still receives more from Congress than every other government agency combined.

As a system, the MIC ensures that Pentagon spending and military policy are driven by contractors’ search for ever-higher profits and the reelection desires of members of Congress, not by any assessment of how to best defend the country. The resulting military is unsurprisingly shoddy, especially given the money spent. Americans should pray it never actually has to defend the United States. No other industry — not even Big Pharma or Big Oil — can match the power of the MIC in shaping national policy and dominating spending. Military spending is, in fact, now larger (adjusting for inflation) than at the height of the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq, or, in fact, at any time since World War II, despite the absence of a threat remotely justifying such spending. Many now realize that the primary beneficiary of more than 22 years of endless U.S. wars in this century has been the industrial part of the MIC, which has made hundreds of billions of dollars since 2001. “Who Won in Afghanistan? Private Contractors” was the Wall Street Journal‘s all too apt headline in 2021.

Read more …

Musk: on X: “Laura “Liar” Kolodny”.

The move makes a lot of sense.

• Musk Corrects “Liar” CNBC Journo Over Nvidia Report (ZH)

Another day, another Tesla report to take with a big grain of salt until further notice. In the latest report from CNBC, citing “emails written by Nvidia senior staff” and “correspondence from Nvidia staffers” that “Musk presented an exaggerated picture of Tesla’s procurement” of Nvidia’s flagship artificial intelligence chip, the H100, diverting “a sizable shipment of AI processors” from Tesla to X and xAI. Update: Further notice has occurred… the salt was wise. In a Tuesday morning post on X, Musk said: “Tesla had no place to send the Nvidia chips to turn them on, so they would have just sat in a warehouse,” adding “The south extension of Giga Texas is almost complete. This will house 50k H100s for FSD training.” According to Musk, “Of the roughly $10B in AI-related expenditures I said Tesla would make this year, about half is internal, primarily the Tesla-designed AI inference computer and sensors present in all of our cars, plus Dojo,” adding that Nvidia hardware “is about 2/3 of the cost.”

Musk estimated that Tesla purchases of Nvidia hardware will be “$3B to $4B this year.” As CNBC continues; By ordering Nvidia to let privately held X jump the line ahead of Tesla, Musk pushed back the automaker’s receipt of more than $500 million in graphics processing units, or GPUs, by months, likely adding to delays in setting up the supercomputers Tesla says it needs to develop autonomous vehicles and humanoid robots. “Elon prioritizing X H100 GPU cluster deployment at X versus Tesla by redirecting 12k of shipped H100 GPUs originally slated for Tesla to X instead,” an Nvidia memo from December said. “In exchange, original X orders of 12k H100 slated for Jan and June to be redirected to Tesla.”

A more recent Nvidia email, from late April, said Musk’s comment on the first-quarter Tesla call “conflicts with bookings” and that his April post on X about $10 billion in AI spending also “conflicts with bookings and FY 2025 forecasts.” The email referenced news about Tesla’s ongoing, drastic layoffs and warned that headcount reductions could cause further delays with an “H100 project” at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory. The new information from the emails, read by CNBC, highlights an escalating conflict between Musk and some agitated Tesla shareholders who question whether the billionaire CEO is fulfilling his obligations to Tesla while also running a collection of other companies that require his attention, resources and hefty amounts of capital. Really? Does it highlight the escalating conflict?

Read more …

But he will remain in jail because of all the other indictments.

• Pakistan Overturns Imran Khan’s Treason Conviction (RT)

The Islamabad High Court on Monday vacated the former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s conviction for leaking state secrets. He remains behind bars, however, for allegedly violating Islamic tradition with his marriage. Khan, 71, was ousted in April 2022. Since then, he has faced over 100 indictments, which his party has denounced as politically motivated. The state secrets case saw him sentenced to ten years in prison in February, just ahead of the national elections. “Thank God, the sentence is overturned,” Naeem Panjutha, a spokesman for Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, said after the court announced its decision. Former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi (2018-2022) was also acquitted of the charges. Khan has cited a classified cable as proof that the Pakistani military conspired with the US to overthrow his government after he visited Russia. The US has denied the accusation.

The government in Islamabad has claimed that by revealing the contents of the cable, Khan violated the state secrets law. “It is a fact that a national security document was used for political purposes,” government spokesman for legal issues Aqeel Malik said at a press conference on Monday, noting that PM Shehbaz Sharif’s government might appeal Khan’s acquittal to the Supreme Court. Two other convictions against Khan, handed out just days before the February 8 vote, have been stayed pending appeal. In one case, he and his wife Bushra were sentenced to 14 years for illegally selling state gifts. Khan remains in prison because of the seven-year conviction for allegedly violating Islamic tradition by marrying Bushra too soon after her divorce. According to his party, the case has no leg to stand on, as Bushra herself had the sole right to decide on the timing of the marriage.

Multiple convictions have been used to bar Khan and PTI from running for office in the February election. The party’s candidates still got 93 out of the 266 directly elected seats in the legislature, but were kept from power by a coalition of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which won 54 and 73 seats, respectively. While Monday’s acquittal is a “huge political and legal victory” for Khan, the cricket-star-turned-politician won’t be released any time soon, journalist and political analyst Mazhar Abbas told Reuters.

Read more …

 

 

From Jim Kunstler’s site. Obviously, we have the same issues. Credit card expiration is a point that warrants attention. Our Patreon revenue is down 25%. So is Paypal.

“Note to Readers: We’ve just come through the time of year when credit cards expire. My Patreon revenue is down and I doubt it is because you’re disappointed in this blog’s content. Plus, it comes to you absolutely reliably twice-a-week, without fail. You can continue reading it for free — there’s no pay-wall — but just know that I depend on this support to make a living. Back in the day, a newspaper would pay me a salary, but this is no longer that day and now public voices like mine must perform like buskers on the street. Acknowledging that times are tough and getting tougher, if you are a regular reader here, please consider kicking in maybe two bucks a month for the eight blog-columns you’ll get and probably appreciate, just as I will be grateful to get paid for the work I do putting them out there. Just sayin’. . . .”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Orca
https://twitter.com/i/status/1797838232970834430

 

 

Hug
https://twitter.com/i/status/1798046998677115057

 

 

Excavator

 

 

Owl head
https://twitter.com/i/status/1797883246233231396

 

 

Mom
https://twitter.com/i/status/1797738846701969634

 

 

Pick up
https://twitter.com/i/status/1797671289047703651

 

 

Dog toys

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle June 4 2024

Jun 042024
 
 June 4, 2024  Posted by at 8:43 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  53 Responses »


Eugène Delacroix The Good Samaritan 1849

 

• Which Movie Will It Be? (Jim Kunstler)
• The Trump Conviction Presents a Target-Rich Environment for Appeal (Turley)
• Of Course They’ll Put Trump in Jail (Victoria Taft)
• Rand Paul Warns Of “War In The Streets” Coming From Trump Verdict (MN)
• Top Judge Blocks Complaints Against Trump Judge Aileen Cannon (ET)
• Biden Denies ‘Pulling the Strings’ in Trump’s Criminal Conviction (ET)
• Dear American (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Jury Selection Begins In Hunter Biden Gun Trial (ZH)
• Germany Begins To Militarize: When Have We Seen This Before? (Amar)
• US Close To ‘Fatal’ Miscalculation – Moscow (RT)
• China Explains Snub Of Zelensky ‘Peace Summit’ (RT)
• Ready Reckoner For Killing – The Raisi Assassination (Helmer)
• US Force Scott Ritter Off Plane to Russia, Seize His Passport (Sp.)
• Deaf and Blind: The Maladies of American Diplomats (Patrick Lawrence)

 

 


“..a gesture that is sure to live in infamy..”

 

 

Eastman

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1797274885925765432

 

 

 

 

Shellenberger

 

 

Eric T

 

 

Obama 1992

 

 

Greenwald

 

 

 

 

“..the next day in the White House when “Joe Biden” was asked to comment on it as he shuffled away from the podium, halted, turned, and smirked silently at the cameras, a gesture that is sure to live in infamy.”

• Which Movie Will It Be? (Jim Kunstler)

The ninnies of Bidenworld seem to not understand that by subjecting Mr. Trump to a kangaroo court they’ve made him the kind of outlaw that Americans revere above every other archetypal hero. He’s the new American Robin Hood, the people’s outlaw — with “Joe Biden” relegated as the wicked Sir Guy of Gisbourne, master of foul play and servant of the evil regent Prince John (Barack Obama). The galvanizing moment in this melodrama was not the verdict in Judge Juan Merchan’s kangaroo corral of a court, but the next day in the White House when “Joe Biden” was asked to comment on it as he shuffled away from the podium, halted, turned, and smirked silently at the cameras, a gesture that is sure to live in infamy. The fun should really kick off when the judge gets to sentence Trump-the-Outlaw July 11, a few days before the Republican convention. Life in some New York state pen? A year on Rikers Island? House arrest? Who knows. But you can bet that just like Robin-of-Locksley, Donald-of-Mar-a-Lago will manage to slip out of his captors’ clutches and cleverly vanquish them.

In a sane world, of course, the US Supreme Court would be entreated to adjudicate this gross insult to due process as spelled out in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” But you might have noticed that this is not a sane world, at least not these days, and not a few supposedly sober analysts, such as Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, claim that a SCOTUS review is a long-shot — which only confirms the reigning insanity since it’s hard to imagine a more compelling moment for the SCOTUS to carry out its fundamental duty: to elucidate the meaning of our Constitution and resolve disputes arising therefrom.

Now, it looks like what we’re seeing after a few days for the shock to wear off, is a mighty righteous rage arising among the faction designated as “Red” — that is, the anti-Woke, anti-Globalist, anti-neoMarxist, anti-Deep State blob, anti-Lawfare, anti-Democratic Party chunk of the adult US population. It amounts to a recognition that we are already in some kind of civil war, and that the tactics of “Joe Biden’s” party must and will be opposed by all means. The SCOTUS is the last resort of legal means for redress in this matter, and they would punt this duty at great peril to the country. To clarify just what this matter is: “Joe Biden’s” White House and Department of Justice conspired with New York County (Manhattan) authorities to maliciously construct and execute a court case made of patently false charges against their principal political adversary, and with a cavalier disrespect to both state and federal law.

As such, the “Stormy Daniels Payoff Case,” as it’s known, is just the latest ploy in a long train of lawless gambits starting with RussiaGate in 2016 (the “Steele Dossier” and all) that have left hundreds of high appointed officials in the federal bureaucracy (plus many retired from it) liable to severe criminal charges ranging as far as sedition and treason. RussiaGate may have started its life as a typical campaign prank by doofuses in the Hillary Clinton organization, but it turned seriously sinister when it was adopted by the FBI and the CIA to execute a plan to harass and defenestrate the elected president, Mr. Trump.With each subsequent prank, to distract from and cover-up their crimes, the same group of officials has committed more crimes, to the point that the federal government now behaves like a gigantic mafia, dedicated to nothing but crime of one kind or another. The Democratic Party has become this mob’s protective order; the old mainstream media its mouthpiece; and the people of this country increasingly its victims.

Naturally, these criminals are now desperate to avoid having to account for their crimes, which is exactly and explicitly what Mr. Trump promises to make them do.So, there it is: a criminal regime versus the people defended by their outlaw hero. Does the SCOTUS want to aid and abet this gang of criminals — led by the way, and just so you know, by Barack Obama and his Kalorama coterie, John Brennan, Mary McCord and her Lawfare coterie, Hillary and Bill Clinton and their henchmen, and scores of additional DC lawyers, fixers, and judges — or, will the SCOTUS avert an epic crisis of legitimacy by stepping in to quash the ridiculously fake New York case just concluded? If they demur in some cowardly blur of excuses, then it’s onto the next truly nation-ending stage of this game.

The “Joe Biden” regime would like nothing more than an outbreak of civil violence they can blame on “right-wing extremists.” In fact, they could and probably will gin that up themselves, just as they transformed the Jan-6-21 mass protest against widespread ballot fraud into a “MAGA insurrection.” You are also certainly aware of the sinister millions, mainly young men from faraway lands, who “Joe Biden” imported across the border the past three years. And you might imagine how they could be put to use against American citizens, along with the Democratic Party shock troops known as BLM and Antifa. Summer’s here and the time is right for fighting in the streets. And, of course, even if the SCOTUS puts an end to this latest bit of Lawfare fuckery, the “Joe Biden” crew can always opt to just up and kill its opponent. Nothing is beneath them now. But when that happens, we’ll be in a very different kind of movie.

Read more …

“..if Biden wins the election before this conviction is overturned, history’s judgment will be deafening.”

• The Trump Conviction Presents a Target-Rich Environment for Appeal (Turley)

The conviction of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan of 34 felonies produced citywide celebrations. This thrill-kill environment extended to the media, where former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that it was “majestic day” and “a day to celebrate.” When I left the courthouse after watching the verdict come in, I was floored by the celebrations outside by both the public and some of the media. The celebrants would be wise to think twice before mounting this trophy kill on the political wall. The Trump trial is a target-rich environment for an appeal, with multiple layers of reversible error, in my view. I am less convinced by suggestions that the case could be challenged on the inability of Trump receiving a fair trial in a district that voted roughly 90 percent against him. The problem was not the jury, but the prosecutors and the judge. Some of the most compelling problems can be divided into four groups.

The Judge – Acting Supreme Court justice Juan Merchan was handpicked for this case rather than randomly selected. This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization. With any other defendant, there would likely be outrage over his selection. Merchan donated to President Biden. Even though the state bar cleared that violation based on the small size of the contribution, it later stressed that no such contributions were appropriate for a judge. We learned later that Merchan has contributed to a group to stop the GOP and Trump. Merchan’s daughter is also a Democratic organizer who has helped raise millions against Trump and the GOP and for the Democrats.

To his credit, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig has previously said that this case was legally dubious, uniquely targeted Trump and could not succeed outside of an anti-Trump district. On the judge, he recently challenged critics on the fairness of assigning a Biden donor who has earmarked donations for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” He asked “Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? “Absolutely not.” What is equally disturbing is the failure of Merchan to protect the rights of the defendant and what even critics admit were distinctly pro-prosecution rulings in the trial. It is not just the appearance of a conflict with Judge Merchan but a record of highly biased decisions. In watching Merchan in the courtroom, I was shocked by his rulings as at times incomprehensible and conflicted.

The Charges – A leading threshold issue will be the decision to allow Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively try Trump for violations of federal law. The Justice Department declined any criminal charges against Trump under federal election law over the alleged “hush money” payments. The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine. With no federal prosecution, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory not only to zap a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but to allow him to try violations of not only federal election law but also federal taxation violations. In other words, the Justice Department would not prosecute federal violations, so Bragg effectively did it in state court.

Even when closing arguments were given, analysts on various networks admitted that they were unclear about what Bragg was alleging. The indictment claimed a violation under New York’s election law 17-152 that the falsification of business records were committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, in a maddeningly circular theory, that other crime could be the falsification of business records. It could also be violations of federal election and taxation laws, which Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of.

[..] The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system. While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been. In some ways, Trump may have been fortunate by Merchan’s cavalier approach. Given that the jury convicted Trump across the board, they might have found all of three secondary crimes. The verdict form never asked for such specificity. These are just a few of the appellate issues. There are other challenges, including but not limited to due process violations on the lack of specificity in the indictment, vagueness of the underlying state law and the lack of evidentiary foundation for key defenses like “the legitimate press function.” They are the reason why many of us view this case is likely to be reversed in either the state or federal systems. None of that is likely to dampen the thrill in this kill in Manhattan. But if Biden wins the election before this conviction is overturned, history’s judgment will be deafening.

Read more …

“Leftists currently going after Trump have pierced attorney-client privilege and destroyed lawyers for representing the wrong client. They will think nothing of putting Trump in jail. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not.”

• Of Course They’ll Put Trump in Jail (Victoria Taft)

Why wouldn’t Judge Juan Merchan finish the job and add to the left’s glee in calling Donald Trump a “convicted felon” by sentencing him to jail? That fact that Trump’s sentencing is on July 11, mere days before the Republican National Convention, would not impede a judge who, according to Trump attorney Alina Habba, covered his mouth to laugh during his sentencing. It would be no impediment to the hand-picked jurist who allowed prosecutors to hide the underlying “crime” for the entire trial, hide witnesses, and overrule the majority of the defense objections in this goat rodeo. What would stop him from jailing Trump? The case has horrified believers in the rule of law, without which you cannot have a civil society. It has horrified people who barely paid attention to the trial but gave this judge the benefit of the doubt. Tens of millions of Americans know that this trumped-up case means prosecutors wouldn’t hesitate to do the same to them. Nobody is above the law, but Donald Trump is under it, as has been stated a lot recently with good reason.

Obama’s former Svengali, David Axelrod, told HBO’s Bill Maher that he didn’t think it was a wise idea to put Trump in jail because “it would be worrisome for our country” and “MAGA nation would go nuts.” “I think there is something about jailing a former president, especially on something like this [and] worrisome for our country,” he gamely said. “And I would really be shocked if this judge gave him a prison sentence for this.” We’ll wait for Axelrod’s look of surprise when Trump is sentenced to jail. But don’t be misled. Axelrod knows that Democrat cranks like Bennie Thompson, he of the January 6 Commission, and other dumb representatives introduced a bill to strip “convicted felon” presidential candidates sentenced to jail from getting Secret Service protection. So they want to kill him, too. In the same way the feds got Michael Cohen to plead guilty to elections violations to get a shorter sentence, on unrelated charges, they’ve teed up this case. They’ll send him to jail. I’d be glad to be wrong.

Would Hillary Clinton stand up for the rule of law for Donald Trump? Of course not. She made up stories about him being a Russian spy and then wrote them off as legal expenses. Clinton used campaign funds to pay for the Steele dossier, and used a Russian spy to make up a document calling Trump a spy! She used her campaign coffers to pay for this, calling them legal expenses, but was fined $8,000 for violating campaign finance laws. Trump used his own money to pay off Stormy Daniels through his attorney in 2017 to “influence” the 2016 election, then grossed up and plussed up the money to pay Michael Cohen for legal fees for his work, and he is probably going to jail. They had to make up stuff to smear Trump. There were hundreds of violent riots at which police officers and Secret Service were injured and hospitalized. Kamala Harris gave them bail money in the unlikely event it was needed. Antifa and BLM tried to attack the White House. And nobody who encouraged unrest – like Harris, Maxine Waters, and Chuck Schumer – was held to account. Trump called for a peaceful rally and made an alleged “bad” phone call and they impeached him.

Would people who tried to frame Donald Trump, a man running for president, as a Russian spy hesitate to throw him in jail? [..] Professors, court watchers, former federal prosecutors, former attorneys general, and people who deal in the legal space all the time blithely assure us with bromides. Sending him to jail is highly unlikely. Sending Trump to jail would be hard for a judge to justify. It would be very hard to send a former president to jail on a records offense. It would create a constitutional crisis. They haven’t noticed that the left has destroyed all norms. Leftists currently going after Trump have pierced attorney-client privilege and destroyed lawyers for representing the wrong client. They will think nothing of putting Trump in jail. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not.

Read more …

“I worry about strife. I worry about war in the streets. I worry about 50 percent of the public believing that the court system will be used against them..”

• Rand Paul Warns Of “War In The Streets” Coming From Trump Verdict (MN)

GOP Senator Rand Paul has warned that the fallout of the weaponisation of the justice system against Donald Trump could lead to “war in the streets.” Appearing on Fox Business, Paul was asked “What is your reaction to the conviction?” The Senator responded that it is “a sad day in America,” adding “what I worry about is something even bigger than Donald Trump.” “I worry about strife. I worry about war in the streets. I worry about 50 percent of the public believing that the court system will be used against them,” Paul further urged. “I worry when half the country thinks they won’t be treated fairly, what happens and how people react,” the Senator continued. Paul also pointed out how Hillary Clinton was treated completely differently when she was charged over her email server. “If you look at records violations and you look at Hillary Clinton, $8 million expense, and they slapped her on the wrist cause she got an $8 thousand fine,” Paul asserted. “I think Donald Trump is the only person ever prosecuted for this particular crime,” Paul further suggested, stating that there are probably thousands of cases of records violations in New York that never go to court.

As we highlighted yesterday, Bill Maher has predicted that if Trump is sentenced to any prison time, there will be a civil war that will quickly evolve into a race war because of MAGA supporters. As we highlighted earlier this week, former US Attorney for the District of Utah Brett L. Tolman is adament that Judge Merchan will give Trump jail time. “This judge has considerable power now, on July 11th he has the power to take Trump forthwith, he can take him, put him in custody right then and he can do it for whatever period of time,” said Tolman, warning that despite there being a range of sentencing, “the rules are out the window, who knows what this judge will do.” “I predict he will give him some jail time, I think he will fine him, he’ll give him a stern lecture and then he’ll promptly plan his retirement and a book deal,” concluded Tolman.

Read more …

Oasis in the desert.

• Top Judge Blocks Complaints Against Trump Judge Aileen Cannon (ET)

The chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has blocked complaints against the judge overseeing one of former President Donald Trump’s criminal cases. Chief Judge William Pryor Jr., in a newly released order dated May 22, instructed the circuit court’s clerk to stop accepting new complaints against U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon after the clerk was flooded with complaints. “Since May 16, 2024, the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has received over 1,000 judicial complaints against Judge Cannon that raise allegations that are substantially similar to the allegations raised in previous complaints,” Judge Pryor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote in the order. “These complaints appear to be part of an orchestrated campaign.” Judiciary rules enable each judicial council to act when a series of “many essentially identical complaints” from different people flood into the circuit in which the council is based.

The council can instruct the circuit clerk “to accept only a certain number of such complaints for filing and to refuse to accept additional complaints. Judge Pryor recommended to the council that it instruct the clerk to stop taking additional complaints against Judge Cannon, and the council adopted the recommendation. Judge Pryor entered the new order on behalf of the council. Federal law lets people file complaints against federal judges over judicial misconduct, which includes treating litigants “in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner” and “making inappropriately partisan statements.” Some activists and others have complained about Judge Cannon’s ruling against special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting President Trump. The rulings have resulted in the trial against the former president being pushed back multiple times.

After Mr. Smith’s team on May 31 asked for an immediate gag order on President Trump, for example, Judge Cannon on June 2 directed President Trump to respond and said the government could issue a reply to that response on or before June 21. Misconduct can not include the correctness of a judge’s ruling or allegations about delays, “unless the allegation concerns an improper motive in delaying a particular decision or habitual delay in a significant number of unrelated cases,” according to judicial rules. The order does not apply to four of the complaints lodged against Judge Cannon, according to Judge Pryor. The judge said he reviewed those complaints and dismissed them because they “lack[ed] sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred.”

Many of the complaints that flooded in are aimed at the rulings or other actions of Judge Cannon in the case against President Trump, which centers on his handling of documents containing sensitive information. President Trump was charged with Espionage Act violations and obstruction in the federal case. He has pleaded not guilty. “Although many of the complaints allege an improper motive in delaying the case, the allegations are speculative and unsupported by any evidence,” Judge Pryor said. “The complaints also do not establish that Judge Cannon was required to recuse herself from the case because she was appointed by then-President Trump.”

Read more …

True, it’s not him pulling the strings. He wouldn’t be able to find them.

• Biden Denies ‘Pulling the Strings’ in Trump’s Criminal Conviction (ET)

President Joe Biden has dismissed the notion that he was “pulling the strings” in the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump, who had been found guilty of 34 felony counts. During an exchange with a Fox News reporter outside the White House on Friday, President Biden was asked if the criminal conviction helped his political rival in the election, to which he replied: “I have no idea.” Fox News reporter Peter Doocy followed up by asking President Biden if he is concerned about facing criminal charges once his presidential term ends. “Not at all,” the president answered. “I didn’t do anything wrong. The system still works.” When asked about President Trump’s assertion that he was “pulling the strings behind the scenes” to hurt him politically, President Biden laughed off the claim, saying: “I didn’t know I was that powerful.” President Trump was found guilty on May 30 in a case in which he was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal non-disclosure payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels as part of a bid to influence the 2016 presidential election.

This marks the first criminal conviction of a U.S. president. The former president denounced the verdict outside the courthouse, calling it a “rigged trial” and an attempt by the Biden administration to hurt a political opponent. “The real verdict is going to be Nov. 5, by the people,” President Trump said. “We’ll keep fighting, we’ll fight to the end, and we’ll win.” Minutes after the jury returned the verdict, an avalanche of donations to the Trump presidential campaign caused the donation page to temporarily become unavailable. The following day, the Trump campaign announced a record one-day fundraising haul of nearly $35 million. President Biden said Friday that it was “reckless” for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee to call the trial rigged, arguing that the case was heard by a jury of 12 Americans selected through a process in which President Trump’s attorney was part of.

“Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself. It was a state case, not a federal case,” the president said in a May 31 address at the White House. “The jury heard five weeks of evidence. And after careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts,” he added. President Biden said that, like everyone else, the former president was afforded the opportunity to appeal the court’s decision. “That’s how the American system of justice works. And it’s reckless, it’s dangerous, and it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict,” President Biden said.

“The justice system should be respected, and we should never allow anyone to tear it down. It’s as simple as that,” he added. President Trump’s sentencing—which is set for July 11—will come just four days before the Republican National Convention where he will be formally designated as the Republican presidential nominee. His legal team has vowed to appeal the verdict, while House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said the U.S. Supreme Court should get involved and overturn the conviction, arguing that the circumstances of the case have led to an erosion of public faith in America’s justice system. While there are no laws barring President Trump from running for the White House as a convicted felon, an overturned verdict before Election Day would likely boost his chances of victory.

Read more …

“..future historians will ask why the people did not protest their pending annihilation..”

• Dear American (Paul Craig Roberts)

Dear American, Do you realize that the Republican Speaker of the House, the House Democrat minority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader and the Senate Republican minority leader, along with an almost unanimous Congress have committed you to the support of the Israeli Genocide of Palestine, both the people and the country? “Our” representatives told Netanyahu that “we (meaning the US) join the State of Israel in your struggle against terror.” For eight months Israel has been terror bombing and destroying everything in Gaza, and “our” leaders see the slaughter of women, children, hospitals, all infrastructure as a “struggle against terror” rather than as an exercise of terror.The Congress of the United States, supposedly our representatives, but in reality the representative of Zionist Israel, has invited Chief Genocide Leader of the World Netanyahu for whom arrest warrants are outstanding to address the United States Congress.

The US Congress is doing this because the US Congress, especially its “leaders,” are paid by Israel Lobby campaign donations to defend the indefensible–the Genocide of the Palestinians and the suppression of all criticism of Israel. This will be the fourth time that Netanyahu has addressed the US Congress. Only Senator Bernie Sanders objected: “Netanyahu is a war criminal. I certainly will not attend.” The rest of Congress is comfortable celebrating a war criminal for whom an arrest warrant is issued by the Hague-based International Criminal Court.

Dear American, Does it bother you that “our” government has put our approval on genocide and has endorsed in our name the Genocide of the remnant of a peaceful people who Israel has demonized in order to steal their country? Dear American, Are you aware that you are about to be taken into nuclear war over the borders of Ukraine while your own undefended, wide open borders are welcoming in 3.6 million immigrant-invaders each year? Dear American, Are you aware that President Trump has been convicted in a Democrat Joseph Stalin type show trial of a non-existent crime? Dear American, Are you aware that the New York justice (sic) system is the most corrupt of any on planet Earth? The New York justice (sic) system could not find justice if there was a quadrillion dollar reward. Dear American, Do you comprehend that you live in a country that is collapsing at light speed, morally, politically, economically, socially, militarily?

Dear American, Has it occurred to you to wonder why, while the streets of Budapest, Hungary, are filled with hundreds of thousands of people protesting the coming war with Russia that Biden is bringing us, there is no protest activity in America and elsewhere in Europe, and not a word in the media, and no opposition in Congress to the destruction of the Western world that war with Russia will bring? Dear American, My questions are for aware people, a status for which few Americans qualify. If Human history continues, which at this point of time seems doubtful, future historians will ask why the people did not protest their pending annihilation. How was it possible that entire populations could be so brainwashed that they were removed from the reality of their own destruction?

Read more …

“The prosecution does not plan to bring out the entire infamous laptop..”

• Jury Selection Begins In Hunter Biden Gun Trial (ZH)

Of all the things Hunter Biden has been accused of, and recorded himself doing, he’ll be in a Delaware courthouse this week on three federal felony gun charges. Jury selection begins in the case brought against him by special counsel David Weiss, who has charged the First Son with making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm, making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a licensed firearm dealer, and one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. According to the indictment, Hunter bought a Colt Cobra revolver Oct. 12, 2018 – during which he “knowingly made a false and fictitious written statement, intended and likely to deceive that dealer with respect to a fact material to the lawfulness of the sale of the firearm … certifying he was not an unlawful user of, and addicted to, any stimulant, narcotic drug, and any other controlled substance, when in fact, as he knew, that statement was false and fictitious.”

Specifically, Hunter answered ‘no’ when asked if he was “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” Eleven days after Hunter bought the gun, his brother’s widow, Hallie Biden, threw it in a dumpster behind a market near a school. An elderly man discovered the items and police later obtained them from him. Authorities placed the items into “an evidence vault” and no charges were brought. Searches of Mr. Biden’s account, undertaken as federal agents investigated him for tax crimes, uncovered evidence that led to the firearm charges. That included pictures showing drugs and texts relating to how Mr. Biden was using drugs. He later wrote in his memoir that he was addicted to drugs during the period he bought and owned the revolver. Maximum prison time on all charges could be up to 25 years (we’ll wait for you to catch your breath), and each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000 and three years of unsupervised release.

The trial begins almost a year after Judge Maryellen Noreika blew up a sweetheart plea deal, which would have conveyed broad immunity to Hunter on a wide swath of unrelated potential criminal charges. The deal sought to cap a five-year investigation into Hunter’s tax affairs and business dealings. After the plea deal unraveled, David Weiss requested and was granted “special counsel” status by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

During the trial, prosecutors will not be allowed to let the jury know about Hunter’s 2014 discharge from the Navy after testing positive for cocaine, nor his salacious child support case for his out-of-wedlock daughter in Arkansas. Judge Noreika also said that Weiss only has to show that Hunter was addicted to drugs, not that he was on them the day he purchased the gun. The prosecution does not plan to bring out the entire infamous laptop containing details of Hunter Biden’s life but will introduce certain portions. Noreika ruled that Hunter Biden’s team will be able to question aspects of the laptop in front of the jury. The laptop, which leaked in 2020 just before the presidential election, was decried as Russian disinformation by 51 former intelligence officials. Noreika also ruled that the special counsel cannot mention Hunter Biden’s pending federal tax trial in California during the trial in Delaware, which is also part of Weiss’s investigation and scheduled for a September trial. -Fox News

Read more …

“..We are in the long term now, and the contours of the new Germany are emerging.”

• Germany Begins To Militarize: When Have We Seen This Before? (Amar)

Recent German history is marked by two dates – 1918 and 1945 – that stand for extraordinary, catastrophic failures of, among other things, militarism. Most countries have militaries, many have substantial ones. But militarism is, of course, something else: In essence, the term stands for a syndrome: a type of politics and culture – an integrated Zeitgeistpackage, if you wish – that harmfully exaggerate the public importance, social prestige, and political power of a country’s military. Both pre-World War I and pre-World War II Germany were clear cases of this political pathology, and both paid dearly for it, with massive defeats in wars started – first with significant input from others, then entirely on its own – by Berlin. History can be a harsh teacher, and in this case, the lessons that Germany brought on itself were not only painful, but they also got successively worse: 1918 was a severe setback that led to regime change, deep economic crisis, and lasting instability; 1945 was a total defeat that came with national partition and a robust geopolitical downgrading that was to last forever. Or so it seemed.

When the two Germanies that emerged after 1945 united in 1990, everyone with any sense of history knew that things would change again. It is true that in purely constitutional terms, the new Germany is merely a bigger version of the former West Germany; the former East Germany was simply absorbed. Yet in every other respect – including political culture, geopolitics, and, quite fundamentally, what it means to be German – that bigger version of old West Germany was on a timer: In the short term, post-unification Germany phase one (just a bigger West Germany) was bound to be transitory, just like, for instance, post-Soviet Russia phase one (the 1990s). And as with post-Soviet Russia, the really intriguing question has always been what phase two would look like, while those who thought they knew in advance risked being humbled by history. (Remember that once fashionable idea that Russia was “in transition” to becoming a geopolitically docile copy of an imaginary Western standard model? No? Don’t worry. No one else does either.)

Now, however, it’s 2024. Over a third of a century has passed since German unification. Gerhard Schroeder and Angela Merkel, the quintessential leaders of that deceptively abiding phase-one version of post-unification Germany are history. We are in the long term now, and the contours of the new Germany are emerging.

Read more …

“..Russia could react asymmetrically to a Ukrainian attack on its nuclear deterrence, as Moscow would hold the US responsible..”

• US Close To ‘Fatal’ Miscalculation – Moscow (RT)

The US is close to making a “fatal” miscalculation in its attempts to deal with Russia and the Ukraine conflict, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has warned. The senior diplomat commented on Monday on the reported US decision to let Kiev use American weapons outside what Washington considers Ukrainian territory. The move is supposedly limited to a small piece of Russia’s Belgorod Region relevant to hostilities across the border in Ukraine’s Kharkov Region. ”I’d like to warn American actors against miscalculations that can lead to fatal consequences. For some unclear reason they underestimate how serious a response they could face,” Ryabkov told journalists. Up to then the stated US policy had been to ban such attacks, to prevent triggering “World War III.” Kiev has said it is disappointed by the change, as it wants permission to fire long-range American weapons deep inside Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned of “serious consequences” of potential long-range strikes “considering the [countries’] parity in strategic weapons.” Ryabkov urged American policymakers to “spend some of their time, which they probably waste on computer games, judging by their air-headed approach to serious issues” on considering Putin’s words.The official also warned that Russia could react asymmetrically to a Ukrainian attack on its nuclear deterrence, as Moscow would hold the US responsible. Officials in Washington “have given Kiev a permit for any crimes, any action, and do nothing to curb provocations by their clients… But the US does not get this for free and will feel consequences,” the deputy FM warned. Ukrainian sources have claimed to the media that Kiev targeted two early-warning radar stations in Russia last month, allegedly damaging one. The facilities in question are designed to detect intercontinental ballistic missile launches and provide a response window to the Russian leadership.

Read more …

Biden will be absent as well, sends Kamala.

• China Explains Snub Of Zelensky ‘Peace Summit’ (RT)

The Chinese government has said it will not be taking part in an upcoming Swiss-hosted conference on the Ukraine conflict, as the conditions necessary for such an event have not been met. Beijing has repeatedly stressed that any summit on settling the fighting between Russia and Ukraine must include “three important elements,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said during a media briefing on Monday. Those terms are recognition of the event by both Moscow and Kiev, equal participation of all sides, and a fair discussion of all peace proposals. None of the three conditions are likely to be fulfilled at the gathering, Mao explained, and therefore it would be “problematic” for China to participate in the summit – due to take place at the Burgenstock Resort near Lucerne on June 15 and 16.

The spokeswoman stressed that Beijing’s absence from the Swiss event does not mean a lack of support for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Mao went on to suggest that some countries who are sending delegations to the conference are not actually interested in ending the fighting. China has never “fanned fire or fueled the flames” when it comes to the Ukraine hostilities, Mao stressed, while expressing hope that all sides can understand China’s stance regarding the conference. On Sunday Ukraine’s leader, Vladimir Zelensky, lashed out at Beijing over its reluctance to attend the gathering in Switzerland, claiming that China has become “an instrument in the hands of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin” as he tries to discredit the conference.

Russia has not been invited to the summit, which is expected to address Zelensky’s so-called ‘ten-point peace plan.’ The scheme, among other things, demands a complete withdrawal of Russian forces from all territories that Ukraine considers its own, for Moscow to pay reparations, and for Russian officials to present themselves to war crimes tribunals. Russia instantly rejected the proposal as “unacceptable” when it was first floated by Zelensky in late 2022. According to Moscow, the plan disregards the situation on the ground and is a sign of Kiev’s unwillingness to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RT last week that it was “absurd” to hold a summit on settling the conflict without Moscow’s participation. “This conference is completely without prospects,” he stressed.

Read more …

Differents accounts.

• Ready Reckoner For Killing – The Raisi Assassination (Helmer)

It was a frustrated Sherlock Holmes who told Dr Watson: “You will not apply my precept,” he said, shaking his head. “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” That was in 1890 in the Arthur Conan Doyle story, “The Sign of Four”. Application of this Holmes rule of detection and deduction to the circumstances of the crash of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s helicopter on May 19 is now producing the inescapable conclusion that Raisi, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, and the six others on board their aircraft were killed by the actions of one or both of the pilots, who intended their own suicide and the killing of their passengers. This appears not to have been the conclusion of the Iranian Air Force commanders who paid a condolence visit to the families of the pilots on May 21, two days after their deaths.

But with the release last week by the Iranian Army’s General Staff of its second report on the fatal crash, the elimination of weather, machine failure, external missile attack, on-board bomb, electronic sabotage, and pilot navigational error is now complete. Together with the first General Staff report, the detailed Teheran television interview of Raisi’s chief of staff, Gholam-Hossein Esmaeili, and the eyewitness testimony by telephone from the crash scene by the Tabriz ayatollah, Mohammad Ali Al-Hashem, the evidence remaining is that the highly experienced chief pilot, Colonel Seyed Taher Mostafavi made three mistakes — the first, to fly into the cloud bank after he ordered the others to climb above; the second, not to detect on his radar and other instruments the sharp mountain peaks in close proximity to his flight course at 2,200 metres; and the third, to crash in horizontal orientation, not vertically nose first. Hattricks are rare, but they are never mistakes, never accidental.

[..] This is how the eyewitness in the third helicopter, behind Raisi’s aircraft, described the altitude, cloud and weather conditions: “Esmaeili:..There was fog on the ground, but not in up the air where we were advancing with the helicopters. However, in one small compacted area, there was a small patch of clouds above a cliff. In terms of height, this cloud was at the same height as our flight’s height. It was there that the now-martyred helicopter pilot [Mostafavi], who was also the commander of the fleet, told the rest of the pilots to ascend above the clouds. We were third behind the president’s helicopter. We rose above the clouds and advanced for approximately 30 seconds. Our pilot suddenly realized that the main helicopter carrying the president was missing.” Esmaeili said the pilot of his aircraft estimated that 90 seconds had elapsed between the radio contact of Mostafavi giving the order to climb above the cloud bank and the “disappearance”. “…we also have no radio contact with it anymore. So I asked him when was the last time contact was made? The pilot answered, ‘A minute and 30 seconds ago when the pilot [Mostafavi] told us to ascend above the clouds.’”

Esmaeili is explicit. It had been Mostafavi who had been at the controls of Raisi’s aircraft and who gave the order to the others to climb above the cloud. Esmaeili also revealed the direct testimony of Al-Hashem, who was thrown clear of the helicopter fuselage at the crash and was not reached by the fire which consumed the other passengers in the cabin. “After some tries, calling the cellphone of the captain [Mostafavi] accompanying the president, someone picked up the phone. It was Ayatollah Hashem, the Friday Imam of Tabriz. He told us that he was not feeling well. He didn’t tell us anything special. I asked him what exactly had happened. He told us that he didn’t know what had happened, and when asked about his whereabouts, he said that he didn’t know. He only described what he could see, described to us what he saw, for example, how he was surrounded by trees. I asked him about the condition of the others, the Ayatollah replied that he’s alone and couldn’t see anyone else and he’s alone.”

Read more …

Next up: Doug Macgregor.

• US Force Scott Ritter Off Plane to Russia, Seize His Passport (Sp.)

Ritter was slated to participate in the annual St.Petersburg International Economic Forum as a guest speaker. “As I was boarding my flight out of New York I was pulled aside by three CBP officers, who seized my passport. When asked why, they said orders of the State Department. No further information was provided. My bags were removed from the flight, and I was escorted out of the airport,” the former US Marine intelligence officer told Sputnik. Scott Ritter added that his passport was not given back. He said he will appeal the decision. Ritter believes US authorities are afraid of his participation in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF).

“Is this done under the First Amendment to the US Constitution or the Fourth?” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova asked sarcastically, commenting on Scott Ritter’s removal from his flight to Russia and the confiscation of his passport The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees, among other things, non-interference with the freedoms of speech and assembly, while the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and detentions. SPIEF is the largest annual Russian business event in the economic sphere, and is attended by dozens of politicians and entrepreneurs from around the world. This year, the forum will take place on June 5-8.

Read more …

A real life story.

“Mr. Kennedy’s thoughts on U.S. foreign policy,” as The Times’s obit explains, “were partly shaped by discussions with his captors.”

• Deaf and Blind: The Maladies of American Diplomats (Patrick Lawrence)

Here is a modest proposal, nothing too radical, just good sense. Turn over Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan to the Iranian authorities on the understanding the two statesmen, very loosely defined, would spend 444 days at the U.S. embassy compound in Tehran. Let’s think of it as a reenactment. Said premises, long a mess of barbed wire, weeds, brambles, mold and anti–American graffiti, is now a museum. The Den of Espionage, as it is called, is dedicated to the shameful history of U.S.–Iranian relations leading up to that fateful day, Jan. 16, 1979, when the shah was deposed by a nation that had had enough of him. Those unkind Iranians had to rub it in: The old graffiti is now covered over with mocking murals featuring Mickey Mouse and McDonald’s. All the better, I say. My theory is that the Biden regime’s secretary of state and national security adviser would return from their year and 79 days in the embassy—sitting on the floor, sleeping in the offices, washing their socks in bathroom sinks, the whole nine—transformed almost beatifically into… into statesmen of high purpose and deep insight, the two being devoid of both as we have them now.

I am inspired to these thoughts by a good obituary The New York Times ran in its May 18 editions on the death of a good man named Moorhead Kennedy. Moorhead Kennedy’s blood ran very blue: Upper East Side childhood, Groton, Princeton, Harvard Law, a career in the Foreign Service. Having learned Arabic, he was something of a Middle East man, his assignments over the years including Yemen and Lebanon. And then destiny placed its gentle hand on Kennedy’s shoulder: He was on a temporary assignment as economics attaché in Tehran when the fecal matter hit the fan. And so Kennedy was among those 52 Americans—diplomats, others in civil service jobs—who spent the famous 444 days captives of militant but nonviolent, I would say altogether righteous students who had broken down the embassy gates and climbed over its walls. They were of many stripes, secular and religious, but they were all repelled by the shah’s coercive insistence on Westernizing Iran in the worst kind of way—“Westoxicity,” as it came to be called.

Many of them spent their days poring through the embassy files and diplomatic cables to reconstruct just how, covertly and criminally, the U.S. had been attempting to overthrow the Iranian government for the second time in 26 years. I recall years later seeing black-and-white news footage of the hostages as they filed up the stairs to board an Air Algeria flight home on Jan. 20, 1981. One of the diplomats turned back a few steps short of the cabin door, shouted something the film did not record, and gave the Islamic Republic and all its citizens a great big middle finger. Ah, yes, I recall thinking, with what dignity are we represented to the world. nMoorhead Kennedy would have had as much reason to vent his anger as that vulgarian on the stairs. He was blindfolded and tied to a chair when students filed into his office. But something happened to Kennedy during the long months that followed. He began talking to those who had stormed the embassy. And most of all, he began listening to them.

I have long argued that the first signs that an imperium is in decline are when it goes blind and deaf; it can neither see others for who and what they are nor hear what they have to say. Kennedy proved to suffer from neither of these symptoms. As he later recounted his experience in an interview with a small public-affairs journal in Connecticut, Kennedy seemed to have brought a singularly open mind to what was supposed to be a brief assignment filling in for an absent colleague. “I was very interested in seeing a revolution in progress,” he told a reporter from CT Mirror in 2016. “It was a very fruitful time until, all of a sudden, I heard a shout from the Marines, ‘They’re coming over the wall!’ And then a whole new experience began.”

There is a wonderful photograph of Kennedy atop The Times’s obit, taken in the embassy during his captivity. It shows him sitting at his desk, calmly reading with his fingers to his chin. On the floor beside him are two colleagues whose beards make them look like they are among Kennedy’s captors. On his desk you see the paraphernalia of makeshift meals: a jar of mustard, a jar of Sanka repurposed as a sugar bowl, a box of Cocoa Krispies. I suspect Kennedy’s apparent composure had something to do with that unshakable aplomb you often find in American bluebloods. It is odd now to think you are looking at a man midway through a life-altering metamorphosis from which he had the integrity never to turn back. It was in the embassy that Kennedy began to reflect on what he was doing as an American foreign service officer and to conclude that what he was doing was emphatically not what he ought to have been doing because the nation he served had it all wrong. “Mr. Kennedy’s thoughts on U.S. foreign policy,” as The Times’s obit explains, “were partly shaped by discussions with his captors.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Musk Rogan

 

 

Flynn

 

 

Push

 

 

Beauty
https://twitter.com/i/status/1796969333786087812

 

 

Anaconda

 

 

Great Escape

 

 

Maldives
https://twitter.com/i/status/1797542542034313299

 

 

Baby elephant

 

 

Painter elephant

 

 

Dog+friends

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle May 26 2024

May 262024
 
 May 26, 2024  Posted by at 8:40 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  43 Responses »


Edward Hopper People in the sun 1963

 

• US Should Erect a Monument To Assange – RFK Jr. (RT)
• Of Men and Myths (Jim Kunstler)
• Treason of the Intellectuals and Danger From Within (Brooks)
• Zelensky’s Unconstitutional Power Grab Amidst Ukraine’s Military Failures (Sp.)
• Top Ukrainian Officials Don’t Believe Zelensky’s Rhetoric – Guardian (RT)
• Hungary Blocking EU Plan To Give Russian Money To Ukraine – FT (RT)
• Ukraine Peace Summit Another US-invented Scam – Zakharova (RT)
• China and Brazil Offer Own Peace Plan as Western Ukraine Summit Fumbles (Sp.)
• Ukraine and US Attacked Key Element Of Russia’s Nuclear Umbrella – Senator (RT)
• We Must Stay A Step Ahead Of The Enemy – Putin (RT)
• Special Counsel Jack Smith Demands a New Gag on Trump (Turley)
• Dems Demand SCOTUS Justice Alito Recusal (ZH)
• Europe Is Fading Away And Becoming A ‘Lost Continent’ (Sushentsov)
• EU Marks a Sharp Decline in Population (Sp.)
• Musk: AI Will ‘Do Everything Better Than You,’ Make Employment Obsolete (CT)

 

 

 

 

Merchan

 

 

Trump hot
https://twitter.com/i/status/1793790334037541177

 

 

Thatcher

 

 

Nigel Ursula

 

 

 

 

“On my first day in office, I’m going to pardon Edward Snowden and I’m going to drop the charges, all of the charges against Julian Assange..”

• US Should Erect a Monument To Assange – RFK Jr. (RT)

The US authorities should stop prosecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and instead erect a monument in Washington DC to celebrate his “heroic” deeds, independent US presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said. He insisted that the case against Assange runs counter to the freedom of the press. The US indicted the WikiLeaks founder under the Espionage Act for helping whistleblower Chelsea Manning in her 2010 disclosure of hundreds of thousands of classified and sensitive documents related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which WikiLeaks later made public. Assange is now battling US attempts to extradite him from Britain. Speaking at the 2024 Libertarian Party Convention in Washington, DC on Friday, Kennedy criticized ex-President Donald Trump’s track record during his first term in office. He claimed that the Republican, who is also running, “assaulted” the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and the press.

Trump “continued President [Barack] Obama’s persecution and prosecution of Julian Assange,” Kennedy argued, eliciting an ovation from the audience. According to the independent presidential candidate, “Assange should be celebrated as a hero for doing exactly what journalists are supposed to do, which is to expose government corruption.” “We shouldn’t be putting him in prison, we should have a monument to him here in Washington DC,” he added. Kennedy went on to say that the “same is true for Edward Snowden, who exposed illegal spying by the NSA,” calling the US whistleblower a “hero, not a criminal.”

The former computer expert and contractor for the National Security Agency revealed in 2013 that the agency was systematically engaged in mass illegal spying on American citizens. Fearing for his safety, he fled the US and ended up in Russia, where he was granted asylum and later citizenship. At home, he faces charges under the Espionage Act. “On my first day in office, I’m going to pardon Edward Snowden and I’m going to drop the charges, all of the charges against Julian Assange,” Kennedy said.

Read more …

“Donald Trump doesn’t trust women. I do. ” — “Joe Biden” on “X”

“..in the name of. . . women. . . who just can’t get a fair shake in this land, despite running all the elite universities, the foundations, many corporations (especially MSNBC), and the new misinformation-squelching commissions..”

• Of Men and Myths (Jim Kunstler)

There comes a time when the rigors and exertions of being insane just aren’t worth it anymore. You end up in a deadly Pareto distribution in which 80 percent of your energy gets wasted on hallucinating and the rest is barely enough to get yourself dressed, comb your purple hair, and choke down a granola bar. Verging on a long, hot summer, the party behind “Joe Biden” looks like a 1950s horror movie, complete with lurching ghouls, evil scientists in white lab coats, and the sore beset denizens of Anytown USA screaming down the streets. Only it’s the actual life of our nation now, and it looks like an awful lot of the people who live here lawfully have had enough of it. The mysterious cabal in power knows that they must ditch the old stumblebum pretending to run for president, and time is running out to get the dastardly deed done.

They are staring down a month of dread days that lead to the proposed great debate between the major party candidates, which is doomed to play like a combo of the classic horror movie endings — the unmasking of the phantom with a wooden stake driven through his heart, with Donald Trump cast as Prof Van Helsing. Can our resourceful intel blob instead maybe find a way before that to make it look like the “president” passed away peacefully in his slumber? Or perhaps it would suffice to just leak the voice recording of his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur and allow people to compare what’s in it with the already-released printed transcript. Here’s just how crazy the party is: rumor has it that they might just rudely shove oId “JB” aside and try the Hail Mary pass of inviting RFKJr back on-board from exile to head the ticket. The Kennedy name alone used to be synonymous with the party’s brand, is their thinking, you see.

Trouble is, the Democratic Party is, in reality, synonymous with the intel blob that infests it, and protects it in the service of protecting its own sorry ass. You might recall that RFKJr has publicly stated that his father and uncle were murdered by that selfsame intel blob, which he has promised to treat very harshly were he actually elected. So, scratch that gambit. Beyond that, you’re back to the maddening rotation of Gavin Newsom, Michelle, and Rodan the Flying reptile, a.k.a. She-Whose-Turn-It-Is — all of them appallingly impossible. Gavin might have been Mr. Dreamboat incarnate — that hair! that height! those teeth! — prompting a pandemic of The Vapors among ladies who lately predominate in the Democrat rank-and-file. But, alas, under his charge California degenerated into a Woke bedlam of diseased homeless junkies shitting all over his cities, with non-stop flash-mob looting, carjacking, and drag queen promenading in the background, and there’s no way of hiding it. Gavin Newsom has a big “L” carved on his forehead the way that Charlie Manson used to sport a swastika.

The Michelle ploy might tempt them, but let’s face it: it’s really just Barack getting a fourth term in the White House — really his fourth-and-a-half, since the Obama intel blob cabal was behind all the RussiaGate roguery that beset, preoccupied, thwarted, and overthrew Mr. Trump’s turn in office. Behind the still-charming Obama façade lurks a penumbra of menace. It begins to look like maybe he really did want to destroy our country, to complete the Cloward-Piven downfall that dedicated Marxians deem the necessary step to creating their nirvana of equity and inclusion. And there are still those dark tales of his coke-fueled cruising nights in Chicago. . . and the mysterious death of his paddle-boarding chef-pal on Martha’s Vineyard. . . and those persistent rumors that what you see in Michelle is not what you get. Can you really see Barack hosting kaffeeklatsches in the East Room while Michelle plans drone strikes in the Oval?

So, finally there is. . . Hillary. After all, she still stalks this earth. She still pops up on TV regularly pronouncing this and that, mostly in the name of. . . women. . . who just can’t get a fair shake in this land, despite running all the elite universities, the foundations, many corporations (especially MSNBC), and the new misinformation-squelching commissions. She’s still reminding all and sundry that the country owes her the Big Prize in this era of historic firsts. She also happens to own the DNC, the apparatus that actually runs the party’s affairs. Her last time around (2016) she simply shoved primary election leader Bernie Sanders off-the-plank when convention time rolled around and there was nothing else left to do. Personally, I’d love to see the rematch. It would be the end of the party, which apparently doesn’t grok just how much America loathes her. Much more, I daresay, than even the Golden Golem of Greatness who is metamorphosing day by day into an archetypal hero that the ancient Greek myth-makers would be proud of as he survives one tribulation after another thrown at him by Nemesis.

Now, as he awaits conviction in the shuck-and-jive court case under mad dog Judge Juan Merchan, he ventured onto Democratic Party sacred ground up in the South Bronx to a surprisingly warm welcome by exactly the hard-up people the Democrats pretend to care about (as long as they stay down on the plantation and don’t get too uppity). Will Judge Merchan actually try to send the candidate to jail? Or maybe confine him to Trump Tower under some sort of house arrest? With maybe a big clunky ankle-bracelet for additional humiliation? That will be ripe. Let me proffer some advice to the Judge: the last thing you want to do with an archetypal hero is give him a prison to break out of so he can come roaring out for vengeance. In the end, Mr. Trump could accomplish something truly remarkable: bringing our country back together as a people united against being fucked-around by their own government.

Read more …

“Today’s woke left is destroying America’s legacy. While they claim to worry about “democracy,” they are really worried about losing their own power. They saw how actual democracy worked in 2016 and they don’t want any more of it.”

• Treason of the Intellectuals and Danger From Within (Brooks)

“The enemies from within are more dangerous to me than the enemies from the outside,” said Republican Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump, at a rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, on May 11, 2024. At a Springfield, Illinois, event, some 20 years before the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln delivered a prophetic message to his fellow citizens: “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” The speech is said to be the origin of the popular quote wrongly attributed to Lincoln: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” While these were not Lincoln’s exact words, most Americans understand that the 16th and 45th presidents of the United States were troubled by the same thing—the potential self-destruction of their nation.

History has demonstrated that internal discord can be as dangerous to a sovereign country as a foreign aggressor. In 2013, American author Diana West published “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character.” Her book initiated an important debate about the modern history of the American Republic. Ms. West contended that Nov. 16, 1933, was the beginning of a long assault on the security of U.S. democracy. This was the date when Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided to normalize relations with the murderous communist regime known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. FDR’s fateful decision opened America’s doors to an unprecedented invasion of Marxist militants, communist spies, and domestic fellow-travelers. In the decades that followed, progressive academics, journalists, novelists, artists, and entertainers all celebrated the socialist ideals of the Bolshevik Revolution. According to Ms. West, even American businessmen were “eager to buy their rope from Lenin.”

Ms. West’s views about the influence of communist ideologues in American politics were ridiculed by some of the most notable literary figures in the United States and Canada. Other courageous scholars came to her defense. One was the late Vladimir Bukovsky, a Russian-born writer and human rights activist who spent 12 years in Soviet psychiatric hospitals, prisons, and labor camps during the Brezhnev era. Another was Pavel Stroilov, a Russian Christian exile who fled to the UK after his academic research put his life and liberty in jeopardy. Writing for Breitbart News in November 2013, Mr. Bukovsky and Mr. Stroilov insisted that Diana West’s book would make history. Both agreed that, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the unraveling of the Warsaw Pact in 1989, the United States never really won the Cold War. Like Ms. West, they asserted that the conflict between the United States and the USSR was more than a military stand-off.

“It was an ideological war waged by the totalitarian utopia of Socialism against our civilization; and on that level, the most optimistic view of it is that it still goes on. The Soviet Union is gone, but Russia is still governed by a junta of Gestapo officers; China is still governed by the Communist Party; and the Western world is governed by closet Marxists and Mensheviks, imposing on us yet another version of the same socialist utopia,” they wrote. Drawing on copious research and experience, Ms. West, Mr. Bukovsky, and Mr. Stroilov demonstrated that it was an elite American intelligentsia who surrendered the United States to the adversarial socialist culture. The U.S. establishment’s capitulation to the global left led to a complete occupation of U.S. institutions and the ultimate corruption of the free world. Few scholars have produced better explanations for the precipitous decline of Western democracy in the 21st century.

For more than 150 years after the signing of the U.S. Constitution, Americans regarded their nation as a beacon of liberty and a model for representative democracy. In the early decades of the 19th century, French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville expressed high praise for the United States, its citizens, and their civic institutions. After abolishing slavery, Abraham Lincoln identified the U.S. Republic as “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Americans developed civil institutions that were second to none. In 1964, the American Civil Rights Act extended the foundational promises of the United States to all of its citizens. Today’s woke left is destroying America’s legacy. While they claim to worry about “democracy,” they are really worried about losing their own power. They saw how actual democracy worked in 2016 and they don’t want any more of it.

Read more …

“These issues will not be resolved by presidents. You know who will decide them. A lot has already been decided overseas, and what hasn’t, will be decided later..”

• Zelensky’s Unconstitutional Power Grab Amidst Ukraine’s Military Failures (Sp.)

Despite his term legally expiring on May 20, Zelensky has decided to extend his tenure as de-facto president, claiming legal authority under the Law of Martial Law and the Electoral Code of Ukraine, which prohibit elections during a period of martial law. Russian Senator Andrey Klishas explained why it is still unconstitutional. The Constitution of Ukraine does not contain provisions for the extension of the president’s term during martial law, but it does provide for such an extension for the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament), Klishas noted. The principle of subsidiarity in constitutional law implies that matters of highest importance, including the extension of terms, should be regulated at the constitutional level.

The absence of a constitutional norm regarding the extension of the president’s term under martial law indicates that such legal regulation is impossible, contradicting the foundations of constitutional law. The Office of the President of Ukraine avoids appealing to the Constitutional Court regarding the extension of terms, indicating an acknowledgment of the constitutional risks associated with such a decision. The extension of martial law, and consequently, Zelensky’s tenure, is perceived as an illegal extension of the power of the “Kiev junta”, Russian Senator Andrey Klishas emphasized. Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed that Zelensky’s legitimacy has expired, and Russia will proceed from this fact.

“Of course, we are aware that the legitimacy of the current head of state [of Ukraine] has ended,” Putin said at a press conference in Minsk on Friday after talks with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. Lukashenko agreed with Putin’s assessment, saying that “there is no legal integrity, and cannot be any legal integrity” on this question. “All the same, I believe that neither the current president nor the future one can resolve the big issues facing the state of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. These issues will not be resolved by presidents. You know who will decide them. A lot has already been decided overseas, and what hasn’t, will be decided later,” Lukashenko said.

Read more …

“Publicly, I support what the president says,” the report cited one of the officials as saying. “Unpublicly, I think we should survive as an independent western state that has the possibility of development.”

• Top Ukrainian Officials Don’t Believe Zelensky’s Rhetoric – Guardian (RT)

High-ranking Ukrainian officials privately consider Vladimir Zelensky’s statements about returning to the country’s 1991 borders to be unrealistic, and only hope for the country’s survival, The Guardian reported on Friday. According to the outlet, there is growing criticism towards Zelensky in Ukraine for maintaining “unrealistic hopes of total victory,” including the return of all former Ukrainian territories. Zelensky’s roadmap to resolve the crisis, which he has been promoting since 2022, calls for a complete and unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces from all territories within Ukraine’s 1991 borders, for Moscow to pay reparations, and for a war crimes tribunal to be held. Moscow has described Zelensky’s ‘peace formula’ as an “absolutely hollow” ultimatum that is “divorced from reality.” Even senior officials in Ukraine privately give a more cautious definition of victory, the article noted.

“Publicly, I support what the president says,” the report cited one of the officials as saying. “Unpublicly, I think we should survive as an independent western state that has the possibility of development.” The outlet also pointed to growing anger in the country towards the West “for not doing enough, fast enough” for Ukraine. A government minister told the outlet that the US Congress “will never be forgiven by the Ukrainian people” for the “endless” delays in voting on the latest round of military aid. There is also growing discontent with Zelensky’s performance; his presidential term expired on May 20, raising questions over his legitimacy as head of state, according to the report. Several separate sources told the outlet that Zelensky “obsessively” studies his ratings, which continue to drop. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that Moscow is ready to engage in peace negotiations with Ukraine. However, any future agreement “will have to take into account the realities on the ground,” he said.

Read more …

“..while Hungary is not opposed to sending the Russian money to Ukraine per se, it has concerns about making the payments automatic.”

• Hungary Blocking EU Plan To Give Russian Money To Ukraine – FT (RT)

Hungary has blocked legislation that would allow the EU hand over profits earned on frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, the Financial Times reported on Saturday, citing sources. The West froze around $300 billion in Russian sovereign assets when the Ukraine conflict escalated, trapping around $280 billion in the EU. While the bloc stopped short of confiscating the assets outright due to legal concerns, earlier this week it approved the use of interest generated from the assets to provide military aid to Kiev. The annual revenue is estimated to be around $3 billion. However, according to five FT sources familiar with internal discussions among EU ambassadors, Hungary’s envoy has opposed expedited payments to Ukraine using Russian interest income.

“For the time being they are blocking everything connected to the military support to Ukraine,” one source said, adding the situation would not change until next month’s elections for the European Parliament, at the earliest. To placate Hungary, the EU reportedly proposed a deal under which its share of the bloc’s funds would not be used to purchase weapons for Ukraine. According to FT, this had limited success, as Budapest agreed not to veto the transfer of revenue to Ukraine. However, it is holding up the implementation of the decision by failing to support the necessary legislation, the article says. The outlet also said that while Hungary is not opposed to sending the Russian money to Ukraine per se, it has concerns about making the payments automatic.

Meanwhile, Moscow has denounced the decision to transfer profits from its assets to Ukraine as blatant and illegal “expropriation.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has called the move “potentially dangerous,” and warned of possible repercussions, including lawsuits. Hungary has been a consistent critic of the West’s approach to the Ukraine conflict, particularly its arms shipments to Kiev. Officials in Budapest have repeatedly called for a ceasefire, insisting that EU sanctions against Russia have failed to undermine its economy and have boomeranged against the bloc. At the end of last year, Hungary delayed the EU’s €50 billion ($54 billion) aid package to Ukraine for several weeks, but eventually backed down under Western pressure.

Read more …

No Biden, no Kamala, no China, no Brazil… etc etc.

• Ukraine Peace Summit Another US-invented Scam – Zakharova (RT)

Kiev’s claims that Moscow is trying to derail the Swiss-hosted Ukraine peace summit scheduled for next month are ridiculous, be(RT) cause the much-hyped event is a hoax in the first place, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. On Friday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba weighed in on a recent Reuters report which claimed, citing senior Russian sources, that President Vladimir Putin was ready to end the conflict by freezing the current frontline, but is prepared to fight on if the proposal is rejected. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said that while Moscow remains open to talks, any settlement should meet the goals of its Ukraine campaign.

According to Kuleba, the Reuters report is Russia’s attempt to undermine the June 15-16 summit on Lake Lucerne, which is expected to focus on several points of Vladimir Zelensky’s peace formula, which Moscow has rejected as unacceptable. Russia was not invited, but has said it would not attend even if it were. The top Ukrainian diplomat suggested that Putin is “scared of [the summit’s] success,” and that is why “his entourage sends these phony signals of alleged readiness for a cease-fire despite the fact that Russian troops continue to brutally attack Ukraine.”

Zakharova vehemently disagreed, accusing Kuleba of “shamelessly lying.” She remarked that Russian officials have said hundreds, if not thousands of times, that Moscow is ready for talks on Ukraine, while Kiev walked away from engagement in the spring of 2022 on the advice of the UK. ”As for the ‘peace summit…’ this is another scam invented by the US State Department. And everyone understands this,” the spokeswoman said, adding that such events cannot be held by those sending weapons to the conflict zone. At least 50 delegations are expected to attend the Swiss-hosted summit. However, Bloomberg reported on Thursday that neither US President Joe Biden nor Vice President Kamala Harris will be present, as the Biden campaign is focused on fundraising ahead of November’s presidential election.

Read more …

“[..] the upcoming talks in Switzerland [..] Putin suggested that they constitute an effort by the Kiev regime’s patrons to confer legitimacy on Zelensky..”

• China and Brazil Offer Own Peace Plan as Western Ukraine Summit Fumbles (Sp.)

Moscow was not invited to participate in the “peace conference” that Switzerland will host on June 15-16. Russian officials have noted that it was conceived as another effort to “push through the unworkable ‘peace formula’ that ignores Russian interests.” Furthermore, any negotiating process on Ukraine without Russia’s involvement is “meaningless.” The upcoming gathering dubbed a Ukraine “peace summit” in Switzerland is being undercut on all sides. Brazil and China announced a rival initiative on Friday, further demoting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s conference aimed at pushing through his unworkable “peace formula.” The two countries support an international peace conference “held at a proper time that is recognized by both Russia and Ukraine, with equal participation of all parties as well as fair discussion of all peace plans,” they said in a statement.

The joint document was signed by Celso Amorim, special adviser to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and stated:
• Dialogue and negotiation are the only viable solution to the Ukraine crisis.
• Conditions should be created for resumption of direct dialogue, with de-escalation until a comprehensive ceasefire is in effect.
• An international peace conference should be held with participation of both Russia and Ukraine.
• Attacks on civilians and civilian facilities must be avoided.
• Targeting nuclear power plants and other peaceful nuclear facilities must be opposed.
• Use of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons and chemical and biological weapons, must be opposed.
• All possible efforts must be made to prevent nuclear proliferation and avoid nuclear crisis.
• The world should not be divided “into isolated political or economic groups,” the two countries stated.

The initiative from Brazil and China came after their presidents refused to attend the Ukraine “peace summit” set for June 15 to 16. The event in Lucerne is plagued by major no-shows. Joe Biden’s attention has been diverted to more pressing issues such as rubbing elbows with Hollywood celebs at his fundraiser. Besides the leaders of Brazil and China, South Africa has also refused to attend the event. Moscow has dismissed the conference, to which it was not invited, as “meaningless.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the conference is clearly not result-oriented, as it is impossible to have effective talks on Ukraine without Russia’s participation. As far as the upcoming talks in Switzerland are concerned, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin suggested that they constitute an effort by the Kiev regime’s patrons to confer legitimacy on Zelensky now that his legal term as president has expired.

Volodymyr Zelenesky’s constitutionally-mandated term as Ukraine’s president expired on May 21. He canceled elections planned for March or April last November. Putin emphasized at Friday’s press conference that Russia remains ready to resume peace negotiations with Ukraine, including based on the draft agreements inked during talks in Belarus and Turkiye in the spring of 2022, but accounting for the current realities on the ground. Regarding Zelensky’s 10-point peace plan, it is nothing but an ultimatum to Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted on Wednesday as he chaired a meeting of BRICS sherpas and sous-sherpas in Moscow. He added that the US was imposing Zelensky’s formula on everyone, inviting countries of the Global South to its platforms, such as the upcoming Lucerne meeting.

Read more …

“..we stand not on the precipice, but on the very edge… If such enemy actions are not stopped, an irreversible collapse of the strategic security of nuclear powers will begin..”

• Ukraine and US Attacked Key Element Of Russia’s Nuclear Umbrella – Senator (RT)

The US is directly responsible for a Ukrainian strike on a key element of Russia’s nuclear umbrella, Senator Dmitry Rogozin has said, warning that such attacks could lead to the collapse of the entire global nuclear security architecture. In a statement on Telegram on Saturday, Rogozin, a senator who previously headed up the Russian space agency Roscosmos and is now in charge of a military technical center called Tsar’s Wolves, said that the attack targeted a nuclear early warning system in the southern Krasnodar Region. The Russian Defense Ministry has yet to comment on the matter, while the extent of the damage remains unclear.

Rogozin suggested that it was extremely unlikely that the strike, which Ukrainian media reported involved several drones, was carried out at Kiev’s sole initiative and without US involvement. According to the senator, Washington has always sought to achieve military superiority over Moscow since the very dawn of the nuclear age, but this rivalry was mostly limited to a battle of minds between scientists, strategists, and policymakers. This seems to have changed, however, as “the US has commissioned a crime by hiring an irresponsible bandit” to attack Russia’s early warning system, the official said, apparently referring to Vladimir Zelensky. Rogozin claimed that Washington’s “deep involvement in the armed conflict and total control over Kiev’s military planning means that the version that the US does not know about Ukrainian plans to strike Russia’s missile defense system can be discarded.”

Thus, we stand not on the precipice, but on the very edge… If such enemy actions are not stopped, an irreversible collapse of the strategic security of nuclear powers will begin. The attack apparently targeted an advanced Voronezh radar station in the city of Armavir, which went into operation in 2013. The system can detect incoming cruise and ballistic missiles at a range of 6,000km and can track up to 500 targets. During the inauguration of the system, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that it would significantly increase the country’s defense capabilities in the southern and southwestern directions.

Read more …

“The president also touched upon the civilian crowd-funded military manufacturers that have emerged amid the hostilities..”

• We Must Stay A Step Ahead Of The Enemy – Putin (RT)

Russia “must always be one step ahead” of its adversaries and should maintain its technological advantage in order to “guarantee” victory, President Vladimir Putin has said. The president made the remarks on Saturday as he visited the headquarters of the Tactical Missiles Corporation, a major state-owned defense company located outside Moscow. While at the facility, Putin held a meeting with the CEOs of Russia’s leading defense corporations. Gaining even a slim technological advantage has a drastic impact on the battlefield, the president stated, referring to what has been learned from the Ukraine conflict. “I would like to emphasize that we must always be one step ahead. We have to always be one step ahead of the adversary, and then victory will be guaranteed. You know this,” he said.

“Your specialists and you personally always remain in touch with our men fighting on the line of contact without sparing themselves to defend Russia’s interests. Whenever we manage to get an edge, no matter how slim it is, this increases our effectiveness manyfold,” Putin added. The country’s defense industry, which has been booming amid the hostilities, must not only become more efficient in meeting the needs of the military, but also diversify and become more involved in civilian manufacturing, according to Putin. “Delivering on this systemic objective is instrumental for streamlining the defense sector’s manufacturing potential and helping talented professionals advance their careers. Overall, this would create a more sustainable footing for defense manufacturers by offering them a solid economic and financial foundation in the long run,” he explained.

The president also touched upon the civilian crowd-funded military manufacturers that have emerged amid the hostilities. The solutions they offer – such as radio-electronic warfare devices or sophisticated drones – must be fast-tracked for adoption by the military, the president said. “We must also be effective when using assets supplied by the so-called grassroots defense manufacturing sector. We must enable it to develop and expand its manufacturing operations, and introduce a fast-track procedure for supplying its most effective solutions to the army,” Putin stated.

Read more …

“..Smith is not seeking to protect specific witnesses but the entire government from criticism. He objects that the statements create “a grossly misleading impression about the intentions and conduct of federal law enforcement.”

• Special Counsel Jack Smith Demands a New Gag on Trump (Turley)

The government often waits until Friday night when it wants to file something controversial in seeking to reduce media coverage and public attention. Special Counsel Jack Smith followed this practice this week in quietly filing a motion to gag former president Donald Trump in his Florida case. Smith took the action after Trump suggested that the warrant used on his Palm Beach home included a provision allowing the use of lethal force. While the provision is standard in such warrants, Trump has portrayed the inclusion of the boilerplate language as a threat to his life and the lives of his family. Nevertheless, I believe that the gag order, like Smith’s past demands, is over-broad and a violation of the free speech rights of the former president. I have been a long critic of gag orders as inimical to free speech. I have specifically opposed past demands by Smith (and prior orders) as overbroad and unconstitutional.

There has been much discussion of the gag order imposed on Trump by Justice Juan Merchan who is controlling not only the travel but the speech of the leading presidential candidate from his small Manhattan courtroom. He has gagged Trump from speaking about witnesses like Michael Cohen who has attacked him as both a candidate and as a defendant in public. The New York courts have upheld the order. What is most troubling is the bar on Trump discussing such figures as Matthew Colangelo. Colangelo was third in command of the Justice Department and gave up that plum position to lead the case against Trump. Colangelo was also paid by the Democratic National Committee for “political consulting.” So a former high-ranking official in the Biden Justice Department and a past consultant to the DNC is leading the prosecution. With the weaponization of the criminal justice system by the Democrats as a central issue in this campaign, the gag order is curtailing the ability of Trump to address one of the most controversial figures in the effort.

Now Smith would like to radically expand the gag with a new order out of Florida. Notably, Smith has thus far failed in his unrelenting efforts to get one of his two cases to a jury before the election. Thus, this order would gag Trump through the election even though the cases could be effectively scuttled if he were elected. Trump has used the language to galvanize his supporters, claiming that FBI “WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME” and that the government was “just itching to do the unthinkable.” He added that the FBI was “locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger.” Figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have piled on with claims that the DOJ and FBI were “planning to assassinate Pres. Trump and gave the green light.” My strong disagreement with Trump on this lethal force provision does not alter my opposition to the gag effort. Many of us have publicly disagreed with these claims and expressed concern that they are fueling rage.

Trump’s opponents and the media have made the statements a focus of coverage for days. That is how free speech works. Citizens can reach their own conclusions on the merits in an free and open debate. Once again, the solution to bad speech is good speech, not censorship or gagging of those with opposing views. In his Friday filing, Smith is not seeking to protect specific witnesses but the entire government from criticism. He objects that the statements create “a grossly misleading impression about the intentions and conduct of federal law enforcement.” That could very well be true, but Smith is seeking to control what a presidential candidate can say about the government, a chilling measure for any political system. It is particularly concerning when directed at an anti-establishment candidate. The concerns over the premise of such an order are only exceeded by concerns over its scope. Smith does not seek to define that scope, but rather says that we will know a violation when we see it:

“Whether a particular statement meets that test “must be determined by reference to the statement’s full context. But that condition would clearly prohibit further statements deceptively claiming that the agents involved in the execution of the search warrant were engaged in an effort to kill him, his family, or Secret Service agents.” The vagueness of the order would create a chilling effect on a political candidate who would have to self-censor to avoid possible contempt sanctions, including jail. For the United States government to seek such a limit on political speech should be widely condemned in the media and politics. Under this order, the Justice Department would effectively limit what criticism could be voiced of its actions and intentions by the leading candidate for the presidency. For a candidate who has been subject to false allegations, including in the federal Russian collusion investigation, the gag would impose an unprecedented and unconstitutional limit on political speech.

It is another example of Smith’s lack of any sense of restraint in his pursuit of Trump. He has repeatedly shown a pronounced disregard for both due process and free speech in his prosecution of these cases. Indeed, while the inclusion of the boilerplate language has been exaggerated and distorted, the real threat from the government is evident in the motion filed in response to that criticism. Smith has again fulfilled the narrative with another motion that speaks to his animosity and sense of impunity in the prosecution of Donald Trump. The Smith motion should be denied and Attorney General Merrick Garland should exercise a modicum of responsibility in his supervision of the case. While Smith is being given broad discretion, that independence should not extend to contradicting core departmental policies on interfering with elections or curtailing free speech.

Read more …

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president..”

“..comments she later apologized over, calling them “ill-advised.”

But that was okay.

• Dems Demand SCOTUS Justice Alito Recusal (ZH)

Senate Democrats have found their latest tantrum to attack the Supreme Court since its conservative majority – the fact that Justice Samuel Alito reportedly flew two flags outside his homes they say makes him unfit to weigh in on matters concerning Donald Trump. In mid-January 2021, Alito flew an upside down American flag – historically used by the military as a distress signal, while in July and September of 2023, he displayed an “Appeal to Heaven” flag – commissioned by George Washington in 1775 for maritime use – outside his New Jersey vacation home. The flags have caused uproar among Democrats, who have been scheming for years to dilute the conservative power of the Supreme Court (see: court packing). In a Friday letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Democrat Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin and subcommittee head Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse urged Roberts to take steps to ensure Alito recuses himself from cases related to the 2020 presidential election and Jan. 6 attack.

The Court currently has two such cases pending before it – one concerning federal prosecutors’ use of an obstruction charge against Jan. 6 defendants, and another which addresses whether Donald Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal charges stemming from his actions following the 2020 election. Now, the New York Times and Obama’s law professor Lawrence Tribe are engaging in what people are referring to as “High-brow QAnon” conspiracy theories (aka ‘BlueAnon); In 2016, Democrats were absolutely silent over Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s notorious and public hatred of Donald Trump – comments she later apologized over, calling them “ill-advised.” “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she told the NY Times during the election, adding “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” She also called Trump a “faker” and criticized him for not releasing his tax returns. “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’” she joked.

Who cares, right? But Democrats playing in the sandbox want to throw sand over Alito. When Sheldon Whitehouse, the guy currently demanding Alito’s recusal, was asked by The Dispatch about Ginsburg’s public comments opposing Trump during the 2016 campaign, he said “I don’t know what cases she was ruling on at that point. They [Republicans] weren’t asking for [recusal.]. Ginsburg notoriously weighed in on several cases involving Trump’s policies, including the travel ban (Trump v. Hawaii), Trump’s attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census (which was denied), and DACA – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), though the major Court decision involving the case came after her 2020 death.

Meanwhile (and there’s always a meanwhile), WikiPedia’s entry on the Appeal to Heaven (aka ‘Pine Tree’) flag has radically changed over the past several days. On Wednesday, it was referred to as ‘a religious and political symbol by some conservative, nationalist, and Christian national activists’ in the US. Now, the entry reads: “The flag fell into obscurity until the 2020s, where it became seen as a symbol of Christian nationalism and support for President Donald Trump and his “Stop the Steal” campaign among far-right groups.Oh… The flag draws its meaning from a John Locke quote: “And where the Body of the People, or any single Man, is deprived of their Right, or is under the Exercise of a power without right, and have no Appeal on Earth, then they have a liberty to appeal to Heaven, whenever they judge the Cause of sufficient moment,” -The Second Treatise on Civil Government (1689).

Read more …

“..I accept that this, like many things in history, is a spiral. And in time there will be a process of return. But it is obvious that today Western Europe is for Russia not a region that is very important or offers many opportunities.”

• Europe Is Fading Away And Becoming A ‘Lost Continent’ (Sushentsov)

The growing presence of NATO on Russia’s western borders worries our country. There are signs of the US-led bloc’s transition from hibernation to preparations for a major military confrontation in Europe. The path of increasing escalation and pressure on Russia is a dead end: Moscow takes the NATO threat seriously and has the means to deal with it. The militarization of the Baltic states, the strengthening of the bloc’s influence in the Black Sea and near the Russian border will increase the number of episodes in which our interests collide and keep us in constant tension. Russia has no aggressive plans against the Baltics – this is a threat invented by Washington and Brussels. However, if NATO chooses the path of escalating tensions, Moscow will not shy away from this challenge. I believe that this path is a fool’s errand for Western Europe – it becomes a hostage to the American desire to isolate the EU’s main economies from Russia.

Escalation creates a series of phobias, removes any impetus for economic cooperation and ultimately ties Western European states to the US economy, making them much less competitive. As a result, the Americans are “cannibalizing” the Western Europeans under the noble guise of protecting the European continent from an imaginary Russian threat. I believe that those in Western Europe should not be blind to this artificial inflation of tensions by the US – they must act in their own interests. Russia has now turned its attention to other regions of the world and is developing its historic relations with the countries of Asia and Africa with great vigor. To some extent, Western Europe is turning away from Russia and Russia is turning away from Western Europe. I accept that this, like many things in history, is a spiral. And in time there will be a process of return. But it is obvious that today Western Europe is for Russia not a region that is very important or offers many opportunities.

On the contrary, what we hear from there nowadays are the most bellicose statements, but not backed up by much political resolve. While Russia continues to perceive Western European actions against our country as a threat, the focus of Moscow’s attention is shifting to other parts of the world. At the same time, the US remains the most active – in a destructive sense – force in international relations, constantly working to create ad hoc coalitions to use against its opponents. Now it’s acting more and more feverishly, realizing that time is not on its side. Instead of this nonsense, it would be wise for Washington to accept that objective demographic, economic and social processes are making Asia the world’s main center of gravity in the new century, and to work to ensure that the conditions for stability and development are maintained. The actions of the Americans, unfortunately, show the opposite: they are exacerbating the perception of their own decline, which would be less acute if they behaved more constructively.

The shift of the center of gravity from the Atlantic region to East and South Asia is an objective process. Moscow and Washington are only indirectly involved in it, but the growing influence of the countries of this region cannot be denied or stopped. In this context, relations between Russia and China are remarkable – although there have been crises between our countries in the past, Russian-Chinese relations are now at their peak and are one of the fundamental pillars of a new balanced international order. As early as the mid-1990s, Russia and China formulated a common vision of the world of the future. It was enshrined in the 1997 ‘Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Formation of a New International Order’. And since then, the Russian-Chinese understanding of how the world should be has evolved: on the basis of non-interference, respect for sovereignty, mutual interests, and the recognition that cooperation between countries is possible regardless of the nature of their government. This basis for cooperation has stood the test of time and many international crises in recent decades, and is taking our relations to an even higher level.

Read more …

[..] just 6% of Europeans 65 years of age and older still working. Japan: 25%..

• EU Marks a Sharp Decline in Population (Sp.)

This week, the Financial Times published an article highlighting the European Union’s (EU) shrinking population which has put a strain on the bloc’s finances. The article notes that a dip in the bloc’s population rose in the year that ended in January 2023, thanks to the influx of displaced Ukrainians. The London-based paper wrote earlier this month that the “trade-off between ethnic homogeneity and prosperity is set to become more acute over the next decade”. The newspaper has also noted that the participation of immigrants and women working in the labor force is no longer enough to keep afloat the EU’s falling percentages of those who are considered “working-age”, or people who are aged 20 to 64. According to United Nations (UN) data, those in the working-age bracket shrunk from 270 million in 2011 to roughly 261 million this year; dropping to 58% from a peak of nearly 62% in 2008.

And one European country in particular stands out regarding this drop: Germany has lost about 2 million people in the working age bracket since that group’s number peaked in 1998, according to the article’s analysis of UN data, and is set to lose another 10% in the next decade. The Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft has estimated that a lack of workers could cost Germany €49 billion of lost output for this year alone. The EU’s population numbers for the year 2023 were below expectations as birth levels fell to a number that the European Commission’s Eurostat had not predicted would occur for at least another two decades. This suggests that the forecast for the EU’s peak population – 453 million – may occur sometime before 2026. The article notes that in addition to the failure of EU governments’ pro-natal policies, anti-immigration parties are predicted to make strides in the European parliament elections this June.

Dubravka Suica,the European Commission’s vice-president for democracy and demography, explains that if these dropping population numbers are not addressed, the bloc will suffer threats to its competitiveness, budgets, public services, pensions and unemployment. According to the article, experts are now urging European governments to invest in skills and education to increase the value of what is produced per hour worked. Suica adds that affordable and efficient family policies, which worked in the past to help support fertility rates, no longer work as well as they once did. In 2022, the number of babies born in the EU fell below 4 million for the first time since data was first kept in 1960.

Europe also has the highest life expectancy of any continent as well as the highest median age, yet they fall far past Japan (25%), the US, OECD countries, and the UK in the percentages of those 65 years of age and older who still participate in the labor force, with just 6% of older Europeans still working. The number of those living over the age of 85 is also growing, which adds a pressure on the wallets of younger generations and strains public finances.

Read more …

“..I do think there’s perhaps still a role for humans in this, in that we may give AI meaning.”

• Musk: AI Will ‘Do Everything Better Than You,’ Make Employment Obsolete (CT)

Elon Musk recently doubled down on his predictions that humans would need a “universal high income” in the wake of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven job displacement. — this time claiming that without our jobs, our purpose in life may eventually be to “give AI meaning.” The bleak prognostication from the world’s richest person came during the VivaTech 2024 event in Paris as part of a winding speech wherein Musk made fervent claims that AI would provide all of our goods and services in the future. “My biggest fear is AI,” the mogul said. He also claimed that AI will be better than humans at everything, thus relegating our species to doing our best to support the machines:

“The question will really be one of meaning — if the computer and robots can do everything better than you, does your life have meaning? I do think there’s perhaps still a role for humans in this, in that we may give AI meaning.” Musk, the father of at least 10 children, said humans might be able to work “as a hobby,” if they chose, but ultimately painted a bleak picture of the future where, according to his previous predictions, AI will supplant us in all endeavors. In related news, Musk’s AI company, dubbed simply xAI, has reportedly secured $6 billion in funding from Lightspeed Venture Partners, Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital and Tribe Capital at a total valuation of $18 billion. As Cointelegraph recently reported, Musk says that xAI lags behind industry leaders OpenAI and DeepMind but could catch up by the end of 2024:

“xAI is a new company so it still has a lot of catching up to do before it has an AI that is competitive with Google Deepmind and OpenAI. Maybe towards the end of the year, we will have that.” This sentiment, combined with his prediction that AI will surpass humans by 2025, indicates that he believes his company will be among those that could potentially create AI capable of human-level cognition. It bears mentioning that Musk’s AI-related predictions haven’t always fared so well. In 2019, he famously promised that Tesla would field 1 million fully autonomous robotaxis on the road by 2020. More recently, he claimed that Tesla would unveil its first robotaxi in August 2024.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Matthau

 

 

Lennon

 

 

Cheese baby
https://twitter.com/i/status/1794337512820977875

 

 

Tap
https://twitter.com/i/status/1794232297136288078

 

 

Groper
https://twitter.com/i/status/1794371390692302897

 

 

Octopus
https://twitter.com/i/status/1794375243412443435

 

 

Girl horse dog
https://twitter.com/i/status/1793741279282462988

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 30 2024

Apr 302024
 
 April 30, 2024  Posted by at 9:00 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  59 Responses »


Paul Gauguin Road in Tahiti 1891

 

• Musk and Sacks Slam Washington’s ‘Forever War’ Ukraine Plan (RT)
• Russia’s Mideast Clout ‘Very Strong,’ US Looks ‘Ridiculous’ – Macgregor (Sp.)
• Biden Looks To Prevent Future President From Ending Ukraine War (ZH)
• Alvin Bragg and The Art of Not Taking Law Too Seriously (Turley)
• The Interlocking of Strategic Paradigms (Alastair Crooke)
• Supreme Court Rejects Elon Musk’s “Free Speech” Appeal In SEC Case (ZH)
• Hunter Biden’s Lawyers Threaten Fox News (RT)
• Tucker Carlson Interviews Conservative Russian Philosopher Aleksandr Dugin (RT)
• Pep Talk on a Dark Day (Kunstler)
• US Working To Prevent ICC Arrest Warrant for Netanyahu (Antiwar)
• The Travesties of the Trump Trials (Victor Davis Hanson)
• The Shieldmaiden Takes the Field Against The Destroyers of the West (PCR)

 

 

Eva
https://twitter.com/i/status/1784988182351684056

 

 

BDay
https://twitter.com/i/status/1784805906586194412

 

 

jerry
https://twitter.com/i/status/1784720323864150058

 

 

The storm
https://twitter.com/i/status/1784969043864125524

 

 

Mike Davis
https://twitter.com/i/status/1785051038317175226

 

 

Passover

 

 

 

 

“..Sacks described Ukraine’s failed 2023 summer counteroffensive against Russia as “one of the biggest debacles in the history of modern warfare.”

• Musk and Sacks Slam Washington’s ‘Forever War’ Ukraine Plan (RT)

Two of America’s most influential tech entrepreneurs, Elon Musk and David Sacks, have expressed concern over a security agreement currently in the works between the US and Ukraine. Former PayPal chief David Sacks took to X (formerly Twitter) on Sunday to warn that the controversial $61 billion in aid to Kiev approved by Washington earlier this month “was just the beginning.” He was commenting on a statement made by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, who said that his team and the administration of US President Joe Biden were “working on fixing specific levels of support… for the next ten years, including armed support, financial, political, and joint arms production.” “The next two US presidents won’t be able to switch it off,” Sacks, who’s also the founder of the corporate social network Yammer, wrote on X. In separate posts the entrepreneur went on to mention recent reports that NATO allies were working to “Trump-proof” weapons for Ukraine and claimed that the goal of the current US administration was “to turn Ukraine into a Forever War.”

“This is insane. The forever war,” Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk wrote in response to Sacks’ posts. The US will vote for a new president in November. Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has spoken out against “handing out gifts of billions and billions of dollars” in aid to Kiev and said earlier this month that his team was considering “doing it in the form of a loan.” According to Politico, the US and other Western countries have been looking into a range of options that could help maintain the flow of arms to Kiev if Trump becomes president. Last month, Sacks described Ukraine’s failed 2023 summer counteroffensive against Russia as “one of the biggest debacles in the history of modern warfare.” In a post on X, the venture capitalist suggested that the Washington elite should be held accountable for talking up the ill-fated operation.

Musk has also long voiced criticism about Washington’s involvement in the Ukraine conflict. Last week, he challenged the Biden administration to define what a Ukrainian “victory” would look like after a senior US official claimed that with Washingon’s help Kiev can defeat Russia. US lawmakers approved $61 billion in additional aid for Ukraine earlier this month, after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) overrode opposition in his own party to pass the bill with unanimous Democrat support. The Biden administration ran out of funding for Ukraine aid earlier this year after using up $113 billion in previously approved assistance packages. Republican lawmakers have argued that Biden is merely prolonging the bloodshed in Ukraine without offering a clear strategy for victory or a peace deal with Russia.

Read more …

“The Gaza crisis, pundits noted, threw into focus the erosion of Washington’s power in the region.”

• Russia’s Mideast Clout ‘Very Strong,’ US Looks ‘Ridiculous’ – Macgregor (Sp.)

The US has been trying to maintain a facade of diplomacy amid the tectonic geopolitical shifts currently underway, while in fact blatantly continuing to push its own regional interests. This holds true for Washington’s stance with respect to the latest spiral of the Middle East crisis. Russia’s position in the Mideast is “strong,” while the Unites States looks “ridiculous,” is the frank assessment given by retired US Army Col. Douglas Macgregor in a new post on X. Casting a critical eye on the US strategy in the Middle East, the former Pentagon advisor wrote: “Strategically, Putin holds all the cards in the Middle East. He is widely respected in the region and has practiced restraint. If you look at this like a branding exercise, our branding is seriously damaged in the Middle East. We look ridiculous and Russia looks strong.”

The Middle East crisis continues to simmer, with Israel’s war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip generating a massive humanitarian crisis and Palestinian civilian death toll. However, the Biden administration, which continues to provide Israel with security assistance, has been woefully inept in its crisis management efforts. Suffice it to recall how Joe Biden was snubbed by Middle East allies and the failed shuttle diplomacy of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Since then, Washington has refused to join calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, and directly fueled further violence in the Middle East by launching strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

Numerous pundits have told Sputnik that there are obvious signs that the US can no longer dictate to Middle Eastern players what to do, and even Israel has been disinclined to follow Team Biden’s orders. Meanwhile, US-led efforts to isolate Russia with respect to the Middle East have failed spectacularly. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s highly successful Mideast tour in December 2023 to meet with Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, president of the UAE and ruler of Abu Dhabi, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud sent a strong message to the world. The West’s botched bid to smear Russia was underscored by international observers, as they looked upon the pomp and ceremony with which the Russian leader was welcomed in both the UAE and Saudi Arabia – longstanding US allies. The Gaza crisis, pundits noted, threw into focus the erosion of Washington’s power in the region.

Read more …

Dangerous.

• Biden Looks To Prevent Future President From Ending Ukraine War

Soon on the heels of President Biden last week signing into law a $61 billion aid package for Ukraine’s defense, President Volodymyr Zelensky on Sunday indicated that he’s working with Washington on a bilateral security agreement which would last ten years. “We are already working on a specific text,” Zelensky said in his nightly video address. “Our goal is to make this agreement the strongest of all.” “We are discussing the specific foundations of our security and cooperation. We are also working on fixing specific levels of support for this year and the next 10 years.” He indicated it will likely include agreements on long-term support centering on military hardware and joint arms production, as well as continuing reconstruction aid. “The agreement should be truly exemplary and reflect the strength of American leadership,” Zelensky added.

But ultimately a key purpose in locking such a long-term deal in would be to keep it immune from potential interference by a future Trump administration. Below is what The Wall Street Journal spelled out last year: “The goal is to make sure Ukraine will be strong enough in the future to deter Russia from attacking it again. More immediately, Ukraine’s Western allies hope to discourage the Kremlin from thinking it can wait out the Biden administration for a potentially more sympathetic successor in the White House. Western officials are looking for ways to lock in pledges of support and limit future governments’ abilities to backtrack, amid fears in European capitals that Donald Trump, if he recaptures the White House, would seek to scale back aid. Trump has a wide lead in early polling in the Republican presidential primary field, but soundly lost the 2020 election to President Biden and has been indicted in four criminal cases in state and federal courts.”

We and others have previously underscored that NATO and G7 countries are desperately trying to “Trump-proof” future aid to Ukraine and the effort to counter Russia. As for its first new weapons package in the wake of the $61 billion being authorized, the Biden administration has announced new arms packages totaling $7 billion. The US has vowed to rush the weapons to Kiev, given that by all indicators its forces are not doing well on the frontlines. “We are still waiting for the supplies promised to Ukraine – we expect exactly the volume and content of supplies that can change the situation on the battlefield in the interests of Ukraine,” Zelensky had said over the weekend. “And it is important that every agreement we have reached is implemented – everything that will yield practical results on the battlefield and boost the morale of everyone on the frontline. In a conversation with Mr. Jeffries, I emphasized the need for Patriot systems, they are needed as soon as possible.”

But all of this means the war will be prolonged, and this puts negotiations much further away on the horizon, despite what are now daily acknowledgements of Ukraine forces being beaten back. Currently the governments of Greece and Spain are being pressured by EU and NATO leadership to hand over what few Patriot systems they possess to Kiev. The rationale is that they don’t need them as urgently as Ukraine does.

Read more …

“..This circular reasoning is already incredibly creative, but the actual evidence used to propel this ball through the machine is even wackier..”:”

• Alvin Bragg and The Art of Not Taking Law Too Seriously (Turley)

Rube Goldberg, the inventor of bizarre machines that performed simple tasks through dozens of mechanical steps, was once asked about the essence of creating such fantastic, illogical machines. He replied “An inventor is simply a fellow who doesn’t take his education too seriously.” After the first week of testimony, the trial of Donald Trump is increasingly looking like a mad prosecution machine by lawyers who don’t take law too seriously. I have long been a critic of the Bragg indictment as legally incomprehensible. However, I must confess that after a week of testimony, some of us have developed a weird fascination with the utter madness of the scene unfolding in Manhattan. It was not until the second week of proceedings that Bragg even revealed part of his theory of criminality. For months, even liberal legal analysts have expressed dismay that Bragg’s indictment had not clearly stated what specific crime that Trump sought to conceal by allegedly misrepresenting payments to former adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

The premise of the prosecution always had that Rube Goldberg feel. It was so implausible as to be impossible. After all, the base charge is a simple misdemeanor under a New York law against falsifying business records. Trump paid Cohen hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and costs, including $130,000 for a nondisclosure agreement with Daniels. Bragg is vague as to what should have been noted on the ledgers for the payments. It is not even clear if Trump knew of this expense’s designation as a legal cost. However, it really did not matter, because the misdemeanor has been as dead as Dillinger for years. The dead misdemeanor was shocked back into life by claiming that it was committed to conceal another crime. Under New York’s penal law, section 175.10, it can be a felony if the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

For months, Bragg has suggested that the “other crime” was the violation of federal election laws, suggesting that the payment was really a campaign contribution Trump made to himself that was not properly recorded. The problem is that the Justice Department investigated that crime already and decided that it was not a viable criminal claim. It did not even seek a civil fine. Bragg’s predecessor and Bragg himself rejected the theory behind this prosecution. But then a pressure campaign led Bragg to green-light a prosecution roughly eight years after the 2016 campaign. In the trial, Bragg added a type of frying pan flip to his Rube Goldberg contraption by arguing that Trump may have been trying to hide his violation of another dead misdemeanor under yet another New York election law prohibiting “conspir[ing] to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

In other words, Trump was conspiring to try to win his own election. This even though the notations were made after he had won the election, and even though Trump was running for a federal, not a state office. So again, what is the unlawful means? The machine then flips you back to the beginning — seeking “to influence the election.” There are still the federal election violations, but that theory was rejected after an investigation. And if it were a real crime, it would be brought by federal, not state prosecutors. There are also the misdemeanor falsifications of business records under section 175.05. So Bragg would use one dead misdemeanor to trigger a second dead misdemeanor to create a felony on the simple notations used to describe payments for a completely legal nondisclosure agreement.

This circular reasoning is already incredibly creative, but the actual evidence used to propel this ball through the machine is even wackier. Bragg decided to start with a witness to discuss an affair that is not part of the indictment. David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, had supposedly been paid to kill a story of a Trump affair with a different woman, Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model. Pecker proceeded to make the prosecution case even more convoluted. On cross examination, Pecker admitted that Trump told him that he knew nothing about any reimbursement to Cohen for any hush money, that he had killed or raised such stories with Trump for decades before he ever announced for president and that he had also killed stories for other celebrities and politicians, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods, Rahm Emanuel and Mark Wahlberg.

Read more …

“..the Middle East paradigm interlinks directly with the Ukraine paradigm..”

• The Interlocking of Strategic Paradigms (Alastair Crooke)

Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT, has provided a forensic analysis of the videos and evidence emerging from Iran’s 13th April swarm drone and missile ‘demonstation’ attack into Israel: A ‘message’, rather than an ‘assault’. The leading Israeli daily, Yediot Ahoronot, has estimated the cost of attempting to down this Iranian flotilla at between $2-3 billion dollars. The implications of this single number are substantial. Professor Postol writes: “This indicates that the cost of defending against waves of attacks of this type is very likely to be unsustainable against an adequately armed and determined adversary”. “The videos show an extremely important fact: All of the targets, whether drones or not, are shot down by air-to-air missiles”, [fired from mostly U.S. aircraft. Some 154 aircraft reportedly were aloft at the time] likely firing AIM-9x Sidewinder air to air missiles. The cost of a single Sidewinder air-to-air missile is about $500,000”.

Furthermore: “The fact that a very large number of unengaged ballistic missiles could be seen glowing as they reenter the atmosphere to lower altitudes [an indication of hyper-speed], indicates that whatever the effects of [Israel’s] David’s Sling and the Arrow missile defenses, they were not especially effective. Thus, the evidence at this point shows that essentially all or most of the arriving long-range ballistic missiles were not intercepted by any of the Israeli air and missile-defense systems”. Postel adds, “I have analyzed the situation, and have concluded that commercially available optical and computational technology is more than capable of being adapted to a cruise missile guidance system to give it very high precision homing capability … it is my conclusion that the Iranians have already developed precision guided cruise missiles and drones”.

“The implications of this are clear. The cost of shooting down cruise missiles and drones will be very high and might well be unsustainable unless extremely inexpensive and effective anti-air systems can be implemented. At this time, no one has demonstrated a cost-effective defense system that can intercept ballistic missiles with any reliability”. Just to be clear, Postol is saying that neither the U.S. nor Israel has more than a partial defence to a potential attack of this nature – especially as Iran has dispersed and buried its ballistic missile silos across the entire terrain of Iran under the control of autonomous units which are capable of continuing a war, even were central command and communications to be completely lost.

This amounts to paradigm change – clearly for Israel, for one. The huge physical expenditure on air defence ordinance – 2-3 billion dollars worth – will not be repeated willy-nilly by the U.S. Netanyahu will not easily persuade the U.S. to engage with Israel in any joint venture against Iran, given these unsustainable air-defence costs. But also, as a second important implication, these Air Defence assets are not just expensive in dollar terms, they simply are not there: i.e. the store cupboard is near empty! And the U.S. lacks the manufacturing capacity to replace these not particularly effective, high cost platforms speedily. ‘Yes, Ukraine’ … the Middle East paradigm interlinks directly with the Ukraine paradigm where Russia has succeeded in destroying so much of the western supplied, air-defence capabilities in Ukraine, giving Russia near complete air dominance over the skies.

Read more …

“..to have a company lawyer approve his social media posts..”

• Supreme Court Rejects Elon Musk’s “Free Speech” Appeal In SEC Case (ZH)

Another day, another chapter in the Elon Musk vs. SEC saga. The US Supreme Court declined to hear Elon Musk’s appeal regarding his ongoing “Twitter sitter” case, Bloomberg reported on Monday, keeping Musk’s agreement with the SEC to have a company lawyer approve his social media posts in place. Musk, without success, had argued that the 2018 agreement infringed upon his constitutional right to free speech. The decision marks the latest development in Musk’s lengthy, ongoing dispute with the SEC, which started after he tweeted in August 2018 that he had “funding secured” for a potential $80 billion take-private deal for Tesla. As a result, Tesla stock rocketed higher the day of. Following Musk’s tweet, the SEC filed a lawsuit alleging shareholder deception and, shortly after, Musk settled with the SEC, agreeing to step down as Tesla chairman and pay a $20 million fine.

In 2021, Musk reopened the dispute by conducting a Twitter poll regarding selling 10% of his stock. This prompted the SEC to issue subpoenas to Musk and Tesla. Musk then sought to annul his pre-screening agreement, but his arguments were dismissed by a federal appeals court last year. Musk’s lawyers had argued to the Supreme Court that the agreement was a “quintessential prior restraint that the law forbids.” They said in their appeal: “The pre-approval provision at issue continues to cast an unconstitutional chill over Mr. Musk’s speech whenever he considers making public communications.” In its brief, the SEC responded: “This court has consistently held that, in resolving litigation, parties may choose to waive even fundamental constitutional rights.”

Read more …

Time warp: “..the story appeared to be “Russian disinformation.”

• Hunter Biden’s Lawyers Threaten Fox News (RT)

Lawyers representing Hunter Biden have accused Fox News of a “conspiracy to defame” the US president’s son, demanding that the media outlet take down nude images of their client and retract reports suggesting that the Biden family engaged in an overseas bribery operation. Attorneys claimed that Fox had unlawfully published “hacked” photos of Biden and knowingly reported “debunked” bribery allegations. “Fox knows that these private and confidential images were hacked, stolen, and/or manipulated digital materials,” the lawyers said in a letter to the cable news network. CNN obtained a copy of the letter, which indicated that President Joe Biden’s son “anticipates” suing Fox. The lawyers insisted that Fox issue corrections and on-air retractions, including statements by its top hosts admitting that “they have been sharing a debunked allegation from a source who has been federally indicted.”

Media reports about the Biden family’s alleged influence-peddling scheme stemmed from files on a laptop computer that Hunter Biden left behind at a Delaware computer repair shop. He forfeited ownership of the computer and its contents when he failed to pay his bill and pick up his laptop. When the New York Post reported on the alleged Biden family scandal in October 2020, just weeks before the presidential election, former US intelligence officials falsely claimed that the story appeared to be “Russian disinformation.” Social media outlets censored the bombshell laptop report. Several of the same major media outlets that dismissed the story as disinformation later verified key documents on the laptop – long after Joe Biden had been elected. Fox aired a six-part mock trial of Hunter Biden on its Fox Nation streaming platform in October 2022. The report included the bribery allegations, as well as photos showing the president’s son in the nude or engaged in sexual acts.

Hunter Biden’s lawyers demanded that the mock trial be removed from all streaming services. They argued that Fox also published articles based on statements from FBI informant Alexander Smirnov, who was indicted earlier this year for allegedly making false claims that the owner of Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid bribes to the Bidens. “Then, in a brazen show of no remorse, rather than walk back the story and correct the record, Fox double-downed on the debunked bribery allegation and used Smirnov’s indictment to claim this is an intimidation tactic aimed at silencing whistleblowers, to blame the FBI for its credulity, and to suggest an even deeper conspiracy,” Hunter Biden’s lawyers said in the letter. However, US House lawmakers continue to investigate alleged Biden family corruption, citing bank records and other evidence.

Read more …

“..a writer who writes about big ideas,” claiming that his books have been “banned by the Biden administration” in the US. “You cannot buy them on Amazon..”

• Tucker Carlson Interviews Conservative Russian Philosopher Aleksandr Dugin (RT)

American journalist Tucker Carlson has released a 20-minute interview with high-profile Russian philosopher and political commentator Aleksandr Dugin. The conversation was published on Carlson’s YouTube channel on Monday. Western media have described Dugin as “Putin’s brain” due to his supposed influence on President Vladimir Putin and the Russian elite. A fervent critic of the West and a foreign policy hawk, Dugin passionately supports Russia’s military operation in Ukraine and has stated that an independent Ukrainian state “should not exist.” In 2022, his daughter Darya was killed in a car bombing, which the Russian authorities said had been orchestrated by Ukrainian agents. Several US media outlets subsequently cited unnamed US intelligence officials as saying that Washington believes that the Ukrainian authorities were indeed involved in the assassination.

Carlson introduced Dugin as “a writer who writes about big ideas,” claiming that his books have been “banned by the Biden administration” in the US. “You cannot buy them on Amazon,” he said. During the conversation with Carlson, Dugin argued that liberal ideology, which became de facto uncontested in the West since the fall of the Soviet Union, is leading to the demise of the concept of families. “Family is [being] destroyed in favor of this individualism,” he said, adding that the natural progression of liberalism will lead to “abandoned human identity.” “Next phase: new liberalism. Now it is not about the rule of a majority, but it is about the rule of minorities. It is not about individual freedom, but it is about woke-ism,” Dugin said. “It is not democracy. It is totalitarianism.”

Read more …

“When Barack Obama warned America to not underestimate Joe Biden’s ability to fuck things up, was that some kind of joke?”

• Pep Talk on a Dark Day (Kunstler)

You realize, don’t you, that what’s going on in our country is the collapse not just of an empire, or an economy, but a comprehensive paradigm of human progress. The hallmark of post-war life in Western Civ was supposed to be a return to sanity after the mid-twentieth century fugue of mass psychotic violence. The wish for just and rational order was not entirely pretense. But that was then. Now that we are going medieval on ourselves, the not-so-ironic result will be our literally going medieval, sinking back into a pre-modern existence of darkness, superstition, and penury, grubbing for a mere subsistence in the shadow of scuffling hobgoblins, our achievements lost and forgotten.

What’s most appalling is that our governing apparatus is visibly willing that to happen. When Barack Obama warned America to not underestimate Joe Biden’s ability to fuck things up, was that some kind of joke? After all, it was Mr. Obama and his fellow blobsters — the cabal of Intel spooks, covert Marxist bureaucrats, lawfare ninjas, globalist megalomaniacs, post-liberal think tankers, weapons grifters, degenerate billionaires, and assorted mentally-ill camp followers — who inflicted Joe Biden on the body politic. And then ran him on the country like some demon algorithm designed to wreck the USA as fast as possible.

The source of anguish in all that is the struggle to understand why they would want that to happen. What debauched sense of history would drive anyone to such lunatic desperation? It’s a cliché now to say that the Democratic Party has turned its traditional moral scaffold upside down and inside out. It acts against the kitchen table interests of the working and middle classes. It’s against civil liberties. It demands mental obedience to patently insane policy. It’s avid for war, no matter how cruelly pointless. It’s deliberately stirring up racial hatred. It despises personal privacy. It feeds a rogue bureaucracy that has become a veritable Moloch, an all-devouring malevolent deity. And now, rather suddenly, it aligns itself with a faction that seeks to exterminate the Jews.

And how did the opposition to that epic divergence into bad faith turn so flabby? How did the Republican Party roll over and wheeze so feebly while the FBI ran amok swatting grandmothers in dawn raids, and the US attorney general made justice a whore, and a Republican Congress allowed the Frankenstein agency of Homeland Security to flood the country with its enemies and give them gobs of operational cash? If Mr. Trump was unappetizing to them as a leader, why were they unable to produce an alternative figure of standing and stature at least equally resolute? They look like traitors and cowards.

Read more …

“..Any criminal investigation against Netanyahu also implicates President Biden..”

• US Working To Prevent ICC Arrest Warrant for Netanyahu (Antiwar)

The US and Israel are working together to prevent the International Criminal Court from issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other high-level Israeli officials, Israeli media has reported. Haaretz reported that the Israeli government is working under the assumption that arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and IDF Chief-of-Staff Herzi Halevi could be issued as soon as this week. The report said that the US is already engaged in an effort to block the warrants. Walla reported that Netanyahu is “under unusual stress” over the potential warrants and is leading a “nonstop push over the telephone” to prevent them with a focus on contact with the Biden administration.

In a statement on Friday, Netanyahu said an arrest warrant wouldn’t stop Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. “Under my leadership, Israel will never accept any attempt by the International Criminal Court in the Hague to undermine its basic right to defend itself,” he said. “While decisions made by the court in the Hague will not affect Israel’s actions, they will set a dangerous precedent that threatens soldiers and public figures.” Neither the US nor Israel are parties to the ICC, and the US has a contentious history with the court. In 2002, then-President George W. Bush signed a bill into law that would authorize the use of force to free any US service members or government officials brought to the ICC, which is based in the Hauge.

The controversial law, known as the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, authorizes the US to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the” ICC, and is nicknamed the Hague Invasion Act. The Trump administration sanctioned ICC officials for their investigation into alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan. The Biden administration reversed the sanctions but continued to put pressure on the court, which worked since the ICC announced it would “deprioritize” its investigation of US forces in Afghanistan.

After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the Biden administration changed its attitude toward the court and backed its arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, which was issued in 2023. But now that Israel is being targeted, the US will likely resort back to its pressure tactics. Any criminal investigation against Netanyahu also implicates President Biden since he has provided so much support for the Israeli campaign in Gaza. Israel is also facing pressure from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), another Hague-based court that rules it’s “plausible” Israel is carrying out genocide in Gaza, a ruling the US has rejected. The main difference between the two courts is that the ICC prosecutes individuals while the ICJ deals with disputes between countries.

Read more …

“..most of the indictments either had no prior precedent in criminal law or will likely never be used again, at least against anyone left-wing..”

• The Travesties of the Trump Trials (Victor Davis Hanson)

Do not believe the White House/mainstream media-concocted narrative that the four criminal court cases—prosecuted by Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Jack Smith, and Fani Willis—were not in part coordinated, synchronized, and timed to reach their courtroom psychodramatic finales right during the 2024 campaign season. These local, state, and federal Lilliputian agendas were designed to tie down, gag, confine, bankrupt, and destroy Trump psychologically and physically. They are the final lawfare denouement to years of extra-legal efforts to emasculate him. Indeed, the nation is by now worn out by these serial assaults on constitutional norms: the Hillary-funded Steele dossier subterfuge; the pre-election Russian laptop disinformation campaign; the two impeachments without special counsel reports; the impeachment Senate trial of a private citizen; the effort to remove Trump’s name from state ballots; the ongoing attempt to emasculate the Electoral College; or the radical opportune changes in state election laws to ensure massive mail-in balloting.

Recently, Andrew McCarthy has reviewed in depth this coordination between White House personnel and prosecutors, long known and long denied by the left. Biden, for example, had complained to aides about Attorney General Merrick Garland’s tardiness in getting special federal prosecutor Smith appointed—and thus apparently ensuring Trump was convicted before the election. Nathan Wade, Fani Willis’s now-fired paramour prosecutor, visited and consulted with the White House counsel’s office when he was acting supposedly as a purely local county prosecutor. The January 6th left-wing-dominated congressional committee consulted with the Biden administration in sending forth its criminal referrals about Trump’s purported role in the protests. And to handle his pseudo-indictment against Trump, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg hired Biden Justice Department official Vincent Colangeio.

Two, the prosecutors’ delayed criminal indictments and E. Jean Carroll’s civil suit were predicated only on Donald Trump running for reelection. After his 2020 defeat, the loss of the two Republican senate seats in Georgia, and the January 6 demonstrations/riot, Trump was written off by pundits as politically toxic. Then his historic comeback in the subsequent year terrified the left. The reboot prompted the subsequent indictments and suits years after the purported crimes. It was left unsaid that had Trump not been a conservative Republican and leading presidential candidate, he would have never been indicted. Three, most of the indictments either had no prior precedent in criminal law or will likely never be used again, at least against anyone left-wing. Moreover, many of the writs relied on manipulation of statutes of limitations.

Neither Bragg nor any other local prosecutor had previously transformed a supposedly local affidavit misdemeanor into a supposed federal campaign finance violation, a gambit so preposterous that it had been passed on by federal attorneys. Letitia James was the first New York Attorney General to indict a state resident for the supposed crime of overvaluing real estate to obtain a loan, which was paid back timely and in full, to the profit of lending institutions. No bank, after auditing Trump’s assets and viability to pay back loans, was unhappy to loan to him. But all were quite happy to profit from the hefty interest—and would likely be happy to loan to him again. James sought to make Trump a criminal without ever finding a crime, much less a victim. Nor, until the checkered and unethical career of Fani Willis, had any local prosecutor ever indicted an ex-president for a supposedly improper phone call questioning whether all the state’s votes had been fully counted.

Read more …

Paul Craig Roberts likes Eva’s long blond hair.

• The Shieldmaiden Takes the Field Against The Destroyers of the West (PCR)

A young Dutch female lawyer has undertaken the task of encouraging white Europeans to take a stand against the replacement of countries consisting of ethnic nationalities, such as Germans, English, French, Italians, Dutch, Spanish, Hungarians, with towers of babel. In our world today, as in George Orwell’s novel 1984, words are turned upside down and have the opposite of their meaning. Diversity now means “sameness” with no country’s population corresponding to the ethnicity of its name. Destroying the diversity afforded by white ethnic nations is the goal of the EU tyrants and “President” Biden who recently stated, as Tucker Carlson reported, that getting rid of white America was a good thing.

The young woman taking on the Shieldmaiden’s role is Eva Vlaardingerbroek. She states the obvious fact that Europeans must take a stand against the huge demographic shift brought by mass migration orchestrated by their leaders or risk becoming a minority in their home countries. This is a fact, but the traitors orchestrating our erasure have made it racist to say so. The question before us is whether she will be prosecuted for a hate crime. Throughout the Western world it has become dicey for a white person to defend white people, white history, and white accomplishments. As law is already being used against people and organizations who are white, such as President Trump and VDare in New York and President Trump in Fulton County, Georgia, once whites are a minority, the hatred and demonization that has been created of whites will be used to obliterate them. In The Camp of the Saints the first law passed by the new regime prohibits marriage between white people. White skin is bred out of existence. Perhaps a few will be kept in cages in zoos as an example of white evil.

When asked by Remix News at CPAC Hungary 2024 how European ethnicities should deal with accusations of racism for resisting demographic replacement in their home countries, Eva Vlaardingerbroek answered that response is impossible because our enemies have defined defense of Western civilization as racism. “So you have to pick a side. Of course, you’re going to be attacked if you say, ‘Hey, this continent, Europe, has been predominantly White for the entirety of its history, and now suddenly within one generation, a few bureaucrats have decided against the will of the people that we should suddenly be a minority,’” she said. Actually, European whites are already a minority in their own countries–and not only in their main cities–because half of them are indoctrinated against themselves and are aligned with the immigrant-invaders against their own kind. This 12 minute speech by a clear-thinking young Dutch woman says it all:

The question before us is why did leaders of the Western nations decide to destroy ethnic diverse nationality in Europe and the West by turning all Western countries into towers of babel? This was the question raised by the last Briton, Enoch Powell, in 1968. In his speech he warned that the British nation was being replaced and said that the clash of hostile cultures within a country would result in rivers of blood. Of course, Powell had to be put down, and he was. But he has proven to be right. The rivers of blood are not the result of armed conflict between race-based armies. Rivers of blood are forming from small streams from the racial murder of white people, from gang rapes of white women, and the sharp rise in crime that is dissolving British society. The war against white people is being fought by legal means. The immigrant-invaders are obtaining legal power over the white ethnic citizens.

In California the Democrats are content with illegal immigrants being police officers. A bill has been introduced in Congress to fill our military ranks with them. Immigrant-invaders have many allies in the universities, school systems, lawyers, police, and legislators. Whites, not immigrant-invaders, have limits put on their speech and protest rights. Immigrant-invaders have achieved the protection that Jews have against “hate speech,” “hate thoughts,” “hate crimes.” But white gentiles have no such protections. Police everywhere delight in the expansion of their reach as it elevates their power. In the UK white police are quick to grab a fellow white and charge him with a “hate crime” against an immigrant-invader. In years past I reported from the Swedish media that Swedish women raped by immigrant-invaders fear to report the rape as they could be charged with racism. Swedish men fear to stop a rape as Swedish authorities might designate the rescue of the Swedish woman as a hate crime. These are worst than Powell’s rivers of blood, because the white population cannot fight back.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Kookaburra

 

 

Impossible

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries