I was going to write something happy and positive and optimistic, about a future that looks brighter after spending 4 years out in the wilderness. But then I saw that the Democrats have pardoned the worst amongst themselves, and thereby every single one of them, for everything they’ve done over these 4 years, and before it. The entire Democratic party has been placed above the law, along with their Republican friends. The USA is now officially a lawless state.
That is something to think hard about. Because why would you still maintain a judicial system, with courts and judges and prosecutors, if that system doesn’t apply to a large group of people? I can’t think of a good reason. The rule of law in America is now an abstract idea that belongs in the past. What might be good about this is that the Dems have lost any and all future rights to go after any and all Republicans. But it still doesn’t sit well.
You can forgive someone for something they’ve done, but you can’t pardon them for what they might have done, or perhaps even still might do. That is literally a licence to kill. And that has to be illegal. Even if you are the President. It also violates the Constitution, and in too many ways to count. Ergo: the US is no longer a constitutional republic. It’s now all bananas all the way down.
Biden’s pre-emptive pardons have changed the country forever, though of course nobody realizes it at the moment it happens. From now on in, anything goes. Lying to Congress? No problem. Murder? Don’t give it a second thought. Just as long as you get along with whoever is President, or who functions as such, you will be pardoned.
The American people have long seen this coming. We know this because of the Nov. 4 election result, but perhaps even more because of the plummeting “attendance” numbers of the media the Dems use to spread their – often lying- messages. WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, they’re all on their deathbeds. And they owe it to themselves. They all had the option to tell the truth, and they all chose not to. But for them there is no presidential pardon. I’m watching CNN’s coverage of the inauguration as I write this, and they haven’t learned a thing.
Eventually, there will be new forms of “news”. But people won’t place their full trust in one or two sources anymore. Perhaps they will find what they need at X, but it’s too early to tell. What we know for sure is it won’t be at WaPo or MSNBC. And anyway, news about what? A banana republic.
So how is Donald Trump going to turn this mess into a viable nation again? Perhaps the only way is to sue Joe Biden for issuing his pardons the way he did. And Joe’s about the only one who’s not yet been pardoned (at the very last moment he just pardoned his entire family as well). But that is not Trump’s style. Still, how do you officially forgive someone for blowing up the Republic?
Yes, Trump at any point in the next 4 years can pardon anyone for anything, but that’s all Biden’s left for him. He didn’t leave him a constitutional republic. This blanket pardon power is handy when you surround yourself with people who habitually break the law, but not if you respect the republic. Then it turns against you.
We all wish Trump all the best. But he doesn’t only need to govern his country better, he has to completely rebuild it, the trust in it. And that’s only if he can, and if it is at all possible.
When you say “God bless the USA”, what exactly are you asking him to bless? The nation the Founders meant to build, or the empty shell the Democrats today left you with?
There are great hopes for Trump and the exceptional team he brings to the tasks ahead, but do they really understand what those tasks are?
“I lost count on how many impeachments, how many prosecutions, how many assassination attempts to come back and to win the popular vote and to be the voice of the people.”
Donald Trump’s arduous journey back to the White House — which slogged through four indictments, two impeachments and two assassination attempts – ends Monday on a frosty afternoon in Washington D.C. with the oath of office and then quickly transitions to the job of governing again. The policies that the soon-to-be 47th American president promised would restore security, accountability, affordability and prosperity will be roaring into action on Inauguration Day with scores of executive orders, and even a few raids to round up dangerous illegal aliens. But the billionaire businessman who relentlessly vowed to “Make America Great Again” also signaled he is navigating to make America fair again. Fair to the working and middle Americans who voted him into office after four years of insufferable inflation. Fair to American businesses suffering from decades of lopsided advantages to China.
Fair to vaccine-resisting soldiers, female athletes, non-violent Jan. 6 protesters and pro-life activists whose lives were turned upside down by the Biden years’ failed experiment with far-left policies and lawfare. Fair even to lawful immigrants who watched illegal aliens jump the line to American entry. Over the weekend, Trump signaled his push to return America to a new “golden age” of greatness will also focus sharp attention on a new issue. “You have to be treating people fairly,” Trump said in a far-reaching interview with NBC News that surveyed his vision for his second stint in Washington. “You can’t just say, ‘Oh, everything’s going to be wonderful.’ You know, we went through hell for four years with these people. And so, you know, something has to be done about it. … You can’t have that happen, and we shouldn’t have that happen.”
Expect fairness, along with unity, to be offered as central themes in Trump’s inauguration speech and to be embedded as justifications for the record number of first-day executive actions Trump will sign Monday. The returning chief executive will be greeted with a different dynamic than his first term. His team is far more seasoned in the ways of Washington that tripped him up as an outsider starting in 2017. Voters have soured on the far-left extremism exhibited during the Biden years with such policies as DEI and CRT to ESG and transgenderism. And Americans at large are putting far more wind behind Trump’s back this time. A poll over the weekend found 60% are optimistic about Trump’s second term, a major shift from the gloomy sentiments that ended the Biden presidency.
“This team, this is a different Donald Trump that is being sworn in than in 2017, and there’s a whole lot of experience that has come,” Sen. Ted Cruz told The Hill on Sunday. “I think the first term, there were some mistakes in Cabinet nominees and some nominees that he came to regret because they were people that were not fighting with him to accomplish his agenda,” he added. “I think this, the current team of nominees, I think is really strong.” Before the hard work launches in full, political experts reflected on just how improbable Trump’s return to power was. Written off for political death after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot fiasco, with two impeachments in his rear view mirror and four indictments on his horizon, the New York-grizzled politician launched his return to Washington in 2021 with little public support.
But he relentlessly fought his detractors in court, vanquished an impressive field of GOP challenges in the 2024 primaries and then sailed to a historic victory that Democrats couldn’t stop with lawfare or even a switcheroo atop their presidential ticket. “I think he has inherited the ‘Comeback Kid’ moniker from Bill Clinton,” pollster and former Clinton adviser Mark Penn told the “John Solomon Reports” podcast. “We thought that that Bill Clinton came back. But Trump came back to him, I mean, from, I lost count on how many impeachments, how many prosecutions, how many assassination attempts to come back and to win the popular vote and to be the voice of the people. “It is an incredible comeback. I would have bet you 100 to one against it four years ago,” Penn added.
US President-elect Donald Trump has announced sweeping plans to repeal outgoing President Joe Biden’s final executive actions. Speaking to a rally crowd in Washington DC on Sunday, Trump reiterated his key reelection campaign promises, vowing once more to launch a massive crackdown on illegal immigration in the US, stop the Ukraine conflict, and “prevent World War III.” “Every radical, foolish executive order of the Biden administration will be repealed within hours of when I take the oath of office,” Trump stated. “By the time the sun sets tomorrow, the invasion of our country will have come to a halt,” he added. “The border security measures I will outline in my inaugural address tomorrow will be the most aggressive, sweeping effort to restore our borders that the world has ever seen.”
Trump echoed his campaign promise to launch an unprecedented deportation of illegal immigrants, while pledging to take immediate action on education and military policies. “We will get radical woke ideologies the hell out of our military,” he stated. “We will get critical race theory and transgender insanity the hell out of schools… We will keep men out of women’s sports.” Additionally, Trump hinted at an upcoming announcement regarding individuals detained for their roles in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots. His supporters “will be very happy with my decision on the J6 hostages,” he told the crowd. The president-elect further promised to stop the Ukraine conflict, which he has long criticized for claiming too many lives and costing US taxpayers billions in perpetual military aid to Kiev.
“I will end the war in Ukraine, I will stop the chaos in the Middle East and I will prevent WWIII from happening,” Trump said. Biden has signed dozens of executive orders in the last months of his presidency, in what Time Magazine has described as an effort to polish his legacy. These have included providing clemency to death row inmates, barring offshore drilling, providing deportation protection to nearly 1 million migrants, and fast-tracking military aid to Ukraine. Trump has promised to sign a slew of his own executive orders upon taking office on Monday afternoon. He plans to take more than 200 executive actions the day he’s sworn in, according to a source familiar with the planning efforts cited by Reuters. Despite objections from his team about the time frame, “we’re doing them tomorrow,” Trump told the cheering crowd on Sunday.
TikTok on Sunday restored service to users in the United States after a brief shutdown after President-elect Donald Trump vowed to issue an executive order temporarily allowing the social media app to keep operating despite a law banning it as long as it is Chinese controlled. “We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive,” TikTok said in a statement. “It’s a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship,” it added. “We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States.”
Trump had announced earlier Sunday on Truth Social that he plans to issue an executive order extending the length of time for TikTok to comply with the law that forces its parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app to a U.S. entity or face a ban. TikTok went dark on Saturday night but began roaring back to life around midday Sunday. Trump had said on Saturday he was considering a 90-day extension for TikTok. “I’m asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark! I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security,” he wrote on Sunday. “The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order.”
Trump is about to get the biggest bump in popularity we have ever seen.
Trump also said that Americans “deserve to see our exciting inauguration on Monday” as well as other events. “I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture. By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to stay up. Without U.S. approval, there is no Tik Tok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars – maybe trillions,” he said.
Donald Trump’s team is preparing a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which could come shortly after the president-elect’s inauguration, CNN reported on Sunday, citing sources. According to people familiar with the matter interviewed by the network, the primary aim of the call would be to discuss a face-to-face meeting in the coming months to explore ways to resolve the Ukraine conflict. Officials within Trump’s national security team reportedly began planning for the call several weeks ago, CNN reported, adding that it remains unclear whether a date for the conversation has been finalized. The network noted that the phone call would be a significant shift from President Joe Biden’s approach, who has not spoken directly with Putin for nearly three years.
Earlier this month, Trump confirmed his intention to speak with Putin, stating that the Russian leader “wants to meet, and we are setting it up.” The president-elect, who has been critical of US aid to Kiev, has repeatedly vowed to swiftly end the Ukraine conflict. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has said that Putin is open to negotiations with the US president without any preconditions. However, he stressed that there have been no substantial preparations for talks, while suggesting waiting until Trump is sworn in. Commenting on the potential Ukraine talks, Putin foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov suggested that the incoming US president would be the one to initiate a dialogue. “We are calmly waiting for Trump’s team to take over. After that, let’s see what happens,” he said.
In recent weeks, US media outlets have reported that Trump’s team is mulling a peace plan for Ukraine which could include a ceasefire along the current front lines and the creation of an 1,300-km (800-mile) demilitarized zone patrolled by European troops. Additionally, Ukraine would agree to delay its aspirations for NATO membership for at least 20 years. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has criticized parts of the reported plan, saying Moscow “is of course not satisfied” with the proposals to postpone Ukraine’s NATO ambitions and deploy a Western peacekeeping contingent to Ukraine. Moscow has also rejected a freezing of the conflict, insisting that it must achieve all of the goals of its military operation, including permanent Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and denazification. Russia has also signaled that it would immediately declare a ceasefire once Kiev begins withdrawing from Russian territory, including the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye.
US President-elect Donald Trump wants to visit China in his first 100 days in office to improve relations with Xi Jinping, as the prospect of a new trade war looms, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday citing sources. The trip would aim to deepen ties with the Chinese leader in the face of geopolitical tensions between the two countries fueled by the stand-off over the self-governed island of Taiwan and Trump’s promise to impose tariffs on Chinese imports. However, while people familiar with the matter told the paper that Trump has expressed a certain interest in going, no final decision has been made.
On Friday, Trump and Xi spoke on the phone to discuss a range of issues including trade, Taiwan, and the situation with the Chinese-owned Tiktok social media platform, which went dark in the US over an imminent federal ban. It is unclear, however, whether the president-elect raised the idea of a China visit during the call. At the same time, the two delegated discussions about a potential in-person meeting to their aides, the WSJ said. Besides China, Trump also expressed interest in a possible trip to India, the outlet’s sources said. However, it is said his immediate attention will gravitate to domestic issues, including the border crisis and wildfires in California.
During his first term, Trump traveled to Beijing in late 2017, more than nine months after taking office. The four years of the Trump administration have been marred by a tense stand-off with China, with the president-elect imposing tariffs on billions of dollars in Chinese goods. His administration also labeled China “a currency manipulator” and imposed tough restrictions on Chinese tech giants like Huawei and ZTE, citing national security risks. During the election campaign, Trump proposed a 60% tariff on Chinese imports. Responding to a potential hike, Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen warned that the restrictions could backfire, forcing American consumers to pay higher prices. Meanwhile, he added, China would be able to weather the impact of such “external shocks.”
“The Democrats are Satanists. They reek of evil. Let us hope that tomorrow the FBI/CIA/NSA doesn’t attack the inauguration with a drone, blame Iran, and rush us off to war for Israel.”
I have done my best to alert MAGA Americans to the difficulty of regaining control of the US government. For decades the US government and its policies have been controlled by the organized interest groups that fund political campaigns. Regardless of the candidates voters elect, the legislation enacted and the federal government’s policies are the work of lobby groups. Among the powerful lobbies are the Israel Lobby, the military/security complex, Big Pharma, Wall Street, and agri-business. American voters are repeatedly disappointed that little ever changes regardless of who they elect. Sometimes an administration can achieve changes in a few areas, as Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan did in reducing tensions with the Soviet Union. But even these achievements were overturned by subsequent administrations in response to the military/security complex’s demand for an enemy to secure their profit and power.
Without an enemy, why does the US need a military budget that exceeds the GDP of most countries on earth? [..] The resistance to change is because the interests of what constitutes the American Establishment is institutionalized. American social and governmental institutions have become homes of The Establishment. It was 64 years ago on January 17, 1961, that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the five-star general in charge of the Normandy invasion, at the end of his second term warned Americans about the increasing power of the military-security complex. As a congressional staffer in both House and Senate I experienced the power almost daily. I still remember the day when I was on the floor of the US Senate and Strom Thurmond, the fourth longest serving senator in US history, tapped me on the shoulder.
A vote was before the Senate whether to partially pay for a reduction in marginal income tax rates by reducing a military appropriation. Senator Thurmond said to me: “Don’t ever let your senator vote for a reduction in military spending. If he does, he won’t be reelected, and you will be out of a job.” He brought clarity to me that survival as a senator meant accommodating the profits of the armaments corporations, not the living standards of the taxpayers. Thurmond, who served in the Senate for almost half a century, was no novice. He was educating me that whatever the interest of Wall Street and the financial sector in lower tax rates, their power was less than that of the military/security complex. As sometimes there were conflicts between the interests of lobby groups, it was important for a Senate staffer to know the hierarchy of power rankings.
Having experienced all this first hand, I warned readers that the US Senate is an Establishment-owned institution, and that the US Senate has the power to deny federal office to a president’s nominations. I explained that this establishment power over an incoming administration could render it impotent. Tulsi Gabbard is Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence. As a member of the House, she was a strong critic of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, legislation that I am convinced is unconstitutional and the foundation of a police state. Fear of non-existent “Muslim terrorist threat,” hyped by a whore media, made insouciant Americans accept the foundation of a police state. In 2020 together with Rep. Thomas Massie, the only independent member of the House today, she introduced a bill to repeal the entire Patriot Act, a police state measure imposed on us by the Republican regime of Bush/Cheney, the worst in modern American history until Biden.
Clearly, Gabbard had targets painted all over her. Both Democrat and Republican senators have made it clear to her that any repeal or lax enforcement of “national security” legislation must be disavowed if she expects the Senate to confirm her in office. Gabbard got the message and backed off her opposition to the unconstitutional surveillance of Americans without submitting to judges that the surveillance was needed for national security and obtaining a warrant. Commentators unfamiliar with Washington are denouncing Gabbard for “selling out”. A commentator in the Unz Review says Gabbard has betrayed herself and many others, but will have her 30 pieces of silver. It is so much easier to denounce than to understand. I often think that Americans do not want to understand how things really work, because it is so distressing. So they stay in denial, and this renders them useless in bringing change and protecting their liberties.
Tell me before you condemn Tulsi Gabbard, would you rather have her, a person fiercely opposed by the military/security complex, or a person to whom the military/security complex has no opposition? Tulsi can tell the blackmailing bought-and-paid-for US Senate one thing and do another once she is in office. I would bet on her integrity, not denounce it. It is the US Senate that is devoid of integrity. We will get Trump’s measure this Monday, January 20. As I explained last Friday, on the Oval Office desk awaits pardons for all the J6 victims of a totally corrupt Democrat administration and a US Department of Justice (sic) devoid of an ounce of integrity, essentially a collection of criminals. The criminality of the Biden Regime is unrivaled in American History. As an instrument of justice, Biden’s “justice” department ranks with Joseph Stalin’s purge of the Bolsheviks in his show trials of the 1930s when the leaders of the Russian revolution were sentenced to death for being capitalist spies.
In my opinion, Democrats are so corrupt, so anti-American, so anti-normality, so anti-white, so anti-citizen that they are discredited as a political party. Republicans are stupid beyond belief and ignorant of what needs to be done, but Democrats are Satanic. The second party in the American political system belongs to Satan. The Democrats are Satanists. They reek of evil. Let us hope that tomorrow the FBI/CIA/NSA doesn’t attack the inauguration with a drone, blame Iran, and rush us off to war for Israel.
US President-elect Donald Trump has promised to make public more classified government documents related to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King Jr. Speaking at a victory rally at the Capital One Arena in Washington, DC on Sunday, Trump declared his intention to declassify the records. He said his administration will “reverse the overclassification of government documents,” including those related to the historic crimes, as “the first step toward restoring transparency and accountability.” He added: “It’s all going to be released, Uncle Sam.” The murders of President Kennedy in 1963, his brother and political ally Robert in 1968, and King, the leader of the black rights movement, the same year remains the subject of speculation about the potential involvement of rogue elements within the US government.
Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the son of Senator Robert Kennedy, to serve as the health secretary in his administration. The Kennedy scion has campaigned for the full release of government materials pertaining to the tragedies in his family. RFK Jr. has previously suggested that the CIA could have been involved in his uncle’s death. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) houses over 5 million records related to President Kennedy’s assassination in a single collection. In the 1990s, the federal government mandated its almost-full release by October 2017, although the president has the authority to order exemptions. The declassification process continued during the first Trump presidency and the single term of his successor, Joe Biden, but an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 documents are yet to be disclosed.
During his first term Trump pledged to declassify documents related to President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. While he did authorize the release of several such documents, he ultimately withheld a significant portion, citing national security concerns and yielding to pressures from the CIA and FBI. In his recent announcement, Trump did not specify which documents would be released, nor did he commit to a blanket declassification. Trump’s scheduled inauguration on January 20 coincides with this year’s MLK Day, a federal holiday dedicated to King’s contribution to civil rights reforms in the 1960s, observed on the third Monday of January each year. During his speech on Sunday, the incoming president said he will sign a series of executive orders on a wide range of policies immediately after taking office.
The German ambassador to the US, Andreas Michaelis, has warned Berlin that incoming President Donald Trump will likely try to undermine key principles underpinning American democracy, Reuters has claimed, citing a confidential document. The Republican firebrand has repeatedly accused the Biden administration of weaponizing the FBI and Department of Justice, accusing them of launching a “witch hunt” against him. Back in 2022, he denounced both as “vicious monsters, controlled by radical-left scoundrels, lawyers and the media.” In an exclusive report on Saturday, Reuters quoted the confidential cable supposedly signed by Michaelis and dated January 14 as predicting that Trump will seek the “maximum concentration of power… at the expense of Congress and the federal states.”
“Basic democratic principles and checks and balances will be largely undermined, the legislature, law enforcement and media will be robbed of their independence and misused as a political arm, Big Tech will be given co-governing power,” the diplomat allegedly wrote. According to the outlet, the German envoy thinks Trump will not hesitate to deploy the military domestically to make good on his campaign pledges, such as mass deportations of illegal immigrants. Michaelis also is said to have suggested that Trump’s second term in office would likely bring about a “redefinition of the First Amendment,” with the new administration going after its critics. While the German government has not made any hostile remarks about the Republican, Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Friday lashed out at US-based tech billionaire Elon Musk, who has recently emerged as one of Trump’s closest allies.
He accused the Tesla and SpaceX CEO of attempting to interfere in EU politics by supporting the “extreme right throughout Europe, in Britain, in Germany.” Last month, Musk described Scholz as an “incompetent fool,” stating that the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) was the only party capable of “saving Germany.” Last week, the tech mogul hosted a livestream with AfD co-chair Alice Weidel on X, his social media platform. Several weeks after his victory in the November 5 presidential election, Trump named former adviser and ultra-loyalist Kash Patel as the next FBI director. In a recently published book, the former public defender slammed the agency’s work, calling for its complete overhaul.
While his opponents have routinely accused Trump of posing a threat to US democracy, the real estate kingpin tuned politician charged in December 2023 that President Joe Biden had “been weaponizing government against his political opponents like a Third World political tyrant.” “Biden and his radical left allies like to pose as standing up as allies of democracy,” Trump told his supporters, concluding that the Democrat “is not the defender of American democracy, Joe Biden is the destroyer of American democracy.”
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky asked incoming US President Donald Trump to invite him to the inauguration several times, but was consistently snubbed, his son Donald Trump Jr. has claimed. Writing on Instagram, Trump Jr. mocked the Ukrainian leader’s interview with American podcaster Lex Fridman earlier this month, during which Zelensky stated that he could not attend the inauguration on January 20. “I can’t come especially during the war, unless President Trump invites me personally. I’m not sure it’s proper to come because I know that in general, leaders are for some reason not usually invited to the inauguration of presidents of the United States of America,” he told Fridman. Trump Jr. opined in response that “the funniest part is that he asked for an invite like three times unofficially, and each time got turned down.”
“Now he’s acting like he decided not to go himself,” he added, branding Zelensky “a weirdo.” While incoming US presidents typically do not invite foreign leaders to their inauguration, Trump deviated from tradition and extended offers to Chinese President Xi Jinping, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Argentinian President Javier Milei, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Ecuadorean President Daniel Noboa and Paraguayan President Santiago Pena. While Xi and Orban have excused themselves, the rest have pledged to come.
Trump has been skeptical of the US campaign to help Ukraine and has vowed to quickly end the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, with Ukrainian officials fearing a ceasefire deal proposed by the president-elect will put their country at a disadvantage. Zelensky and Trump met in late September in New York, with the latter saying afterward that the Ukrainian leader “wants [the conflict] to stop,” and that both of them want “a fair deal.” Zelensky’s presidential term expired last May, and he has refused to call new elections, citing martial law. Russia considers him “illegitimate,” and says that the only legal authority now rests with the Ukrainian parliament and its speaker.
US President-elect Donald Trump’s victory was a major defeat for activist billionaire George Soros and his allies in the Democratic Party, who sought to plunge America into a “gender frenzy,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said. Speaking in an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday, Orban accused the 94-year-old Hungarian-born philanthropist of maintaining a “large network” intertwined with the Democratic Party, claiming their efforts were focused on imposing globalist ideologies in a bid to further their economic interests. “They believe that it is their duty… to fix humanity. In other words, to impose on the countries what they consider right,” he said, adding that “migration chaos” often follows those efforts.
According to Orban, Democratic dominance also led to an uncontrolled spread of woke politics. “Here come the American Democrats, because then there will be Pride, rainbow flags, and transgender issues,” he said. However, according to Orban, Trump’s victory ushered a significant shift in this regard. “George Soros lost the battle in America. I could say that America was liberated by Donald Trump,” the prime minister said, suggesting that the tycoon’s allies had been forced to withdraw back to Brussels. “We, Europeans, now have to face a very difficult period as they entrench themselves in Brussels… they need to be squeezed out of Brussels,” he said. Orban also expressed outrage at the fact that the Soros network is funded by the EU budget.
“We cannot tolerate this, it is our money too… The biggest corruption scandal in politics is that Brussels is in George Soros’s pocket,” he charged. Orban has long been critical of Soros and his Open Society Foundations (OSF), accusing them of funding pro-migration policies, undermining traditional family values, and promoting a globalist agenda. Critics of Soros have also accused him of fueling several so-called ‘color’ revolutions and having financial ties to hundreds of media outlets, which shield him from any backlash, shape public opinion, and promote what Orban called “LGBT fanaticism.” OSF, however, insists that its sole mission is to support human rights and democracy worldwide.
The unipolar era is collapsing, and in its place rises a new world, shaped by distinct centers of power, each bound to its traditions, values, and histories. Multipolarity rejects the artificial imposition of a single worldview, instead proclaiming the beneficial heterogeneity of human existence. It is a call to rediscover the strength of firmly established identities and to embrace a stabilized global order. For centuries, the world was lorded over by empires that sought to impose their singular, myopic vision upon all peoples. Liberal universalism, with its insistence (like Star Trek’s Borg with their hive mind) on assimilating the world into one model, has failed to create harmony. Multipolarity, on the other hand, recognizes that genuine coexistence depends on respecting the uniqueness of each civilization.
It seeks not to erase differences but to create a world where each culture thrives on its own terms, contributing to a dynamic and unadulterated global reality. A profound transformation is underway. Multipolarity marks a return to the natural state of a world composed of many civilizations, each pursuing its destiny. This revival is seen in the resurgence of ancient powers such as Orthodox Russia, Confucian China, and Hindu India. These nations are not relics of the past but living civilizations, reconnecting with their historical roots to take their proper places in the present. They reject the unipolar dictatorship of the Atlanticist model, which imposes liberal democracy and market capitalism as universal truths.
The conflict between land-based and sea-based powers is central to the unfolding multipolar world. Maritime empires, like Britain and the United States, long preeminent in global trade and geopolitics, are now facing the comeback of continental alliances. The seas, once the lifelines of Western hegemony, are giving way to the strategic establishment of the land as the new focus of commercial and political activity. Tellurocracy, the reign of the land, confronts thalassocracy, the reign of the sea – tipping the geopolitical scale of power. Eurasia exemplifies the triumph of the land. Its vast connectivity through infrastructure and economic corridors, from railroads to energy pipelines, undermines the primacy of maritime trade routes. This contest is not merely about command over resources but reflects a deeper philosophical divide.
The land represents rootedness, tradition, and stability, while the sea symbolizes fluidity, disruption, and the unmoored aspirations of modernity. Multipolarity restores the equilibrium between these forces, defying the centuries-long dominance of oceanic powers and placing the ancient, grounded civilizations of Eurasia at the forefront of global affairs. At the heart of multipolarity lies ethnopluralism – the recognition that distinct peoples cannot be blended into a single identity without destroying what makes them unique. Ethnopluralism opposes the liberal dream of the “melting pot,” viewing it as a forced amalgamation of disparate cultures. Instead, it argues for the coexistence of separate communities, each displaying its characteristics within its own boundaries.
North Carolina’s freshman congressman, a Green Beret veteran, and Texas’ third-term junior senator, have introduced legislation reversing Biden administration policies in the military tied to the COVID-19 vaccine. U.S. Rep. Pat Harrigan’s AMERICANS Act, filed Thursday morning, would reinstate 8,400 service members he says were wrongfully discharged. It clears their records, restores benefits and “ensures no future administration can weaponize mandates against our armed forces,” a release says. The acronym is short for the formal title of Allowing Military Exemptions, Recognizing Individual Concerns About New Shots Act of 2025. Harrigan’s release said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, would have companion legislation in the upper chamber. At time of publication, more information on his bill was yet to be made available.
Republicans, led by President-elect Donald Trump, have long said throughout the election campaign the action was coming. “This mandate wasn’t about science or readiness – it was about control,” Harrigan said in the release. “Thousands of patriots were cast aside by the very nation they swore to defend, stripped of their careers, their benefits, and their dignity – not because they failed to serve honorably, but because of political overreach.” He emphasized it wasn’t just about restoration; it’s preventative in future administrations. “It ensures,” Harrigan said, “no administration can ever again use its power to undermine the honor and integrity of our armed forces.” Cruz, in the release, said the consequences of President Joe Biden’s actions with vaccine mandates are still impacting readiness for armed forces.
Retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin was secretary of the Defense Department at the time of the Aug. 23, 2021, decision. “Even though I led the successful charge for Congress to repeal that mandate, there is still more work to be done,” Cruz said in the Harrigan release. “The AMERICANS Act would provide remedies for servicemembers whom the Biden Department of Defense punished for standing by their convictions. It’s the right thing to do.” Harrigan is a graduate of West Point twice deployed to Afghanistan. Before Congress, he had been a businessman producing American-made defense products. Cruz, with Ivy League degrees from Princeton (undergrad) and Harvard Law, has worked in the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission and served as solicitor general of Texas. The worksheet includes nine oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court.
President-elect Donald Trump will suspend the security clearances of 51 former intelligence officials who were found to have coordinated with the 2020 Biden campaign to discredit credible and serious allegations contained on Hunter Biden’s laptop about his family’s influence peddling operation. According to Fox News, citing a senior administration official, Trump will take action against the so-called “Spies Who Lie,” as one of at least 100 executive orders he’s expected to sign on his first day back in the Oval Office.
Not only did federal investigators eventually confirm that Hunter’s laptop was authentic, a June 2024 report from the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Federal Government and the Permanent Select Subcommittee on Intelligence found that “The 51 former intelligence officials’ Hunter Biden statement was a blatant political operation from the start. It originated with a call from top Biden campaign official—and now Secretary of State—Antony Blinken to former Deputy Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Michael Morell. “The Committees’ investigation revealed that without this outreach from Blinken, Morell would not have written the statement. Indeed, Morell told the Committees that the Blinken phone call “triggered” his intent to write the statement. The statement’s drafters were open about the goal of the project: “[W]e think Trump will attack Biden on the issue at this week’s debate”6 and “we want to give the [Vice President] a talking point to use in response.”
The Committees also found that:
• High ranking CIA officials, up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the Hunter Biden statement prior to its approval and publication.
• Some of the statement’s signatories, including Michael Morell, were on active contract with the CIA at the time of the Hunter Biden statement’s publication.
• After publication of the Hunter Biden statement, CIA employees internally expressed concern about the statement’s politicized content, acknowledging it was not “helpful to the Agency in the long run.”
It’s going to be a fun week, eh?
Donald Trump’s nominee for CIA Director just called out the “51 spies who lied”
Fifty-one spies blatantly lied to the American people, and the media peddled this lie pic.twitter.com/KqxvFLkvt4
Outgoing US State Secretary Antony Blinken urged Ukraine to continue its military efforts against Russia rather than pursue peace negotiations in 2022, the New York Times reported on Saturday. In late 2022, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley advised Kiev to capitalize on its battlefield successes by seeking peace talks with Moscow. However, Blinken insisted that Ukraine should press on with its military campaign, the newspaper wrote. “Less a peacemaker than a war strategist,” the US diplomat frequently argued against more “risk-averse Pentagon officials,” lobbying for advanced American weaponry to be sent to Ukraine, NYT wrote. Washington has spent “approximately $100 billion” on Ukraine since the conflict escalated in February 2022, while allies and partners have contributed an additional $150 billion, Blinken said during a January appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The outgoing Biden administration has expedited arms deliveries to Kiev ahead of the inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump, who has indicated that he might reduce military aid to Ukraine in favor of addressing domestic priorities. The Biden administration had been covertly arming Ukraine months before the conflict intensified, Blinken admitted in a January interview with the NYT. “Starting in September and then again in December, we quietly got a lot of weapons to Ukraine to make sure that they had in hand what they needed to defend themselves – things like Stingers, Javelins that they could use,” he said. Russia and Ukraine initially engaged in peace negotiations in early 2022 in Istanbul. Both sides provisionally agreed to a truce under which Kiev would renounce its NATO membership ambitions, adopt neutrality, and limit its military size in exchange for international security guarantees.
However, Ukraine later withdrew from the talks at the urging of then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, according to David Arakhamia, a Zelensky-allied MP and chief negotiator for Kiev. Last month, Swiss diplomat Jean-Daniel Ruch similarly accused the US and UK of derailing peace talks between Kiev and Moscow. Speaking to the French-language media outlet Anti-Thèse, Ruch claimed that Johnson acted “on duty for the Americans.” Moscow has reiterated its willingness to resume peace negotiations, provided they are based on the Istanbul draft agreements and reflect the “new territorial realities,” including the accession of four former Ukrainian regions to Russia and recent battlefield developments.
“I’m not going to be out of sight or out of mind,” Joe Biden quipped at one of his final conversations with reporters as president last week. He’s not wrong. If the Treasury sanctions targeting Russian maritime oil exports succeed, Biden will remain in Americans’ minds for a long time to come. But not for the reasons he might like. The outgoing administration’s recent decisions suggest that their overarching goal is to create as many problems as possible for its successor in every area. This applies both to foreign policy, where a policy of maximum escalation has been observed in virtually every conflict zone, as well as the domestic front.
With mere hours now left in Biden’s term, the most effective tool in the waning days of his presidency has been sanctions, which can be quickly imposed but are difficult to revoke, given their political justifications. “Today, the US Department of the Treasury took sweeping action to fulfill the G7 commitment to reduce Russian revenues from energy, including blocking two major Russian oil producers. Today’s actions also impose sanctions on an unprecedented number of oil-carrying vessels, many of which are part of the ‘shadow fleet,’ opaque traders of Russian oil, Russia-based oilfield service providers, and Russian energy officials,” the Treasury said in a press release last week announcing new sanctions against Russia’s oil and gas sector.
“The United States is taking sweeping action against Russia’s key source of revenue for funding its brutal and illegal war against Ukraine,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said. “This action builds on, and strengthens, our focus since the beginning of the war on disrupting the Kremlin’s energy revenues…With today’s actions, we are ratcheting up the sanctions risk associated with Russia’s oil trade, including shipping and financial facilitation in support of Russia’s oil exports,” Yellen added. But Team Biden’s sloganeering about the sanctions’ purpose being ‘continuing support for Ukraine’ is just cynical ideological cover for their true goal: disrupting the president-elect’s plans, primarily in the economic and social sphere. As for hurting Russia, that won’t work, and here’s why.
Russian Maritime Oil Exports: The Math
US sanctions will result in a significant bump in global oil prices, simultaneously offsetting the drop in production volumes by making up revenues into the Russian budget. Russia’s maritime exports of oil and petroleum products amount to about 5.8 million barrels per day, of which 3.5 million barrels per day are crude oil. Currently, global energy agencies and international banks predict a surplus in the oil market in 2025 averaging 0.8 million barrels per day. The consensus forecast for Brent crude prices in 2025 stands at about $71 per barrel, according to major banks.
Maritime Export of Russian Crude Oil by Destination Country (million barrels per day)
A complete halt to Russian maritime exports of oil and petroleum products (that is, a reduction in Russian oil production by that volume) would cause one of the largest-ever deficits in the global oil market in history (assuming oil production dynamics in other countries remain consistent with forecasts). According to calculations by the Bank of America, based on historical data, a change in the supply-demand balance by 100,000 barrels per day results in an inverse change in oil prices by $1.50–$2 per barrel. Consequently, the loss of such a significant volume of Russian exports (5.8 million barrels per day) from the global balance would lead to an increase in oil prices by $80–$90 per barrel, to $150–$160 per barrel. The loss of far smaller amounts of Russian oil from the world market has already had devastating and immediate impact.
In 2022, for example, when Russian oil and petroleum product exports dropped by 1.5 million barrels per day, oil prices rose to over $120 per barrel. Crunching the numbers, with Brent crude priced at $158 per barrel, the export price of Russian oil for taxation purposes would be between $147 and $156 per barrel (depending on the size of the discount for Russian oil delivered via pipelines) compared to the roughly $70 per barrel assumed in the 2025 budget plan. That means that under conditions of a full embargo on maritime oil exports, Russia’s state budget revenues would increase (to $88.2 billion, compared to $82.3 billion under the current plan), despite a reduction in production and various associated costs.
The Biden regime picked up over 700K illegals from all over the world on PRIVATE jets to escort them to the city of their choice at the taxpayers' expense!
Even worse, they would fly illegals to another state to avoid deportation if they committed a serious crime!
Blistering ending monologue from Bill Maher as he torches LA Mayor Karen Bass 'Nero who fiddled in Ghana as LA burns': "Axios ran a story on how getting the water out of the hydrants in Pacific Palisades was more complicated than it seems. I'm sure it's very complicated. That's… pic.twitter.com/mwcBD2Z8Kq
NEW: During a one-on-one meeting, Speaker Johnson asked President Biden why he paused LNG exports to Europe, says Biden was completely unaware he had done so.
The United States hasn't had a president for four years.
The ceasefire, which was due to start this morning at 6.30 GMT, was delayed because Hamas did not release the names of 3 female hostages to be freed. They blamed technical difficulties. A few hours later, Hamas released the names and the ceasefire officially started. Anyone’s guess how long it will last.
Hamas has released the names of the three Israeli captives to be freed on the first day of the implementation of the ceasefire deal in Gaza, a Hamas spokesperson said in a post on Telegram. The move potentially clears the way for the truce to begin after an hours-long delay. Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to cancel the ceasefire with Hamas if the Palestinian militant group did not provide a list of the Israeli hostages to be released in the first phase of the truce.
Abu Obeida, the spokesman for Hamas’ armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, said, “As part of the prisoner exchange deal we decided to release today: Romi Gonen, 24, Emily Damari, 28, and Doron Shtanbar Khair, 31.” The three civilian women were taken hostage on October 7, 2023 during the Hamas onslaught in which around 1,200 people were killed and 251 were kidnapped to Gaza. Israeli airstrikes on Gaza continued on Sunday even after the planned start time for the ceasefire had passed. Netanyahu said the truce “will not begin” until Hamas provides a list of hostages to be released as part of the agreement.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has issued some surprisingly bold assertions in a national televised address given just 12-hours before the much anticipated Gaza ceasefire is set to go into effect Sunday morning. Both Biden and Trump have hailed and celebrated the deal, but it’s the Republican president-elect who is by and large receiving the most credit for seeing it to the finish line. Some Israeli media outlets have represented the whole thing as a ‘defeat’ for Netanyahu, who appeared to want to keep the war going until Hamas is completely eradicated. Among Netanyahu’s most provocative words on Saturday was his claim that he has the support of President-elect Trump in the scenario Israel feels it must abandon the ceasefire and keep fighting. He says he has Trump’s full backing to resume the war, and has claimed further that Trump too agreed that the truce is just “temporary”. Watch below:
Netanyahu says Trump "emphasized" to him that the ceasefire is "temporary," and Israel will have "full backing" to resume the war in Gaza. He says Trump has decided to "lift all the remaining restrictions" on US munitions, allowing Israel to resume the war with "tremendous force" pic.twitter.com/oodqpwkU7I
“Netanyahu also asserted that he negotiated the best deal possible, even as Israel’s far-right Public Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said he and most of his party would resign from the government in opposition to it,” Times of Israel notes of the remarks. And there’s some some last-minute details which threaten implementation of the ceasefire… The prime minister had warned earlier that a ceasefire wouldn’t go forward unless Israel received the names of hostages to be released, as had been agreed. His statement came almost three hours after Israel had expected to receive the names from mediator Qatar. There was no immediate response from Qatar or Hamas. But without doubt Netanyahu is feeling the pressure, both within but even more from external allies, especially Washington – which writes the checks for the Israeli war machine.
As for Netanyahu’s talk of the deal being ‘temporary’ it’s unclear whether the Trump team agrees with this assessment. There hasn’t been any initial reaction from Trump as he prepares for the inauguration Monday. But Trump without doubt wants a ceasefire to stick, and is likely to be celebrating its implementation during some of Monday’s inaugural remarks. He has vowed to wind down various conflict hot spots, especially Ukraine, and bring peace. He has also warned that there will be “hell to pay” if Hamas doesn’t uphold its end of the truce deal. This suggests Netanyahu could be telling the truth, or at least an interpretation of it. An initial small group of hostages are expected to be returned to Israel by Sunday evening, with hopeful families awaiting and on edge.
“It is the duty of the President to propose and it is the privilege of the Congress to dispose,” said FDR. It’s a shame that this president will have to do both.”
Trump aides are calling it “Shock and Awe.” There will be 100 executive orders (EO) and other executive actions starting Monday, Jan. 20. Indeed, most executive actions aren’t going to “shock” a lot of people. Trump has talked about all of them in the campaign and during his years in exile since his defeat in 2020. The scope of some of the EOs is broader than some on the left have been predicting, and narrower than some on the right were hoping for. The audacious nature of the 100 EOs masks the probability that almost all of them will be challenged in federal court. Even if the challenges are eventually unsuccessful, some of the executive orders will be picked apart or canceled altogether. The EOs that have garnered the most interest and that have been the target of a hysterical scare campaign on the left are the orders relating to illegal aliens.
In fact, the first actions taken by Customs and Border Protection (CPB) will be to pick up illegal aliens who have committed felonies. “That’s the low-hanging fruit,” said Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford. “People that recently crossed, people that were legally present and committed other crimes, people that the court has ordered them removed — that’s well over a million people. Start working through that process.” In the meantime, Trump is going to reinstitute the most effective guard against illegal immigration in history: Title 42. The measure was adopted during the pandemic as a public health rule, but Trump is planning to stretch the definition to cover the current border crisis. This will set offer howls of outrage among open borders advocates and will be challenged in court. Trump has several other actions planned to secure the border.
New York Sun: “Trump could also move to allow use of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would authorize some state and local law enforcement to aid Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, Axios has reported. On another front, Trump has vowed to issue an executive order to strip away birthright citizenship, which ensures children born to parents who do not have legal status in America are American citizens. That will likely set up a clash over the 14th Amendment that could wind up at the Supreme Court.” Trump has also promised to strip some federal funds from going to sanctuary states and cities. He tried the same thing during his first term, and was slapped down by appeals courts because, according to Eugene Volokh, the policy “ran afoul of constitutional limits on federal power and on executive power over the budget.”
Trump is hoping that the 54 judges he appointed to the appeals courts will take a different view of the constitutionality of denying funds to sanctuary cities. Other EOs that Trump is expected to sign include actions on energy and trade. “We will begin charging those that make money off us with Trade, and they will start paying, FINALLY, their fair share,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. He also announced that on Jan. 20, he would develop an “External Revenue Service.” This new agency will “collect tariffs, duties, and all revenue” from overseas. On foreign policy, China should prepare itself. In addition to slapping China with tariffs, Trump has vowed to rescind its designated status of “permanent normal trade relations,” also known as “most favored nation.” The status was granted more than two decades ago as China prepared to enter the World Trade Organization.
Such a move is popular among congressional Republicans, who think granting China “normal” status and allowing the nation into the WTO was detrimental to the American economy. But the move would likely require congressional action. On Ukraine, although Trump has said he could stop the war in “24 hours,” it will take considerably longer, given the animosity between the two countries. But Ukraine’s President Zelensky finally appears ready to deal. How far he will go for a ceasefire will determine how long the negotiations take. Not all of Trump’s day-one actions will require an EO. Many of the actions will be to rescind Biden administration EOs. Trump is trying to do as much as he can as president, because he knows that once he’s forced to work through Congress, a quagmire will ensue.
This appears to be the fate of all presidents, present and future. Congress has abandoned its constitutional responsibility to govern. “It is the duty of the President to propose and it is the privilege of the Congress to dispose,” said FDR. It’s a shame that this president will have to do both.
President-elect Donald Trump is set to formally take office on Monday after which he is expected to sign an exploding ball of executive orders that will set the tone for his administration on key issues, namely border security and energy. On the campaign, Trump facetiously quipped that he would not act as a dictator or impose authoritarian rule “except for day one.” “We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. Other than that I’m not gonna be a dictator,” he told an amused Sean Hannity during a town hall event last year. Since then, reports have emerged that Trump could sign as many as 100 executive orders on his first day in office. Trump himself made a litany of “day one” promises while on the campaign trail that included moves on nearly every key issue.
Such promises included the convening of a task force to plan America’s 250th birthday, the start of mass deportations, the imposition of tariffs on Mexico, an end to birthright citizenship, the termination of migrant flights, deregulations, orders permitting the expansion of energy production, restrictions on DEI and other programs, and the rooting out of career bureaucrats who work against his agenda. Immigration and border security During a recent meeting with Republican senators, Trump adviser Stephen Miller highlighted planned actions on immigration to begin early in the administration as part of what the Associated Press called “executive punch unseen in modern times.” Among the most highly-anticipated order will be the return of the “Remain-in-Mexico” policy requiring that would-be asylees stay outside the U.S. ahead of their court dates.
Others are likely to address the completion of the southern border wall, Trump’s signature campaign promise from 2016, while others are expected to target groups of illegal aliens that recently entered the United States and those who have already been approved for deportation.Some of the immigration orders may stall, however, with the Senate evidently hesitant to speedily confirm some of his key nominees for posts relevant to those policies. Still, some of his border actions will need only the weight of the president’s signature. One of his key immigration promises was to implement an executive order directing federal agents to interpret the law in a way that would not grant the children of illegal immigrants American citizenship. Trump made that promise in May of 2023, at which time it generated considerable legal speculation about the likely challenges to such a dramatic reinterpretation of the law.
Trump promised to begin mass deportations on day one, but some sources have suggested the deportation numbers will be low at first and gradually build while the administration gets its apparatus in place. “You’re not going to see historic numbers in month one. You start to see a steady increase, and then it’ll keep building and building,” one source familiar with the administration’s plans told Politico. nIndependent of immigration, Trump reportedly plans to target energy production, in part by rolling back Biden-era executive orders and environmental regulations. Specifically, Trump has taken aim at the Biden administration’s natural gas export restrictions and electric vehicle mandates, vowing to end them on day one and to expand fracking in Pennsylvania.
The natural gas export ban was part of the Biden administration’s climate change initiatives and was ostensibly temporary, though it faced legal challenges and the Department of Justice in December asked the courts to halt proceedings, given the incoming Trump administration was likely to end the ban anyway. The electric vehicle mandate, meanwhile, was a regular fixture of Trump’s campaign, especially amid United Auto Workers’ lengthy strike. Trump made the argument that the Green New Deal and the Biden administration’s effort to transfer auto-manufacturing to electric vehicles would bankrupt the industry and result in additional offshoring of their jobs. “I will cancel her insane electric vehicle mandate. It’ll be ended on day one,” he promised.
Jan. 6 pardons? In December, Trump promised to pardon Jan. 6 participants on his first day, saying they were “living in Hell” as the Justice Department pursued charges over their involvement in the incident. More than 1,500 people have faced charges related to Jan. 6 but the scope of Trump’s planned pardons remains unclear, especially whether they will include those convicted of violent offenses. Trump’s actual day one schedule was changed last minute due to inclement weather, with the Inauguration itself being moved inside the Capitol Rotunda, a move not seen since President Ronald Reagan’s second inauguration in 1985. After the swearing-in ceremony, Trump plans to travel to the Capital One arena, which will be open for the crowd to watch the ceremony on a large screen. After that appearance, he is expected to make his way to the White House to begin signing his many planned executive orders.
Readers of The Epoch Times have identified border security, fiscal responsibility, and national defense as the top priorities for President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration. A poll of 26,740 readers, conducted between Jan. 10–13, points to these issues as key areas of focus, reflecting widespread concern over unchecked immigration, economic instability, and global security threats.
Meanwhile, write-in responses by readers of The Epoch Times highlighted strong support for government reform, coupled with opposition to progressive policies such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Border security and deportations topped the list, with 90 percent of respondents considering it “extremely important.” This aligns with Trump’s campaign pledge to launch what he has described as the largest deportation operation in American history, set to begin immediately after his inauguration on Jan. 20. “On my first day back in the Oval Office, I will sign a historic slate of executive orders to close our border to illegal aliens and stop the invasion of our country,” Trump said during a Turning Point USA conference in Phoenix in December 2024. Besides vowing to deport millions of illegal immigrants, Trump also plans to end birthright citizenship, in which anyone born in the United States is currently given automatic citizenship, including to parents of illegal immigrants.
Fiscal Discipline and Economic Stability. Government spending and debt reduction ranked as the second-highest priority, with 82 percent of respondents highlighting the need for fiscal discipline. Concerns over the ballooning national debt—now at $36.22 trillion—is a key concern. The president-elect has said he intends to address these issues through measures such as cutting wasteful spending and reforming federal agencies. To spearhead these efforts, Trump has proposed the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—with Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy tapped to lead the initiative. DOGE aims to slash $2 trillion from the federal budget.
“Your money is being wasted,” Musk said at a Trump rally in New York in October 2024, underscoring Trump’s commitment to tackle government inefficiency and cut wasteful spending. The federal government spent $6.75 trillion in fiscal year 2024—which was $1.83 trillion more than it collected in revenue—pushing the national debt up to $36.22 trillion, according to the Treasury Department. So far in fiscal year 2025, which runs until the end of September, the government has already spent $1.79 trillion.
The issue of debt sustainability, long a concern of fiscal conservatives, has clearly been on Trump’s radar. In a statement announcing the nomination of Scott Bessent to serve as his Treasury secretary, Trump said his administration would “reinvigorate the private sector, and help curb the unsustainable path of federal debt.” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has warned about the unsustainable trajectory of federal debt, projecting it to climb to a hefty 181 percent of GDP by 2053. If left unchecked, this rising debt is expected to slow economic growth, increase interest payments to foreign creditors, and limit lawmakers’ flexibility to address future fiscal and economic challenges, according to the CBO.
Strengthening National Defense and Securing Elections. Military strength and national security emerged as the third most important priority, with 77 percent of respondents citing it as “extremely important.” Concerns over global threats from adversaries such as China and Russia have amplified calls for bolstering America’s defense capabilities. Trump’s proposed “peace through strength” agenda emphasizes modernizing the military, increasing operational readiness, and reinforcing U.S. deterrence on the world stage. On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to reform the U.S. military, criticizing “woke” policies that he says undermine the nation’s warfighting capacity.
Most Americans support Donald Trump’s policies, despite the president-elect’s approval rating hovering around 50 percent, according to a New York Times and Ipsos poll published on Saturday. The poll, which surveyed 2,128 adults between January 2 and 10, indicated strong backing for several of Trump’s key policy priorities, such as reducing illegal immigration and implementing protectionist measures against Chinese imports. More than two-thirds of respondents opposed offering so-called “gender-affirming care” to children, another major agenda item for Trump. Approximately 71% of Americans believe that no minors should be prescribed puberty-blocking drugs or hormones. Last month, Trump vowed to end “transgender lunacy,” promising to prohibit sex change surgeries for minors and keep trans athletes out of women’s sports.
Nearly four in five respondents agreed that athletes who were assigned male at birth but transitioned should not be allowed to compete against women in sports. A vast majority of respondents – 87% – supported deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records, one of Trump’s central talking points during his reelection campaign. More than half of respondents either strongly or somewhat supported the deportation of all illegal immigrants in the US, according to the poll results. Nearly two-thirds of respondents – including 54% of Hispanics and 44% of Democrats – favored deporting undocumented migrants who entered the US during President Joe Biden’s last four years in office. The Biden administration reversed several immigration restrictions set by Trump during his first presidency, contributing to a spike in illegal immigration.
Support for Trump’s promises to impose heavier tariffs on Chinese and Mexican imports was nearly evenly split, but slightly leaning toward opposition. Approximately 46% supported raising tariffs on goods imported from China and Mexico, while 50% opposed such measures. Trump’s favorability rating remains just below 50%, according to data posted by poll aggregator website FiveThirtyEight on Friday. More than half of Americans view the entire US political system as broken, according to the NYT/Ipsos poll. Some 57% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans believe that the American political system has been broken for decades.
TikTok itself pulled the plug. From yesterday: “The platform’s CEO, Shou Zi Chew, is expected to attend Trump’s inauguration and has thanked Trump for his readiness to work on averting the ban. Trump’s incoming national security adviser, Mike Waltz, has signaled that TikTok could remain operational if a “viable deal” is reached. “We will put measures in place to keep TikTok from going dark,” Waltz said, adding that the legislation allows a 90-day extension for ByteDance to finalize divestiture.”
Some 170 million US users of the viral social media app TikTok faced a blackout of the service on Saturday, days after the Supreme Court passed a decision that could lead to a national ban of the platform. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that TikTok needs to divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, by Sunday or face a ban. Late Saturday, users in the US received an update for TikTok, blocking the application’s use and explaining the outage. “We regret that a US law banning TikTok will take effect on January 19 and force us to make our services temporarily unavailable,” the messages said. “We’re working to restore our service in the US as soon as possible.” TikTok warned about the possible suspension of its services in a statement on its newsroom page on Saturday.
“Unless the Biden Administration immediately provides a definitive statement to satisfy the most critical service providers assuring non-enforcement, unfortunately TikTok will be forced to go dark on January 19,” TikTok said in the statement. The Supreme Court’s decision stems from allegations that ByteDance’s ownership of TikTok poses a risk to US national security. According to the court, the app’s ownership could potentially allow the Chinese government access to American users’ data. TikTok has dismissed allegations that its Chinese ownership poses a threat, maintaining that it has “never shared” American users’ data with Beijing. President-elect Donald Trump has signaled that he will probably give the app a temporary reprieve from the ban to allow it to sell to a non-Chinese company. Trump will “most likely” give the app a “90-day extension,” he told NBC news in a phone interview on Saturday.
It doesn’t bode well that the next U.S. Secretary of State begins his top-flight position in government by telling blatant lies and fatuities. Marco Rubio (53) is a sure bet to be confirmed as America’s most senior international envoy representing the new administration of President Donald Trump, who will be inaugurated in the White House on Monday. This week, Florida Senator Rubio appeared before the Senate in confirmation hearings for his post. Rubio has been a senator since 2011 and has served on foreign relations and intelligence committees. Despite bitter personal clashes with Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign, Rubio was picked for the top diplomat post in the incoming administration. The confirmation is a done deal given his deep connections in Congress among Republicans and Democrats.
The ambitious son of Cuban immigrants is known for his hawkish views. He previously called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “thug” and described Russia as a “gangster state with nuclear weapons.” Any future trips to Moscow will be awkward to say the least, especially when the “tough guy” Floridian meets a real diplomat like Russia’s Sergei Lavrov. Strangely, though, this week, Rubio projected himself as the voice of reason and diplomacy. It was quite a U-turn. He told the Senate committee that the top priority of the Trump administration will be to bring the war in Ukraine to an end. That view aligns with Trump’s oft-expressed desire for a settlement to the three-year conflict. There’s a lot to parse in Rubio’s weasel words. He informed senators: ”It should be the official policy of the United States that we want to see it [the war] end… This is not going to be an easy endeavor… My hope is that it could begin with some ceasefire.”
Rubio was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Ukrainian regime, believing that it would inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. Now, he has suddenly been overcome with seeming prudence and concern for peace by declaring that Ukraine cannot possibly win against Russia. Rubio went on: “In order to achieve objectives like the one that needs to occur in Ukraine, it is important for everyone to be realistic. There will have to be concessions made by the Russian Federation, but also by the Ukrainians, and the United States lends itself there. It’s also important that there be some balance on both sides.” So, you see what’s happening here. Rubio is uncharacteristically sounding like a peace envoy – after years of spouting belligerence towards Russia – and sneakily setting up the United States to be a kind of broker between two warring parties.
Note how he advocates concessions by both sides – Ukraine and Russia – without mentioning that the U.S. is a principal party to the conflict (albeit by using proxy Ukraine). He appeals to people to be “realistic” because Ukraine can’t win and it is “running out of Ukrainians.” This is after Rubio and countless other hawkish politicians in Washington pushed this war to the destruction of Ukraine, with over one million casualties from far superior Russian firepower. Rubio and his imperialist warmongering ilk have pushed this proxy war at the risk of inciting a nuclear conflagration with Russia. But it was the bit when Rubio tried to sound like the innocent diplomat deploring violence that peaked contempt for this pathetic Yes Man.
After acknowledging that the United States has supplied Ukraine with $175 billion in total aid, including at least $65 billion in military, since the eruption of conflict in February 2022, Rubio complained that it was “never clearly delineated what the end goal of the conflict was.” He added: “What exactly were we funding? What exactly were we putting money towards? On many occasions, it sounded like ‘however much it takes for however long it takes’. That is not a realistic or prudent position.” Marco Rubio is a liar. He knows full well from his deep involvement in U.S. imperialist machinations that the plan was to sponsor a NeoNazi regime in Kiev since the CIA-backed in 2014 to wage war on Russia for its calculated strategic defeat and conquest. Washington bankrolled Ukrainian fascists to do its dirty work. That’s exactly what it was funding. Now Rubio is pretending that it was all some kind of misadventure that needs to be brought to a settlement.
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said her department will take “extraordinary measures” to prevent the US from hitting the national debt limit on Tuesday, one day after President-elect Donald Trump takes office. In a letter to Congress on Friday, Yellen explained that the US will hit its roughly $36 trillion debt limit between January 14 and January 23, potentially leading to a default. To avoid this possibility, Yellen said the Treasury Department will use a number of accounting tricks, including pausing payments into civil service retirement accounts until Congress and the president agree to raise the debt ceiling again. Yellen did not say for how long her measures will forestall a default. sThe US debt ceiling was raised three times during President Joe Biden’s term in the White House.
Last month, Trump pressed House Republicans to include another raise in a stopgap spending bill, but the proposal was ultimately defeated by dozens of fiscal conservatives in the GOP. Trump has repeatedly said that the debt ceiling should be abolished altogether to avoid such near-yearly showdowns, arguing that the limit – which is intended to restrict government borrowing – is pointless when it is repeatedly raised. ”It doesn’t mean anything, except psychologically,” he told NBC News last month. “The Democrats have said they want to get rid of it. If they want to get rid of it, I would lead the charge.” Scott Bessent, Trump’s pick to replace Yellen, has said he would work with Congress to repeal the debt ceiling if instructed by Trump.
US President-elect Donald Trump will kick off his deportation drive with a large-scale raid in Chicago one day after his inauguration, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. Hundreds of immigration officers are expected to take part in the raid. The raid will begin on Tuesday morning and last all week, with between 100 and 200 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers deployed to the city, the newspaper reported, citing four anonymous sources. Officers will target illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds, although anyone present during arrests who entered the country illegally will also be detained, the sources said. Trump promised on the campaign trail that if elected, he would lead “the largest deportation operation in American history.”
In an interview with MSNBC last month, he said he would start by deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes inside the US, before moving on to “people outside of criminals.” There are thought to be anywhere between 11 million an 35 million illegal immigrants living in the US. The president-elect has appointed former ICE Director Tom Homan as his ‘border czar’, and tasked him with carrying out the deportations. “We’re going to start right here in Chicago, Illinois,” Homan said at a Republican dinner in the city last month. “And if the Chicago mayor doesn’t want to help, he can step aside. But if he impedes us, if he knowingly harbors or conceals an illegal alien, I will prosecute him.” Chicago was chosen as the location of the first raid because of its high numbers of illegal immigrants and Trump’s animosity with the city’s Democratic mayor, Brandon Johnson, the Wall Street Journal’s sources said.
Chicago is a so-called ‘sanctuary city’, meaning the city authorities do not ask about immigration status, and are forbidden from cooperating with federal immigration agencies such as ICE. Johnson has vowed to keep these policies in place, and on Wednesday, the Chicago City Council sided with him, voting 39-11 against a measure that would have allowed city police officers to work with ICE on immigration cases. In a statement to the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Police Department said that while its officers would not take part in the upcoming raid, they “will not intervene or interfere with any other government agencies performing their duties.” More raids are expected to follow, the newspaper reported, adding that large immigrant centers such as New York, Los Angeles, Denver, and Miami are considered top targets for the Trump administration.
Russia will firmly suppress any attempts to lay claims to the Sea of Azov after it became its internal sea, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Saturday. “Neither Ukraine nor the UK has any room for cooperation in the Azov Sea. After the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions joined Russia in September 2022, the Azov Sea became Russia’s internal sea. Any claims to its waters are gross interference in the internal affairs of our country and will be severely suppressed,” Zakharova said.
Moscow considers this agreement to be nothing more than a PR stunt, she added. “Behind this, we see London’s long-standing desire to gain a foothold in these waters, especially in the Azov-Black Sea basin. Kiev, despite all its geopolitical claims, has been assigned only a supporting role in this,” Zakharova said. On Thursday, Ukraine and the United Kingdom signed a “One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement,” pledging to enhance maritime cooperation in the Baltic, Black and Azov seas.
Ukraine’s halt to the transit of Russian gas, combined with sanctions imposed by the US on Russian oil and gas companies, pose a significant risk of plunging Europe into a new energy crisis. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban raised these concerns during his visit to Belgrade, where he held talks focused on energy challenges with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic. “Recent developments in Europe’s energy supply are alarming,” Orban said in a video message aired on Hungarian television. “Ukraine has blocked a pipeline that supplied gas to Hungary, and the US administration has introduced sanctions that have driven up energy prices across Europe. The continent is hurtling toward another energy crisis,” Orban said.
The outgoing US government imposed sanctions on Russia’s oil and gas sector on January 10, targeting companies like Gazprom, Neft and Novatek, 183 tanker vessels and top executives. Serbia’s NIS, partly owned by Gazprom, was also affected, with the US demanding the cancellation of Russian investments by February 25. Combined with Ukraine’s block on Russian gas transit on January 1, the actions have disrupted supplies to Austria, Italy and Central Europe, raising energy prices and prompting regional efforts to minimize the impact.
“If you run and you lose to Trump, and we lose the Senate, and we don’t get back the House, that 50 years of amazing, beautiful work goes out the window,” Schumer told him. “But worse — you go down in American history as one of the darkest figures.” Schumer added, “If I were you, I wouldn’t run, and I’m urging you not to run.” Democrats spent years dismissing concerns over Mr. Biden’s age and mental fitness for the presidency, and ultimately spearheaded the effort to pressure him into stepping aside. Amusingly, the story makes clear that Schumer’s concern wasn’t over Biden’s ability to do the job.
For months, Mr. Schumer had been concerned that Mr. Biden was going to lose to Mr. Trump and cost Democrats Congress. It wasn’t that he thought Mr. Biden was not capable of the job. During their weekly conversations, the president often rambled, but he had always rambled. Once in a while, Mr. Biden would forget why he had called, but Mr. Schumer thought little of it. He was convinced that Mr. Biden could handle the job. According to the story, Republican attacks about Biden being old and senile were just too much to overcome—even though the mainstream media was rabidly pushing the Democratic Party line.
“Long before the president’s disastrous debate performance, Mr. Schumer had privately concluded that the barrier of Mr. Biden’s age was too much for him to overcome,” the report says. The debate wound up being “a gift” in the eyes of Chuck Schumer, because it became “a forcing mechanism to start an overdue discussion about the president’s political viability.” As concerns mounted over President Biden’s ability to continue his campaign, Biden continued to refuse to step aside, sending a defiant letter on July 8 declaring his intention to stay in the race, angering congressional Democrats. At a tense July 11 meeting, frustrated senators demanded proof of Biden’s fitness, with some warning their silence would soon end.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told Mr. Biden’s aides that the silence from the majority of Democratic senators should not be interpreted as a sign of support. It was out of respect and affection to allow Mr. Biden time to gracefully exit the race, but it would not last forever, he said, because if they continued to vouch for his fitness, they would be “lying.”. As support from the caucus was crumbling, Schumer ultimately was the one who went to Biden’s beach house to “deliver his own blunt message.” Mr. Schumer said if he had even a 50 percent chance of winning, he would probably keep going. “Fifty-fifty, to do this, to stay here; it’s worth it,” he said. “But, Mr. President, you’re not getting the information as to what the chances are.”
When he asked whether Mr. Biden had talked to his pollsters about his chances of winning the race, the president shook his head. “Well, I have talked to them,” Mr. Schumer said. “My guess is you have about a 5 percent chance. None of your pollsters disagree with me.” Only twice did Mr. Biden interrupt to ask a question, and both times it was: “Do you really think Kamala can win?” Mr. Schumer said that he didn’t know, but that she had a far better chance than Mr. Biden did. (Mr. Biden has since made it clear that he disagrees. In an interview with USA Today, the president said of whether he could have defeated Mr. Trump: “It’s presumptuous to say that, but I think yes.”) […] At the time, Mr. Biden revealed little of his own thinking, but he did not argue, and he did not shout. “I need a week,” was all he said.
Calin Georgescu rightfully has a huge grievance against what passes for “Western democracy.” He is the clear first-round winner in the Presidential elections held in Romania late last year. Yet his projected even more resounding victory in the second round, scheduled for early December 2024, was scrapped (as the BBC indelicately put it) following a Romanian Supreme Court ruling that the electoral process was marred by alleged hybrid warfare interference conducted by Russia on Georgescu’s behalf.
How do you “scrap” elections in a vibrant democracy such as Romania, which also happens to be a member in good standing of NATO and the European Union, which are bastions of liberal freedoms and the rule of law? Well, you do it by making up a bogus dossier on the political candidate that you dislike and by ordering the local judiciary to act on it as if it were genuine evidence. The dossier purporting to document the alleged interference was so patently phony that at its first sitting to consider the matter the Romanian Supreme Court dismissed it out of hand. This show of integrity did not sit well at all with the paladins of the rules-based order. So they ordered the judges to reassemble forthwith in their chambers and to get it right this time. On 6 December the distinguished Romanian jurists did just that and obediently reversed their ruling issued just four days previously.
Citing Article 146 (f) of the Romanian Constitution concerning the legality and correctness of the presidential elections, the Court ordered that the “entire electoral process will be integrally redone.” So the result of the first round was duly “scrapped” and along with it the second round as well. The second round, which was in progress as the judges hurriedly improvised their new ruling, was stopped in its tracks. As even the Atlantic Council, no friend of elections which go the wrong way, was compelled to admit “the rollout of the decision was somewhat fumbled, as it became public while polling stations were already open for the [Romanian] diaspora in the second-round presidential election, and by the time the process was stopped, around 53,000 citizens abroad had already voted.” Scrapped just in time, because the Romanian diaspora was known to be a hotbed of Georgescu supporters.
The Presidential election was set by the judges for an unspecified date in the future. Some rumours suggest that it might be in May of this year, or whenever it is that the stage can be prepared to ensure the right outcome. In the meantime, Klaus Iohannis, who should have relinquished his post in December to his successor, is now as legally “expired” as his Ukrainian colleague Zelensky. But that does not seem to bother any of the vociferous champions of the democratic process. Iohannis after all is their man. The Romanian public, however, do not seem to take kindly to electoral interference by the compliant judges and their string-pullers, who are widely suspected of being located abroad but not in Russia. Thousands have been marching in the streets of Bucharest and other major cities to oppose the cancellation of the elections.
How much good it will do them in a country that has embraced the principles of Western democracy remains to be seen. The protagonist of this political earthquake who was not permitted to democratically establish his credentials as the new President of Romania, Calin Georgescu, ever since his first-round triumph has been subjected to the full measure of calumny that is reserved for those whom the globalist system perceives as a non-team-player and a threat. The hope was evidently that he would be successfully discredited and simply fade away, allowing the charade of “democratic elections” with a prearranged outcome to be repeated whenever it is judged safe to do so.
Expectedly, the Georgescu affair with its scandalous implications has been largely ignored by the collective West media, except for a few derogatory observations here and there at the banned candidate’s expense. The Georgescu story might have died a quiet death but for the professionalism of American podcaster Shawn Ryan, who decided to perform a public service by travelling to Romania to find out first-hand what the electoral commotion was all about. The result was a remarkable interview with the man who by all reasonable estimates should be sitting today in the Presidential office in Bucharest. It is worth viewing carefully and in its entirety for the insights it affords into the sombre times in which we happen to live.
EcoHealth Alliance, the nonprofit that Dr. Anthony Fauci used to offshore risky gain-of-function research 6 months before the Obama administration banned it, has finally been cut off by the US Government – along with its former president, Peter Daszak, for a period of five years following scrutiny over its work in Wuhan, China ahead of the Covid-19 pandemic. The decision by the Department of Health and Human Services was based on findings by the House Oversight Committee, which announced on Friday that EcoHealth and Daszak had been disbarred. “Justice for the American people was served today,” said Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) in a statement.
“Bad actor EcoHealth Alliance and its corrupt former President, Dr. Peter Daszak, were formally debarred by HHS for using taxpayer funds to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in China. Today’s decision is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide.” EcoHealth funding had been suspended in May by HHS, which recommended a permanent ban on funding the nonprofit. “Given that a lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely origin of COVID-19, EcoHealth and its former President should never again receive a single cent from the U.S. taxpayer,” Comer continued. As journalist Paul Thacker noted in June, the NIH lied about EcoHealth’s gain-of-function research, feeding lies to reporters, while lying to Congress.
Meanwhile, former NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci ‘prompted’ the fabrication of a paper by a cadre of scientists aimed at disproving the Covid-19 lab-leak theory. According to US Right to Know, emails obtained in 2020 revealed that a statement in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit group that has received millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funding to genetically manipulate coronaviruses with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The emails obtained via public records requests show that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak drafted the Lancet statement, and that he intended it to “not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person” but rather to be seen as “simply a letter from leading scientists”.
To review; The US was doing risky gain-of-function research on US soil until 2014, when the Obama administration banned it. Four months before the ban, Dr. Fauci offshored it to Wuhan, China through New York nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance. After Sars-CoV-2 broke out down the street from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Fauci engaged in a massive campaign to deny the possibility of a lab-leak from the lab he funded, and instead pin the blame on a yet-to-be discovered zoonotic intermediary species.
President Donald Trump will become the first president since Ronald Reagan in 1985 to be sworn in indoors, breaking from the traditional outdoor inaugural ceremony. Reagan’s second inauguration was moved to the Capitol Rotunda due to brutal weather conditions, with temperatures dropping to 7°F and a windchill of -25°F.
Similarly, President Trump announced on Friday that his inauguration would take place indoors at the Capitol Rotunda, citing forecasts of severe winter weather. Temperatures in Washington, D.C., are expected to hover in the upper 20s on Monday, accompanied by ferocious winds that could make outdoor conditions unsafe for attendees. The indoor ceremony will include Trump’s inaugural address, along with prayers and speeches, offering a more controlled and comfortable setting amid the harsh weather.
WATCH: President Trump to Become First President Since Reagan Sworn in Indoors |
President Donald Trump will become the first president since Ronald Reagan in 1985 to be sworn in indoors, breaking from the traditional outdoor inaugural ceremony.
Senator @joniernst: "So Governor, how do you plan to prioritize the detention and deportation of illegal immigrants like Sarah's killer?"
DHS Secretary-designate @KristiNoem: "The number one priority of the President is to secure the border and to deport these criminal actors… pic.twitter.com/ga1Vneesm3
🚨Mike Davis CONFIRMS President Trump will release Crossfire Hurricane records:
"They know when he gets back into the White House, he's going to finish the job. He will make those declassified Crossfire Hurricane records public… that's what they are terrified of." pic.twitter.com/6PLHZIkVYm
It’s been six months since the Butler assassination attempt and we still know nothing about the man who shot Donald Trump, much less why he was allowed to do it. That should make you nervous. Sean Davis explains.
.@realDonaldTrump wants to make L.A. great again — but after years of Democrat incompetence, he has his work cut out for him. A bombshell report reveals how California leaders let the wildfires get this bad. Officials were warned the fires were coming, but they refused to deploy… pic.twitter.com/zUzEJxJV41
The big “inflection point” in the Gaza talks came last week, Jan 10, when Trump, on Truth Social, without any comment, posted a video of Jeffrey Sachs labeling Netanyahu a “deep, dark son of a bitch”. That’s how Trump let Bibi know.
Hamas and Israel have been able to remove the roadblocks to the comprehensive ceasefire deal reached earlier this week, the Palestinian group has said. In a statement on Friday, Hamas said that “the obstacles that arose due to the occupation’s failure to abide by the terms of the ceasefire agreement were resolved at dawn today.” It did not elaborate on the nature of the hurdles, but noted that “the movement sought a national exchange deal from all factions and members of our people.” The group added that it became possible thanks to “generous efforts of the mediators.” While it did not name the countries, Qatar and Egypt have been particularly deeply involved in facilitating the peace process. The group also noted it would soon publish the lists of Palestinian prisoners to be freed as part of the first phase of the exchange deal.
On Wednesday, Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire in a bid to end their 15-month conflict in Gaza, which has claimed the lives of over 1,100 Israelis and 46,000 Palestinians.The deal, which was mediated by Qatar, Egypt, and the US, is split into three phases. During the first phase, which is to last 42 days, Hamas expected to release 33 hostages, including children, female soldiers, wounded and sick, in exchange for an unspecified number of Palestinians. The latter stages, which have not yet been worked out in detail, will presumably see the release of the remaining hostages and Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, according to US President Joe Biden. Following the announcement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas of backtracking on parts of the agreement and trying to “extort last-minute concessions.” Hamas has stressed it remains committed for the deal while accusing West Jerusalem of launching an attack on “a place where one of the female prisoners of the first stage of the ceasefire deal was located.”
On Saturday, Gaza ceasefire talks were down to the wire, and President-elect Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy wanted to hash out the deal once and for all with Benjamin Netanyahu, but the Israeli leader’s office said he could not be roused during Shabbat. Steve Witkoff allegedly gave a “salty” reply, making it clear he didn’t care if it was the Sabbath, the Jewish day of rest. In the words of one report from Haaretz, Witkoff said Trump expected Israel to agree to the ceasefire, and “things that Netanyahu had termed life-and-death issues…suddenly vanished”. So, who is Witkoff, Trump’s new man in the Middle East?
Witkoff is a Republican and a billionaire Jewish-American real estate developer. His soft, slightly nasally voice masks his reputation as a hard-charging negotiator who developed the nerve for leveraged loans as a teenager betting at the racetrack. When he was starting off in the cut-throat world of New York City real estate in the 1990s, he wore a handgun strapped to his ankle, according to a Wall Street Journal expose from the time. Witkoff has been praised for pushing the ceasefire across the finish line. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim al-Thani credited him in a speech announcing the deal on Wednesday, albeit one usurped by Trump’s earlier proclamation that an “EPIC” ceasefire had been reached. It is important to note that Witkoff was mentioned before the sitting Biden administration’s envoy, Brett McGurk.
The New Yorker turned south Floridian has no official training as a diplomat and his appointment epitomises Trump’s disdain for traditional bureaucrats and policy wonks, who are steeped in area expertise and boast graduate degrees in international relations but lack private sector experience. “We have people that know everything about the Middle East, but they can’t speak properly…he is a great negotiator,” Trump said at a press conference in January, praising his friend. There, Trump reiterated his now infamous pledge that “all hell will break out” in the Middle East if the hostages held in Gaza were not freed by the time he takes office on 20 January. “You know what that means, do I have to define it for you,” he barked at a journalist, who pressed for details.
[..] Witkoff doesn’t speak much in public, but when he does, he is measured and deliberate. Appearing on Fox News in January, he said Trump’s “strong stance, his certitude in asserting that ‘all hell would break loose’ is moving people”, when asked about the ceasefire talks. He added: “They (the hostages) are living in terrible conditions, and it’s time for everybody to come back.” His remark that “There will be plenty of Palestinians who will be released as a result of this and they will go home to their families,” did not elicit a response from Fox News host Sean Hannity. With Trump saying he will use the hostage deal to expand the 2020 Abraham Accord agreements, Witkoff is likely set to delve deeper into the world of Gulf politics and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
He has also said he wants to solve tensions with Iran over a nuclear weapon “diplomatically…if people are willing to adhere to their agreements”, but, ever the negotiator, he did not show too much of his hand: “We are not going to have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”
US President-elect Donald Trump has announced that he will give his inauguration speech inside the Capitol, citing the extremely cold weather that could be dangerous to his supporters and security personnel alike. US presidents traditionally take their oath of office outside the Capitol, with a crowd of onlookers stretching down the National Mall. “January 20th cannot come fast enough!” Trump said on Friday in a post on his Truth Social platform. “It is my obligation to protect the People of our Country but, before we even begin, we have to think of the Inauguration itself.” Trump cited the “Arctic blast” sweeping the US and the weather forecast for Monday in Washington calling for “severe record lows” with wind chill, to argue that this would create dangerous conditions for “hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours,” as well as police and their service dogs and horses.
With that in mind, the president-elect said, the inauguration address, prayers and other speeches will be delivered inside the Capitol Rotunda, just as President Ronald Reagan did in 1985, also because of the cold. “This will be a very beautiful experience for all, and especially for the large TV audience!” Trump said in the social media post. “In any event, if you decide to come, dress warmly!” he added. The ceremony will be broadcast live from the nearby Capital One Arena, the basketball and hockey venue about six streets away. The venue has already been reserved for Trump’s Victory Rally on Sunday afternoon, and he said he intends to join the crowd there on Monday, after he takes the oath of office. “Everyone will be safe, everyone will be happy, and we will, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” the president-elected said.
For much of US history, presidents who won the election in early November would have to wait until March 4 of the following year to be sworn in. The 20th Amendment, enacted in 1933, moved the inauguration date to January 20. The ceremony is traditionally attended by members of Congress, justices of the US Supreme Court, and former presidents and their spouses, along with foreign ambassadors and any special guests invited by the new US leader. A number of Americans who receive special tickets through their members of Congress are allowed to enter the designated area of the Capitol grounds to observe the inauguration, while the general public can congregate at the National Mall, where the ceremony is usually broadcast on large screens. President Joe Biden’s 2021 inauguration was carried out with tens of thousands of National Guard troops around the Capitol and no members of the public allowed, as the incoming administration claimed there was a risk of an “insurrection” due to a riot by Trump supporters at the same location two weeks prior.
Authorities in Washington DC are scanning for “nuclear irregularities” while the Secret Service preps for “worst case scenarios” as security preparations kick into high gear ahead of the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump. Trump will be sworn in for his second term in office on Monday, January 20th. A report by CBS News reveals how Department of Energy helicopters are flying in grid patterns around the city from only 150 feet in the air in order to “scan for radiological or nuclear irregularities.” Officials are attempting to map a “blueprint” of normal radiation readings over Washington in order to detect anything unusual like potential dirty bombs. Any slight variation in readings sets off an alarm which is then investigated by the pilots. The U.S. Secret Service, which has faced criticism for its previous lax security measures around Trump, is also roleplaying “worst case scenarios” that could interrupt the inauguration process.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1880078644644855900
According to Assistant Special Agent in Charge Michael Thomas, security measures for Trump’s inauguration will eclipse anything previously seen. This includes the presence of 25,000 law enforcement officers and military personnel, including 7,800 National Guard soldiers. 30 miles of ‘anti-scale’ fencing around the site of the inauguration will also provide a “ring of steel” to protect the event and its 250,000 attendees. More than 25 Coast Guard vessels are also in position to patrol the area. During last month’s concern over mystery drones seen flying around the United States, one theory was that the drones were being flown by the U.S. Military to scan for missing nuclear material. Trump continues to face a heightened threat after facing three assassination attempts over the last 6 months, with some of his supporters urging him to not even attend the inauguration in person.
Governors in multiple states plan to raise U.S. flags at state facilities for President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. President Joe Biden ordered flags flown at half-mast nationwide after former President Jimmy Carter’s death on Dec. 29. The traditional 30-day mourning period will overlap with Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20. Trump said he wants flags flying high for his return to the White House. In addition to some governors, House Speaker Mike Johnson ordered that flags at the U.S. Capitol fly at full-staff for Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20. Most of the governors raising flags are Republicans, but California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a prominent Democrat, has joined in with an order for his state to raise flags for the inauguration, according to a Fox News report.
Biden was asked if he would raise the flags for his rival’s inauguration, but his press secretary said last week that Biden had no plans to do so. Idaho Gov. Brad Little ordered U.S. and Idaho flags at half-mast after Carter’s death, but said flags should go back to the top of the pole from sunrise to sunset on Jan. 20 for Trump’s inauguration. North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong also directed the U.S. and North Dakota flags to be flown at full staff on Jan. 20 at the North Dakota Capitol and all state buildings in celebration of the inauguration. Armstrong said the state should honor both men. “The inauguration of a U.S. president is a time to celebrate, and the Stars and Stripes should fly high as a symbol of freedom and democracy on such a momentous day for our nation,” Armstrong said.
“We will continue to honor the life and legacy of President Carter, as we should, by returning flags to half-staff on Jan. 21 as a mark of respect and reverence.” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who was on the receiving end of Trump’s mockery for more than a year during his presidential run, said his state also can honor both presidents. In a memo, DeSantis called it a “unique occasion, where we simultaneously celebrate the service of an incoming president and commend the service of a former president.”
Alabama will also raise flags for the inauguration. Gov. Kay Ivey ordered flags returned to full staff “on the grounds of the Alabama State Capitol Complex in Montgomery and at state buildings throughout Alabama” on Jan. 20. Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott have issued similar flag proclamations for Trump’s big day. Trump previously criticized Biden’s flag decision and the Democrats who support it. “The Democrats are all ‘giddy’ about our magnificent American Flag potentially being at ‘half mast’ during my Inauguration,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in a recent post. “They think it’s so great, and are so happy about it because, in actuality, they don’t love our Country, they only think about themselves.”
US President-elect Donald Trump has spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping by phone. According to Trump, the two leaders discussed trade, fentanyl, and the impending sale or shutdown of TikTok. “I just spoke to Chairman Xi Jinping of China,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Friday, adding that “the call was a very good one for both China and the USA.” “It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together, and starting immediately. We discussed balancing Trade, Fentanyl, TikTok, and many other subjects,” Trump continued. “President Xi and I will do everything possible to make the World more peaceful and safe!” Chinese state media confirmed that the call had taken place, but provided no further details.
Trump and Xi have not spoken since the end of Trump’s first term in 2021. Relations between Washington and Beijing were strained during the president-elect’s first stint in the White House, with the US sanctioning Chinese tech giant Huawei and sparking a trade war by setting tariffs on Chinese imports. Trump has also accused China of failing to crack down on the export of fentanyl – a deadly synthetic opioid – to the US, and has vowed to levy an additional 10% tariff on all Chinese imports until Beijing “follows through” on punishing fentanyl dealers and manufacturers. The call took place two days before TikTok is set to go dark for millions of American users. Legislation signed by President Joe Biden last year requires ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, to divest from its US operations by January 19, 2025, or be blocked from US internet infrastructure and app stores.
The US Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on TikTok’s appeal against the law, while Trump – who credits the app with helping him win the youth vote in November – is reportedly mulling an executive order to delay the enforcement of the ban. Despite Trump’s multiple grievances with Beijing, the incoming president has repeatedly boasted of his “special relationship” with Xi. Trump invited Xi to his inauguration, and while the Chinese president will not attend Monday’s ceremony, the Chinese Foreign Ministry announced on Friday that Vice President Han Zheng will travel to Washington to watch Trump be sworn in. “We stand ready to work with the new US government to enhance dialogue and communication, properly manage differences, expand mutually beneficial cooperation, jointly pursue a stable, healthy and sustainable China-US relations and find the right way for the two countries to get along with each other,” a ministry spokesperson said.
US President-elect Donald Trump has said that he will make a decision on whether to enforce a ban on TikTok in the country “in the not too distant future,” after the Supreme Court upheld a law blocking the app, should its Chinese parent company not sell to an American firm by Sunday. In a decision announced on Friday, the court’s nine justices all agreed that Congress did not violate the US Constitution’s protection of free speech when it ordered the sale of the app last year. “There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement and source of community. But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary,” the court said, referring to a presumed threat from China.
While enforcement of the ban will fall on the last full day of President Joe Biden’s term in office, a White House official told multiple US media outlets on Friday that the decision would be left to Trump, who will be inaugurated on Monday. “The Supreme Court decision was expected, and everyone must respect it,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Friday. “My decision on TikTok will be made in the not too distant future, but I must have time to review the situation. Stay tuned!” Trump – who credits the app with helping him win the youth vote in November – is mulling an executive order to delay the ban coming into effect, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
During his first term, Trump attempted to ban TikTok, citing national security risks due to its Chinese ownership. However, during his recent presidential campaign he changed his mind, stating: “For all of those who want to save TikTok in America, vote for Trump. The other side is closing it up, but I’m now a big star on TikTok.” TikTok has repeatedly denied allegations that it shares user data with the Chinese government. Commenting on existing TikTok bans for government employees in the US, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has accused the US of “abusing state power to suppress foreign companies.” Trump reportedly met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last month. Shou will attend Trump’s inauguration on Monday, as will Chinese Vice President Han Zheng.
Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Egede has rejected Donald Trump’s proposal to buy the Arctic island, asserting that Greenlanders do not want to be Americans. However, the Danish autonomous territory will always remain “a strong partner” of the US, he added. In an interview with FOX News on Thursday, Egede addressed Trump’s renewed interest in “acquiring” Greenland from Denmark, citing national security concerns. “We are close neighbors, we have been cooperating in the last 80 years, and I think in the future we have a lot to offer to cooperate with,” Egede said, insisting that Greenland would always be a part of NATO and “a strong partner of the US.” “But we want to… be clear. We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be a part of the US,” the prime minister emphasized.
He said islanders “do not want to be Danes” either. “We want to be Greenlanders,” he added. Trump had initially suggested buying Greenland from Denmark in 2019 during his first presidential term, but the ambitious plan fell short at the time due to strong opposition from the authorities both in Copenhagen and in the autonomous territory. Earlier this month, speaking at a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, the president-elect refused to rule out using economic measures or military action to achieve this goal.Officials in Denmark have also rejected the possibility of selling the island. “Greenland is not for sale and will not be in the future either,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said earlier this month.
The Arctic island, which has a population of around 57,000, hosts the US Pituffik Space Base, which plays a significant role in NATO defenses due to its strategic location. Greenland became an autonomous territory of Denmark in 1979 after 70.1% of voters supported the Home Rule Act. The island – which has its own government while Denmark retains control over foreign affairs and defense – has been gradually seeking more sovereignty. A 2019 poll suggested that nearly 68% of Greenlanders supported independence from Denmark within the next two decades.
Greenland has captivated the world’s attention amid Donald Trump’s remarks about acquiring the island, and statements by authorities in Nuuk and Copenhagen that Greenland is “not for sale.” Sputnik reached out to a top pro-sovereignty MP in Prime Minister Mute Egede’s coalition to learn more about what Greenland wants, and how it plans to get it. Denmark “de facto annexed Greenland in 1951” and lied to Brussels about the existence of the island’s Inuit peoples, and it will be up to Greenlanders to choose their future in a referendum with up to five possible options, Kuno Fencker, a pro-independence Siumut Party lawmaker in Prime Minister Egede’s ruling coalition government, told Sputnik. The options are: keeping the status quo, new commonwealth status with Denmark, or a free association arrangement with Copenhagen, Washington, or both, Fencker, a member of the Greenland parliament’s Foreign and Security Policy Committee, explained.
Greenland is “absolutely are aware that we can’t be fully independent,” Fencker said. “We are looking positively in regards to how can we become a sovereign state that can cooperate with other states,” he noted, emphasizing that in today’s world, even Denmark itself isn’t independent from the political, economic and defense institutions it’s engaged in. The current relationship with Denmark doesn’t suit Greenlanders, Fencker stressed, pointing out that Trump’s recent threats to use tariffs to pressure Copenhagen into submission on the question of Greenland “is actually not that much different [from] from what Denmark is doing to us.” Specifically, “every time we want independence or statehood, they will fearmonger us in regard to taking away the block [grant] right for Greenland and our right to education and healthcare in Denmark.”
Greenland “has always been an important geopolitical factor, and it’s always been important” to the US with its Pituffik Space Base in the island’s northwest, Fencker said. “With the melting ice of Greenland, we absolutely are aware” that the US will seek to shore up its military and intelligence capabilities. An independent Greenland will therefore “require payment for any military presence in Greenland,” the lawmaker said. Ultimately, Greenland’s “value” in relations with partners “is not something you can put money on, but we are absolutely open for business and open for negotiations on how we as a sovereign state can cooperate with the other states on equal terms,” Fencker emphasized. “We are rising up here in Greenland again and we want our right to external self-determination…We want to become a sovereign state, which is non-negotiable, which you can also say [means] we are not for sale.” the lawmaker summed up.
President-elect Trump’s talk of acquiring Greenland from Denmark has reignited pro-independence passions on the island ahead of parliamentary elections scheduled for April. Polling in 2016 and 2019 found that up to two thirds of Greenlanders support independence, although a 2017 survey found that the majority is not ready to sacrifice living standards for the sake of independence. The question of whether Copenhagen gets more back from Greenland than it pays in the form of subsidies has been hotly debated. Despite being ruled by Denmark from the early 18th century, Greenland’s living standards and quality of life measures remain significantly lower than those of Denmark, with the island suffering higher unemployment, higher poverty levels, and average lifespan that’s nearly 8 years shorter.
Trump’s litmus test awaits him on the Oval Office desk. The litmus test is the pardon for every one of the wrongly indicted and wrongly prosecuted January 6 Trump supporters–which means all of them–who attended the rally and were persecuted for doing so. If Trump fails to immediately issue a full and unconditional pardon to all, he will lose the support of MAGA Americans. If Trump waits, the Establishment will erode the prospects of pardons. “Don’t embarrass Justice Department prosecutors and create an unwelcome environment for the new Attorney General.” “Let bygones be bygones.” “Let sleeping dogs lie.” Crises will appear. More urgent topics will pile on top of the pardons.
To help Trump stand by his supporters, Gary Heavin is working with American Patriot Relief, a 501(c)4 foundation and has marshaled private jet airplanes to return to their homes the pardoned from prisons located at great distances from their homes. Volunteers will be waiting outside 75 prisons in 35 states to deliver the J6 patriots to their homes. In cases where imprisonment caused the loss of their homes, housing will be provided until they are back on their feet. Some have suffered so severely at the hands of the most evil regime in American history that permanent care might be needed. The project will work with other January 6 support groups such as J6 Pardon Project, American Gulag Chronicles, Stophate, J6 A Road Home, Stand In The Gap, Patriot Mail Project, Condemned USA. Gary Heavin describes the support efforts that are in place in yesterday’s appearance on Ron Paul’s program.
All of us can be part of this historic event of overturning government injustice by donating here: http://givesendgo.com/FREEDOMSAMBASSADOR. This is not a political fundraiser. All funds go to the aid of the persecuted J6 Americans. In my view, full pardon for all is just one-third of what needs to be done. Another one-third is restitution for all expenses, lost income, and stress from being wrongly prosecuted and locked away from family, friends, and career in prison. In some cases the vile Democrats imprisoned the wrongly convicted great distances from their communities, thus depriving them of support from visits from family and friends. Some were kept in solidary confinement. Others were tortured. There is some concern that prison officials will have “misplaced” some of the wrongly convicted in order to hold on to them longer while they look for where they relocated them with confusing transfers. The vileness of Democrats has no limit.
The remaining one-third is actually the most important one-third. The DOJ, FBI, and White House officials responsible for the indictments, prosecutions, and imprisonments must be indicted, prosecuted and sentenced. By weaponizing law for propaganda and political purposes and by using false indictments for the purpose of suppressing the powerful evidence of massive vote fraud in the 2020 presidential election, high law enforcement officials committed felonies. They must be held accountable for their crimes. Otherwise, legal precedents are created that are fateful for democracy, the rule of law, and accountable government. Once precedents are established that high officials have immunity for using law not to enforce justice but to create injustice, the rule of law and accountable government cease to exist. How can Trump permit the government officials who intentionally framed innocent people for political and propaganda purposes to walk away unpunished?
The Biden regime is the most corrupt regime in American history, and Biden knows it. That is why he talks of large numbers of “preemptive pardons.” A preemptive pardon is an invention of the Biden regime. No such thing exists in US law. Its purpose is to preempt indictment for a crime. That Biden is considering preemptive pardons means that Biden knows his officials committed crimes, and he wants to protect them from being held accountable for their crimes. Remember the vile and corrupt way the majority of the J6 convictions were obtained. Of course, it was with politicized Democrat jurors, politicized Democrat prosecutors, and politicized Democrat judges in Democrat jurisdictions who understood that they were serving their party’s political propaganda and not justice.
But I am speaking of the methods. The privacy of American citizens was violated in order to ascertain who attended the rally. Once a victim was chosen, a rigged indictment was brought. Prosecutors made it clear to the victim and attorney that contesting the charges in court with a trial would result in an add-on charge that carries a long prison sentence, whereas if they agreed to self-incrimination with a plea deal, prison time would be waived or greatly reduced. All the Democrats wanted was a bunch of “convictions” to support the propaganda of insurrection. Faced with the risks of a trial at the hands of Democrats and the cost of attorneys, most of the falsely accused self-incriminated. This abuse of law and defendants has become the main avenue of conviction in America today.
Only about 3% of the convicted are convicted by a jury of their peers. 97% are convicted by self-incrimination to avoid the risks and expense of a court trial. Consequently, the evidence against the defendant is never tested in court. The police and prosecutors can make up whatever charge they wish as they know the defendant will not have his day in court. In most cases the defendant will admit to a different crime than the one he is indicted under, neither one of which will actually have been committed. Plea bargains save the prosecutor’s and judge’s time, maximize the prosecutor’s conviction rate which he uses for reelection or to move into higher office, and reduces prison time and cost for the defendant. As I demonstrated in my book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, the American “justice system” is corrupt and desperately requires reform.
The reform of this corrupt system would be far more important to the American people than Washington helping Israel achieve Greater Israel or the enhancement of the military/security complex’s power and profits with wars wherever Washington can invent an excuse. The American government is far removed from the interests of the American people. Perhaps Trump will take a first step with an immediate full pardon of all J6 American patriots. Making America Great Again does not mean expansion of the empire into Canada, Greenland, and Panama. It means the restoration of justice in the legal system and the restoration of respect for the truth. Without truth and justice, neither of which exists in today’s America, America cannot be made great again.
The loss of Russian gas could cost the EU over €1 trillion ($1 trillion), according to Kirill Dmitriev, chief executive of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF). Speaking at the Future Minerals Forum in Saudi Arabia on Thursday, Dmitriev said the EU’s economic growth had slowed significantly since halting Russian gas imports, while Russia’s economy continues to demonstrate resilience. Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, the EU prioritized reducing its reliance on Russian energy. Some members voluntarily stopped importing Russian gas, while others, such as Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Italy, continued gas imports from the country. However, these flows ceased earlier this month after Kiev refused to renew its gas transit deal with Moscow.
“Europe is suffering from not receiving Russian gas, with expected losses of more than €1 trillion,” Dmitriev stated. He previously attributed these losses to the high cost of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which the EU has imported in greater quantities to replace Russian supplies. Dmitriev added that neither losing the EU as a gas buyer, nor sanctions aimed at destabilizing the Russian economy, have had a significant effect on it, while the EU has borne the brunt of the economic fallout. “The Russian economy is in good shape, with growth expected at 4% by the end of 2024, while Europe showed 1% or less.
If one looks at the overall attempts to limit the Russian economy, 4% growth does not look so bad,” he said. The RDIF chief projected a potential slowdown in Russia’s growth to 2-2.5% next year but stressed that the outcome would depend on the central bank’s monetary policies, which he described as “critical for the continued growth of the Russian economy.” Despite extensive international sanctions placed on Russia in connection with the Ukraine conflict over the past three years, the country’s economy has adapted effectively, according to many observers.
The IMF recently raised its 2024 growth forecast for Russia to 3.6%. In contrast, the body downgraded its growth outlook for the euro area to 0.8%. The EU, meanwhile, has been facing sluggish economic growth and energy challenges. The loss of Russian gas has forced member states to turn to more expensive alternative energy sources, and the shift has driven up costs for businesses and households, strained manufacturing sectors, and fueled inflation. The European Commission recently reduced its 2025 growth projection for the Eurozone to 1.3%. Germany, the bloc’s largest economy, recorded its second consecutive year of contraction in 2024, a first in over two decades, the federal statistics office Destatis revealed earlier this week.
I kid you not: Euroclear, where most Russian assets are held hostage, is located in Belgium. Now EU geniuses have found an 80-year old WWII decree that the Belgian king can evoke to block transfers of any assets out of the country.
There is no reason for the EU to drop its sanction “leverage” against Russia, the bloc’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has said as Hungary’s potential veto looms over their extension. Brussels has imposed 15 rounds of restrictive measures against Moscow since the Russia-Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022. Extending the sanctions past January 31, however, requires a unanimous vote by all EU member states. “We definitely need the sanctions in place. This is our leverage, and it would be very strange to give it away,” Kallas told reporters on Friday. “Things haven’t changed. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin hasn’t changed his goals and nothing has changed on the ground. So there is no basis for lifting the sanctions,” she added.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has refused to commit to extending the sanctions until he can discuss them with US President-elect Donald Trump, who is scheduled to be sworn in on Monday. In his weekly interview with Hungary’s Kossuth Radio on Friday, Orban argued that the EU needs to adapt to the fact that “a new era is beginning” with Trump coming back to the White House. “It is time to throw the sanctions out of the window and establish a system of sanctions-free relations with Russia,” he said. “That is a long way off, but we have to work on it.”
At the moment, however, “the signs coming from Brussels are not encouraging,” Orban added. Trump initially vowed to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict as soon as he takes office, but recent comments from his team have indicated a longer time frame. “Whatever the negotiations then we will be in a much weaker position” if the sanctions are lifted, Kallas argued. “I also don’t think that it’s in the interest of the US to give up the sanctions now.” The outgoing administration of President Joe Biden has tried to “Trump-proof” the sanctions by moving some of the targeted persons and entities from a blacklist declared by the executive branch to one enacted by Congress, with the goal of making them much harder to lift.
Kallas was the prime minister of Estonia before she was tapped to head the EU’s foreign policy division last fall. Along with the other two Baltic states and Poland, she took a hard line on Russia and in support of Ukraine. Meanwhile, Orban has called for peace talks, refused to provide any weapons or ammunition to Kiev, or allow military supplies through Hungarian territory. EU leaders are concerned that if Hungary succeeds in letting the sanctions expire, Russia could recover almost €200 billion ($205 billion) in frozen central bank assets held by the Belgium-based Euroclear. The bloc is reportedly considering having the Belgian king invoke a 1944 decree to block any transfer of assets from the country, putting Belgium in legal jeopardy rather than the EU.
President Joe Biden said on Jan. 17 that he is commuting the sentences of nearly 2,500 individuals, marking the largest single-day act of clemency in modern history. The latest pardons are being granted to people who were convicted of non-violent drug offenses and who are serving “disproportionately long” sentences compared to those they would receive today under current law, policy, and practice, Biden said in a statement published by the White House.Biden pointed to two pieces of legislation: the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the disparity in sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses from a weight ratio of 100 to 1 to 18 to 1, and the First Step Act of 2018, aimed at reducing the size of the federal prison population while promoting rehabilitation.
The previous weight ratio of 100 to 1 meant that 5 grams of crack cocaine, for example, was treated as equivalent to 500 grams of powder cocaine for sentencing purposes. “Today’s clemency action provides relief for individuals who received lengthy sentences based on discredited distinctions between crack and powder cocaine, as well as outdated sentencing enhancements for drug crimes,” Biden said. “As Congress recognized through the Fair Sentencing Act and the First Step Act, it is time that we equalize these sentencing disparities,” Biden said. With this latest action, Biden has now issued more individual pardons and commutations than any president in U.S. history. “This action is an important step toward righting historic wrongs, correcting sentencing disparities, and providing deserving individuals the opportunity to return to their families and communities after spending far too much time behind bars,” Biden said.
“I am proud of my record on clemency and will continue to review additional commutations and pardons.” In December 2024, Biden said he was pardoning 39 people and commuting the sentences of nearly 1,500 others who had been convicted of nonviolent crimes such as drug offenses. The president said at the time that these commutation recipients were placed in home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic and “have successfully reintegrated into their families and communities and have shown that they deserve a second chance.”
In a separate statement, the White House said many of those impacted by December’s pardons and commutation were parents, veterans, health care professionals, teachers, advocates, and engaged members of their communities who had “used their experiences in the criminal justice system to inspire and encourage others.” Also in December, Biden announced he was commuting the sentences of 37 of the 40 individuals on death row, reclassifying their penalty to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Biden has advocated for an end to the death penalty at the federal level in the United States except for limited cases of terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder. When he first took office, he imposed a moratorium on federal executions while the Justice Department reviewed policies and procedures surrounding the practice.
He commuted 37 sentences, leaving three federal inmates facing execution: 2013 Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; Dylann Roof, who shot and killed nine people at a church in South Carolina in 2015; and Robert Bowers, who fatally shot 11 congregants at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue in 2018. Earlier in December, Biden pardoned his son, Hunter Biden, who had been criminally convicted and was facing sentencing in two separate cases involving tax evasion and illegal possession of a firearm. Biden is set to leave office on Jan. 20. His successor, President-elect Donald Trump, has vowed to expand executions for federal inmates in order to “protect American families and children from violent rapists, murderers, and monsters” and restore law and order.
Outgoing US President Joe Biden reportedly thought about pardoning his successor, Donald Trump, before leaving office, NBC News has reported, citing a White House source. Trump faced a flurry of federal felony charges levied by Biden’s Department of Justice in the run-up to the 2024 election, which he described as political persecution intended to prevent him from returning to office. Biden “privately mused” about the idea of pardoning Trump after his victory in the 2024 election as “a magnanimous move,” NBC reported on Friday, citing a person “directly familiar” with his comments who wished to remain anonymous. However, a White House official said that “to our knowledge, this was not raised.” The federal cases against Trump had already become untenable after the US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity in July.
Trump went on to win the popular vote and the Electoral College in November, sweeping all swing states to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden officially won the 2020 election with the most-ever votes in US history. Trump contested the vote, claiming rampant irregularities under the cover of the Covid-19 pandemic measures. Biden initially pledged to be a one-term president and pass the job on to Harris, but ultimately decided to run for reelection. Democrats pressured him to bow out of the campaign in July after Trump survived an attempt on his life. Biden eventually endorsed Harris to replace him. According to NBC, he will leave office with “a nation divided, a party in tatters,” and Americans questioning his commitment to the rule of law. On Friday, Biden commuted the sentences of 2,500 drug offenders, arguing they were serving “disproportionately long sentences” under current laws.
“I have now issued more individual pardons and commutations than any president in US history,” he said in a statement. Biden’s most controversial pardon was granted to his son, Hunter, convicted last year of breaking federal gun and tax laws. The pardon covered offenses which Hunter “has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024,” a period that extends far beyond the time the gun and tax offenses took place and encompasses Hunter’s time on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma. Citing a trove of emails and messages found on Hunter’s laptop in 2020, Republicans accused Hunter of selling access to his father, who was US vice president at the time.
“Go back to Delaware and sit in the dim light of your room with the curtains drawn so you won’t have to hear about the gruesome discoveries to come of what you left behind.”
The four years of “Joe Biden’s” term-in-office that followed have induced the most severe disordering of the collective American mind in our history, lost in a fog of perfidious mendacity unmatched in scope by the Civil War, or any other national crisis. “Joe Biden’s” government went to war against the people of this land, at the same time it sold-out our vital national interests to the CCP, the WEF, the WHO, and other parties seeking our nation’s destruction. For years, we have been forced to swallow absurdities such as unsafe and ineffective vaccines, drag queens in the grade schools, borders wide-open to saboteurs (declared to be “secure”), and a stupid war against Russia that has destroyed the sad-sack nation of Ukraine.
“Joe Biden” has been a disaster and an embarrassment, easily the most damaging character to ever creep onto the US political scene. His one talent was for fakery. Even with sclerosis eating through his brain, he was able to go through the motions of faking it, reading his script off the teleprompter — though he was no longer up to casual questions in a news conference setting. The slime trail of crimes he leaves behind would be easy to follow by law enforcement officials actually interested in crime. He’s likely to pardon himself at the last moment, and pardon a long roster of federal officials who have committed crimes with and behind him. One way or another, they are going to be found out, even if many manage to evade prosecution. But at least we are going to learn a lot more about who was pulling “Joe’s” strings, and exactly what they did, and how — including the trick of making the news media hostage to their crimes.
So, adios, “Joe Biden,” you miserable, treasonous bastard. History will record you as the one president so far who was consciously a villain outright, in true self-knowledge of his own wickedness. You left your country a wreck in every dimension: in national security, national bankruptcy, national pride, and national confidence. Go back to Delaware and sit in the dim light of your room with the curtains drawn so you won’t have to hear about the gruesome discoveries to come of what you left behind. And when the day arrives for your funeral, be advised that it will not be much better than your campaign stop in Darby, PA, in June 2020, when you maundered pointlessly to a nearly empty room. . . before going out for ice cream with your secret service detail.
I’ve said before that Khan’s case is quite a lot like Trump’s. Just more. There are 170 legal cases against Khan, vs ‘only’ 94 against Trump. Now people want Trump to help him, but it’s not clear what he could do. He can get him free, but Khan’s enemies won’t let him stay in the country and pursue politics again. And that is what he swears he will do: “I will neither make any deal nor seek any relief.”
The unfortunate saga of Pakistani state persecution against former Prime Minister Imran Khan continues, as a Pakistani court on Friday sentenced Khan and this wife to 14 and seven years in prison after finding them guilty of corruption. He had already been held in jail for a couple years, despite many months of huge protests in various places by supporters demanding his release, after he and his wife were accused of accepting a gift of land from a real estate tycoon in exchange for laundered money, amid many additional pending graft investigations. Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party reject the allegations, and the former prime minister had pled non-guilty in the case. “Whilst we wait for a detailed decision, it’s important to note that the Al Qadir Trust case against Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi lacks any solid foundation and is bound to collapse,” PTI’s foreign media wing asserted in a statement.
PTI plans to challenge the verdict in higher courts, with Khan pledging after this conviction: “I will neither make any deal nor seek any relief.” Khan has meanwhile insisted that his arrest in 2023 was simply politically motivated, designed by his rivals and enemies to keep the popular politician from power. According to a review of the last couple years of turmoil which has gripped Pakistan over Khan’s fate: “While imprisoned, Khan has been facing dozens of cases ranging from charges of graft and misuse of power to inciting violence against the state after being removed from office in a parliamentary vote of confidence in April 2022. He has either been acquitted or his sentences suspended in most cases, except for this one and another on charges of inciting supporters to rampage through military facilities to protest against his arrest on May 9, 2023. His supporters have led several violent protest rallies since the May 9 incidents.”
During Trump’s first term in office, via AFP
He’s gotten some international support and backing amid the saga, with a United Nations panel of exports having announced last year that his detention “had no legal basis and appears to have been intended to disqualify him from running for political office”. Importantly, Khan’s supporters are expressing hope that Trump will use his influence to free him. According to the NY Times on Friday: Supporters of Imran Khan, the imprisoned former prime minister, are now pinning their hopes on getting him freed — however fanciful — on the wild card among the three: the incoming administration of Donald J. Trump. Mr. Trump has said nothing publicly to indicate that he plans to intervene in Mr. Khan’s case. Once he is sworn in as president on Monday, Pakistan is unlikely to rank high among Mr. Trump’s foreign policy priorities.
But a series of posts on social media by one of Mr. Trump’s close allies has inspired almost messianic certainty among Mr. Khan’s followers that the once and future American president will help secure his freedom. PTI had made a better than expected showing in February 2024 parliamentary elections and had decried that this was all a conspiracy to prevent his return to office by the military-run deep state. There are ultimately a whopping 170 legal cases against Khan. Current Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who emerged victorious in the last elections while Khan had languished in jail, was seen more as the “military’s man” in Islamabad, while Khan’s legacy has sought to be erased by those same elite powers.
One of the most important ideas that Lynch was very adamant on was the ability for viewers to intuit and interpret his work. You already have all that you need to understand it. pic.twitter.com/lEaQT2x1VT
If you thought Pete Hegseth schooled those emotional Demonrat Senators, wait till Robert F. Kennedy Jr. starts lecturing them about vaccines & the Big Pharma cartel.
They should cancel the confirmation hearing and just vote to give him the job to save themselves embarrassment. pic.twitter.com/3AS5fLRv86
I don't think Democrat Senators will even try to oppose her confirmation because she obliterated them the last time she showed up on the Senate floor to defend President Trump at his impeachment trial.
HOLY SMOKES: Pam Bondi Flips the Script on Senate Democrats asking about Weaponization of the DOJ and savages them over Political Persecution of Donald Trump
WATCH: Sheehy Exposes Democrats’ Desperate Smear Tactics Against Hegseth |
Senator Tim Sheehy (R-MT) torched the Democrats for their frenzied attempt to derail Pete Hegseth’s nomination through dishonest tactics, revealing their inability to confront their own failed policies… pic.twitter.com/i5GFYQurol
I interviewed a Los Angeles firefighter with 20+ years of service. The truths I found are harrowing. @GavinNewsom ordered the removal of @elonmusk from the command post, and ordered the Cal Fire firefighters to return all donated startlinks.
This what *real* conservatism is, not worshipping the GDP or virtue signaling about markets or foreign interests:
"If your system is making it impossible for my children to get married, then I'm totally happy to set your system on fire and blow it up. Because what is the point,… pic.twitter.com/PBz9195xhc
Israel and Hamas have struck a deal that sees all hostages released, US President-elect Donald Trump has announced “We have a deal for the hostages in the Middle East,” Trump posted on his TruthSocial platform on Wednesday. “They will be released shortly.” According to multiple media outlets, the agreement approved in Qatar involves a 42-day ceasefire and an exchange of prisoners, including all Israelis taken captive in the October 7, 2023 Hamas incursion from Gaza. “This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies,” Trump added in another post.
His national security team will “continue to work closely with Israel and our Allies to make sure Gaza NEVER again becomes a terrorist safe haven,” the president-elect added. “This is only the beginning of great things to come for America, and indeed, the World!” Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly joined the talks in Doha and played a key role in persuading the Israeli delegation to accept the deal. “This deal was achieved because of the help of many and demonstrates that a policy of peace through strength wins,” Witkoff told Israel’s Channel 12 on Wednesday. “Thank you to the Israeli negotiating teams, thank you to the Qataris, thank you to Egypt, thank you to the Biden administration, and most of all to Donald Trump, whose policy of peace through strength is the one that won.”
A “breakthrough” in the talks was said to have been reached early on Monday. Qatari ruler Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani has met with senior Hamas officials to persuade the Palestinian group to accept the agreement. Egyptian and Turkish intelligence chiefs also took part in the negotiations, along with the heads of Israel’s Mossad and Shin Bet.
BREAKING: Former Clinton ambassador Dennis Ross tells MSNBC that "the Donald Trump effect" was critical in brokering the Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage release agreement.
Even Israeli media is very clearly attributing achievement of the Gaza ceasefire deal to President-elect Donald Trump and his team. President Biden too at one point in an afternoon press conference hailing the deal acknowledged that he spoke as ‘one team’ with Trump on the Gaza deal. According to The Times of Israel: “A “tense” weekend meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and incoming Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff led to a breakthrough in the hostage negotiations, with the top aide to US President-elect Donald Trump doing more to sway the premier in a single sit-down than outgoing President Joe Biden did all year, two Arab officials told The Times of Israel on Tuesday. Witkoff has been in Doha for the past week to take part in the hostage negotiations, as mediators try to secure a deal before Trump’s January 20 inauguration. On Saturday, Witkoff flew to Israel for a meeting with Netanyahu at the premier’s Jerusalem office.
Biden's answer to a reporter asking about who will get credit for the Gaza deal, "Biden or Trump?"
During the meeting, Witkoff urged Netanyahu to accept key compromises necessary for an agreement, the two Arab officials on Monday told The Times of Israel on condition of anonymity. Neither Witkoff nor Netanyahu’s office responded to requests for comment”. As expected, Biden disagrees with this assessment… Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to make a public statement. Interestingly, Trump was the first leader to hail the deal, attributing it largely to his election victory in November and anticipation of his entering the Oval Office next Monday. But Biden chalked it up to his own diplomacy: “This deal will halt the fighting in Gaza, surge much-needed humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians and reunite the hostages with their families after more than 15 months in captivity,” he said in the statement.
The US president further said Wednesday’s agreement “not only of the extreme pressure that Hamas has been under and the changed regional equation after a ceasefire in Lebanon and weakening of Iran — but also of dogged and painstaking American diplomacy,” he says. “My diplomacy never ceased in their efforts to get this done.” Many political analysts, including Glenn Greenwald, would beg to differ. An initial Hamas statement is meanwhile celebrating this as a ‘win’ over the Israeli military machine, which has been unable to root out the Islamist insurgency in the strip. Words from Hamas leadership praised “the legendary steadfastness of the great Palestinian people and the valiant resistance in the Gaza Strip.” Hamas is for the first time coming out publicly in the streets of Gaza, as a deal finally looks legit at this point…
Still there are reports of intensified Israeli bombing in parts of Gaza, merely hours before the deal is expected to go into effect, which will see the release of hostages and an exchange for many dozens of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Meanwhile, Nassim Taleb makes a great point, stating on X that …with Kamala there is a near-certainty of more wars coupled with a lot of bullshit about “peace” initiatives. With Trump (rather, Trump-Vance) there is a possibility of peace coupled with loud saber rattling. Indeed, if the truce holds, it will likely go down in the history books as a victory for Trump’s early diplomacy. Progressives too have been wondering what took the Biden White House so long, given also that virtually the same deal was on the table previously this summer, and it collapsed. Israeli lawmakers and ministers are expected to vote on approving the deal on Thursday morning, but a lot can happen between now and then.
Andreessen: “He’s world-class at real estate and communications.” “He’s probably the first person in the world to be world-class in both things.” “He very deeply understands business.” “When Trump puts up one of these giant hotels, these are large-scale systems projects. There are many dimensions. A lot of things can go wrong. There’s technology change. You’ve got to manage these hands-on because they can always go sideways.” “He’s world-class at thinking things through systematically.” “There’s this video of him talking about the water situation in California on Joe Rogan six months ago. It’s one of those classic Trump things, where at the time, everybody’s like, why is he going on and on about the water situation in California?”
“And then, of course, LA is burning down in the last three days. And if you listen to what he talked about with the water situation in California. He is exactly 100% correct.” “In the first term, when he diagnosed the German energy situation at the United Nations. He said you will become dependent on Russian energy, and that will be a disaster for you, and it has been. It was an extremely precise, accurate, and prescient five-minute analysis of this system’s problem.” “In my energy conversation with him, he’s extremely sophisticated. The energy people that I know know that he’s sophisticated. So, he wraps his head around these things very quickly and easily.”
Marc Andreessen, the billionaire investor and co-founder of the influential Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, joined the host of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson (former Reagan speechwriter), to discuss his pivotal role in shaping Silicon Valley and politics. For decades, Andreessen has supported Democrats, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. However, a troubling 2024 spring meeting with Biden administration officials spooked the Silicon Valley entrepreneur. He said Biden officials explained their plan to control AI through government regulatory capture—a strategy reminiscent of Communist policies in China. Andreessen told Robinson that President-elect Donald Trump’s knowledge about problem-solving in business and energy is “extremely sophisticated” and “world-class on real estate and communications.”
NEW: Marc Andreessen praises Donald Trump as a world-class talent in real estate, communications, and systems thinking.
"He's world-class at real estate and communications."
"He's probably the first person in the world to be world-class in both things."
“My analysis would be he is world-class in real estate and on communications … and he’s world-class on both which is like probably the first person in the world to be world-class on both of those things, right? The real estate industry is not historically known for its great communicators,” Andreessen continued. Robinson and Andreessen also discussed Silicon Valley’s technological and political evolution, Andreessen’s shifting political alliances from Clinton, Obama, and Biden to MAGA, and his vision for harnessing cutting-edge technology to advance societal progress. They also addressed energy challenges, border security, and national defense. In particular, Robinson and Andreessen spoke about China’s manufacturing dominance. Andreessen explained:
“And I’ll just tell you where I’m worried right now, where the problem is compounding. So you mentioned the, sort of, iPhone assembly, and that’s a big deal. But basically, there’s three industries that sort of follow phones that are kicking in right now. So, one is drones. And it’s sort of in a bizarre turn of events, the Chinese basically own the global drone market for all, basically, the consumer drones, all the cheap drones. Which by the way, numerically then are the drones that all the militarys also use in overwhelming numbers. And something over 90% of all drones used by the US military are made in China. No, no, it gets worse, it gets worse, it gets worse, it gets worse before it gets. So the drone thing is not just a company, it’s an entire ecosystem. It’s all of the componentry.
“We have a drone company that’s been trying to compete with the Chinese company. Number one, the Biden FAA has been trying to kill us this entire time, trying to do all kinds of things to make sure that American drone companies can’t succeed as part of their war on tech. It’s literally just another in the long list of ways that they’ve been just trying to absolutely kill us. But two is, China has figured this out. And so, the US has been sanctioning AI chips going to China, China is now sanctioning, they sanction our drone company for the battery, [LAUGH] cuz the battery is made in China, right? And so they have like significant leverage, not just for the drones, but for the entire supply chain. By the way, the drone supply chain is very analogous to the car supply chain. A self driving electric car is very similar to a drone, or for that matter, to an iPhone. It’s an electrical mechanical device, but it’s a lot of the same kind of battery technology, chip technology, sensor technology.
So they now have their version of what the Germans used to have, which is sort of, the thousands of mid market companies that make all the parts that go into a car. But the German ecosystem is still making them for old internal combustion cars, the Chinese ecosystem is making them for electric cars and self driving cars. And of course, that means the new Chinese cars that are coming out are really good and they have a giant advantage on cost. And they are starting to bring to market cars that are equivalent in quality to western cars at a third or a fourth of price. So that’s coming. And then the big one that follows phones, drones, and cars, logically, is robots.
Robinson asked Andreessen: And the Chinese are ahead of us there? Andreessen responded: 100%, now, we have the leading, this is important, we have the leading software,like we have the leading R&D. Like, we have the smartest, I’m convinced we have like the smartest robotics AI people. We have the best people, specifically for the design of the systems, but we don’t have anything resembling the manufacturing capability at all. Andreessen noted that these technologies are upstream from all the military applications because they are intertwined in the same supply chains. He said the US must confront this and reverse the fragmented approach, where the Biden administration would “hate the domestic American technology industry and is trying to kill it” one day and then, on other days, “thinks we’re gonna somehow develop some sort of competitive response to China on cars or on weapons in the future.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1879396919107313836
The takeaway from the interview is clear: Trump 2.0 must craft a coherent, competitive response to advancing technology under an ‘America First’ agenda. This is in contrast to the radicals in the Biden-Harris regime, who focused on de-growth policies (under the guise of climate change) that have allowed China to advance ahead of the US. “What’s the whole of government strategy on China? Zero, right? It turns out the president matters,” Andreessen concluded. One must ask: whose team was the Biden-Harris administration on? It doesn’t appear they prioritized an ‘America First’ agenda. This will change under Trump.
Marc Andreessen (@pmarca) is a prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneur, investor, technologist, and co-founder and general partner at Andreessen Horowitz. In this @UncKnowledge discussion, Andreessen reflects on his journey—from growing up in rural Wisconsin to founding Netscape… pic.twitter.com/10fgVlqpW8
The United States’ official position on the Ukraine conflict must be that it should be brought to an end, Republican Senator Marco Rubio, President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of state nominee, said on Wednesday. “I think it should be the official position of the United States that this war should be brought to an end,” Rubio said during a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when asked to elaborate on his decision late last year to vote against aid to Ukraine. The 53-year-old admitted that “this is not going to be an easy endeavor” and called for “everyone to be realistic.” He suggested that conflict settlement could start with “some ceasefire” and require concessions by both Russia and Ukraine.
Rubio pointed to a change in the dynamic of the Ukraine conflict, saying it has become a “war of attrition” and “stalemate.” He believes there is “no way Russia takes all of Ukraine.” “It’s also unrealistic to believe that somehow a nation the size of Ukraine — no matter how incompetent and no matter how much damage the Russian Federation has suffered as a result of this invasion — there is no way Ukraine is also going to push these people all the way back to where they were on the eve of the invasion,” Rubio added.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has called on members of the US-led military bloc to adopt a “wartime mindset” and significantly increase defense spending, citing supposed threats from Russia and other nations. Rutte noted on Wednesday that NATO members have increased defense investments and conducted more frequent military exercises. However, he argued that these efforts are “not sufficient to deal with the dangers coming our way in the next four to five years.” The bloc’s “future security is at stake,” Rutte claimed in his opening remarks at a meeting of the Military Committee in Chiefs of Defense in Brussels. He accused Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran of attempting to “weaken our democracies and chip away at our freedom.”
“To prevent war, we need to prepare for it. It is time to shift to a wartime mindset,” Rutte asserted, urging NATO states to allocate more resources toward defense and develop “more and better defense capabilities.” He also stressed the importance of providing increased support to Ukraine to “change the trajectory of the war,” and called for enhanced cooperation with global partners. Moscow has repeatedly denied assertions that it represents a threat to any NATO member states and has instead accused the US-led bloc of waging a proxy war against Russia and encroaching on its territory. Last month, President Vladimir Putin said that practically all NATO states are currently at war with Russia.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also noted on Tuesday that history appears to be repeating itself, suggesting that there were “obvious parallels” between Moscow’s current confrontation with NATO and the attempts of Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler to take over Russia after subjugating dozens of European countries. On Tuesday, Rutte announced that NATO would bolster its presence in the Baltic Sea – a strategic area for Russian naval operations and energy exports – by launching a new mission under the pretext of protecting undersea infrastructure. The NATO chief revealed that this presence will involve frigates, maritime patrol aircraft, and a “small fleet of naval drones” that are expected to provide “enhanced surveillance and deterrence.”
The announcement follows an incident involving a Cook Islands-registered oil tanker, the Eagle S, which allegedly damaged the Estlink 2 power cable connecting Finland and Estonia last month. The EU has warned that it could impose sanctions on Moscow over what EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has described as the “deliberate destruction of Europe’s critical infrastructure” using a “shadow fleet” of tankers, which supposedly includes the Eagle S. While the tanker has been detained by Finnish authorities, no conclusive evidence has been presented regarding its involvement in the alleged sabotage.
American security agencies have long used the cloak of national security to avoid accountability for their crimes, such as the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, and the numerous assassinations of foreign leaders and screw-ups. Beginning with the Clinton regime, presidents and non-security appointees also began escaping accountability. The situation worsened in the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime, and it exploded in the Biden regime with the Attorney General, FBI, and Democrat state attorneys general and prosecutors using law as a weapon against Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters. Many people were ruined financially.
Many were falsely imprisoned, and Trump himself had his reelection in 2020 stolen by the most brazen and obvious vote theft in American history. The evidence is clear that Biden himself is guilty of selling vice presidential and presidential influence with his son, Hunter, being the marketer and sharing the revenues. Yet the US Department of Justice prevented any investigation and indictments The whore American media covered up the story. The practice of elevating high office holders to the privileged status of a king or an aristocracy above both the law and the US Constitution must not continue in the Trump regime. If it does, high officials will have gained squatters’ rights in being above the law, and the US Constitution will be reduced to a dead document.
At this point, the only way a collapse of the rule of law in the US can be avoided is for the Trump regime to relentless prosecute the Department of Justice, FBI, and White House officials who selectively applied law in the form of lawfare against political opponents. If those responsible avoid accountability, a legal precedent will have been established, and the differential rights and status based on race and gender that are already in place will be joined by special legal privileges for high government officials. It would mean the end of any possibility of accountable government. This should be the highest priority of the Trump regime. It is even more important than closing the border.
On the war front Trump should simply walk away from conflict with Iran and Russia. Wars distract from domestic matters and will prevent focus on making America great again. Wars will bring more propaganda about “terrorists” and more infringements of US civil liberty, which is not a path to making America great again. There is no reason whatsoever for American blood, taxpayers’ money, and more issuance of US debt in order to enrich the coffers of the military/security complex and to expand the frontier of Greater Israel. Trump should come to the realization that Israel is of no value to America. Israel is a deadweight burden around our necks, and the unconditional American support for Israel’s wars and genocide of the Palestinians has cost America’s reputation hugely. If America ever had a moral luster, it no longer does.
Iran and Russia do not threaten the US. The Middle East is full of problems for Iran, whose government doesn’t need problems with the US. Ukraine is Russia’s problem, not ours. Washington is responsible for the conflict. Trump should apologize and remove us from the conflict. The minute Trump stops sending money and weapons to Ukraine and Israel, peace will descend on the world. Trump should return to his original position that NATO is of no value to America. If NATO did not exist, Russia and Europe would be engaged in mutually beneficial economic ventures. These ventures would create financing and business opportunities also for Americans. All would prosper. It is Washington’s pursuit of hegemony–the control over others–that is suppressing economic activity worldwide and eroding the living standard of all Americans except the top one percent.
MAGA America has no interest in the agendas of special interest lobby group policies that benefit only a tiny percentage of people who are already so rich that they can’t possibly spend their huge amount of income and wealth. The problems of the world originate in Washington and they are institutionalized in the Israel Lobby, the military/security complex, Big Pharma and its control over high cost and ineffective American medicine that sacrifices Americans’ health and the integrity of doctors to Big Pharma’s profits. These are the real threats to America that if America is again to be great, these threats, not Russia and Iran, must be destroyed and eliminated. If the Trump regime can reestablish the respect for a rule of law by indicting and prosecuting DOJ, FBI, and other officials for their criminal behavior, and if Trump can disengage the US/Israeli war machine, he will have saved the world from nuclear war and re-established the United States as the principal nation to whom the world looks for leadership.
My concern is that Trump will love the war role. As Winston Churchill believed, there is nothing more exciting than being a war leader, especially if you imagine prospects of winning. Trump is extremely susceptible to getting into war based on advice that Putin has no red lines because Putin is too fearful of conflict. With Iran’s isolation from the destruction of Syria and a reformist government that wants to be free of religious restrictions and to make money in the West, Trump is being advised it is time to bring Iran down.
When the Ruling Elite have you blocked elsewhere, their agenda becomes your only choice. Has Trump fought so hard only for the sake of being used by the well-institutionalized American Establishment? The third thing Trump should immediately do is to shut down the US biowarfare labs Washington is operating all over the world. These labs are trying to create deadly pathogens that are highly contagious. The labs are even attempting to target the pathogens at specific ethnicities, collecting, for example, Russian DNA in the hopes of finding some material unique to Russians to which to attach the pathogen. These American labs are all illegal. Washington tries to avoid responsibility by locating its biowarfare labs in other countries. Trump should put an immediate halt to the activity and prosecute those responsible, including the US Congress if Congress authorized this illegal activity.
Those who profit from this evil activity claim that we have to do it because our enemies do it, but they never provide any documentation for their claim. Regardless, as the Covid experience proves, when a pathogen is released it goes everywhere. To use one as a weapon results in the same self-destruction as nuclear war. So much of science is committed to weapons. Science needs to be turned back to improving health and the human condition. If Trump can deal with the real challenges that we face instead of being led off to fake challenges serving special interests, he will go down as the greatest American president in history.
Donald Trump’s election promises to end the Ukraine conflict “in 24 hours” were driven by “a combination of campaign bluster and a lack of appreciation of the intractability” of the situation, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing sources close to the US president-elect. Trump repeatedly touted his ability to end hostilities between Russia and Ukraine while on the campaign trail, accusing President Joe Biden of mishandling the crisis. Privately, members of the Trump team expect the timeline for resolving the conflict to be measured in months, the news agency said. Reuters spoke with two individuals on condition of anonymity, who described themselves as Trump associates who have discussed the issue with him.
The view aligns with public remarks by members of the future administration. Keith Kellogg, whom Trump has tapped to serve as a special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, told Fox News last week that he aims to mediate a resolution within 100 days after Inauguration Day on January 20. Trump expressed frustration that he has to wait to be sworn in before implementing his plans, speaking at a recent press conference at his residence in Florida. Asked whether he intended to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in the first three to six months of his presidency, the politician said such a meeting would hopefully be arranged “long before six months”. At the same event, Trump expressed empathy with Russian concerns over NATO’s expansion in Europe, which Moscow has cited as one of the key causes of the Ukraine conflict. He criticized the Biden administration for falling to effectively negotiate with Putin on the issue.
According to Reuters, Trump advisers generally support proposals that would take Ukraine’s bid to join NATO off the table for the foreseeable future, and push for a ceasefire along the current battle lines. They also advocate deploying European troops to monitor a potential demilitarized zone, the report said. The Kremlin has welcomed Trump’s recognition of Russian national concerns. However, Moscow expects a sustainable solution addressing the wider European security architecture. Moscow will not accept an agreement that would merely freeze the conflict and give Kiev time to rebuild its army for future hostilities, as happened with the Minsk Agreements of 2014-2015, officials have said.
Kiev is maintaining its moratorium on direct negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga confirmed in an interview with European Pravda published on Wednesday. Two years ago, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky signed a decree banning his government from any talks with Moscow. When asked if Russia should be involved in potential peace negotiations, Sibiga stated that at the moment, such a “modality” has not been considered. “Let us wait for official contacts with the US, where we will discuss further steps,” the diplomat added. Sibiga took up the post as Kiev’s chief diplomat in September, following the resignation of his predecessor Dmitry Kuleba, who stepped down amid a large-scale purge of Ukraine’s senior officials and took up a position at a Harvard-based research center.
In the interview, Sibiga claimed that US President-elect Donald Trump’s “peace through strength” approach aligns with Zelensky’s so-called “peace formula,” which is predicated on Russia withdrawing its troops from all territory claimed by Ukraine, paying reparations, and subjecting itself to a war crimes tribunal. Moscow has dismissed the plan, calling it “detached from reality.” Russia has repeatedly said it is open to talks on Ukraine, provided they take into account the territorial “reality on the ground,” an approach recently echoed by French president, Emmanual Macron. The Ukrainian leader, however, has recently shifted his rhetoric from emphasizing “victory” to demanding a “just peace,” underpinned by security guarantees from the West, including NATO membership, while leaving the status of the new Russian regions undetermined.
Last week, Zelensky expressed a desire to secure a peace agreement with Russia within the year, emphasizing the need for strong security guarantees from its Western supporters. Trump had repeatedly claimed while on the campaign trail that he could end the conflict within 24 hours. However, the president-elect recently said it might take up to six months after taking office to facilitate a deal between Moscow and Kiev. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday that Moscow is ready to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine within a broader Eurasian framework in order to address larger geopolitical issues. The Russian president reiterated last month that Moscow is ready for negotiations with Kiev without any preconditions other than those agreed upon in Istanbul in 2022, which involved Ukraine agreeing to a neutral status and restrictions on the deployment of foreign weaponry in the country.
Russia and Ukraine are holding “limited talks” in Qatar, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing sources on the Russian side. The negotiations are focused on preventing threats to nuclear facilities amid the ongoing conflict between the two neighbors, the media outlet claimed. Bloomberg’s Ukrainian sources maintained that the only talks held between the two nations are linked to prisoner exchanges. Earlier on Wednesday, Moscow and Kiev confirmed the latest POW swap, which involved 25 servicemen from each side. According to Bloomberg, the Kremlin did not respond to a request for comment. In August 2024, the Washington Post claimed that Moscow and Kiev were holding talks on a potential moratorium on striking energy infrastructure in the summer of that year, allegedly also mediated by Qatar. The negotiations were reportedly thwarted by the Ukrainian incursion into the Russian Kursk border region in early August, the US media outlet stated.
Moscow then refuted the report, saying that “no one has derailed anything.” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov brushed the information off as mere “rumors.” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at that time that no “security regimes” for critical infrastructure had been discussed by the two sides. According to Zakharova, Moscow and Kiev have not engaged in any talks since spring 2022 when peace talks collapse, which Russia blamed on Western interference. In November 2024, Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesman, Majed bin Mohammed al-Ansari, told journalists that his nation’s mediation efforts in the Ukraine conflict go beyond the humanitarian efforts aimed at helping children affected by the hostilities to reunite with their families.
According to al-Ansari, Qatar has always pursued a policy aimed at “reaching peace.” The spokesman also stated that time that Doha was supporting all the efforts aimed at achieving a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Kiev has refused direct talks with Moscow ever since Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky banned direct talks in autumn 2022. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga confirmed in an interview with European Pravda published on Wednesday that the moratorium is still in place. He also said that Kiev would wait for further contacts with the US before making any moves. Moscow has repeatedly stated that it is ready for peace talks at any moment without any preconditions other than those agreed upon in Istanbul in 2022. The draft treaty involved Kiev agreeing to a neutral status and accepting restrictions on foreign weaponry deployment on Ukrainian territory.
The German Defense Ministry and the Army (the Bundeswehr) have announced they will stop posting on X claiming that Elon Musk’s platform makes it “difficult to have a factual exchange.” Musk has lambasted the current German government for promoting the “woke mind virus” and leading the country to ruin, going so far as to endorse the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and interview its leader Alice Weidel live on his platform earlier this week. “We will leave our X-channel dormant until further notice and will not post anything actively for the time being,” the Defense Ministry announced on Wednesday. “We have decided to take this step because a factual exchange is becoming increasingly difficult here.”
According to a statement posted on the ministry’s website, it will continue to communicate with the public via press releases, a WhatsApp group, YouTube, Instagram, and “other social media.” The Bundeswehr reserves the right to post on X “in the case of disinformation campaigns,” it said. The move comes after over 60 German universities and research institutes announced their departure from X, alleging “increasing radicalization” on the site. Two labor unions and the top federal court have also departed the platform in a huff. Musk bought Twitter in October 2022, citing the previous management’s out-of-control censorship, and has since rebranded the platform as X. Subsequent revelations have shown that Twitter’s previous executive team worked closely with the government to suppress opposition narratives.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz will continue to use X “for the time being,” his spokesman told reporters in Berlin on Wednesday. “It’s a difficult balance to strike,” the official representative said, describing X as “not without controversy.” The “controversy” in question appears to be Musk’s endorsement of AfD and an interview with Weidel. He did the same last year to back Donald Trump’s presidential bid in the US, which saw him triumph in November. The German establishment has long tarred AfD with accusations of “extremism,” but its popularity has surged in recent months due to its positions on immigration and the economy. Scholz’s “traffic light” coalition collapsed in November and Germans will have to vote for a new parliament in late February. Since Musk’s $44 billion purchase, proponents of “fact-checking” and censoring “disinformation” have tried to set up alternatives such as Threads and Bluesky, but failed to make an appreciable dent in X’s user base.
As Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius proudly announced the delivery of RCH 155 self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine – even before the Bundeswehr receives them – Berlin’s priorities have once again come under scrutiny. The decision to ship this state-of-the-art artillery system to Ukraine highlights a glaring paradox: Germany’s commitment to modernizing its own armed forces seems secondary to its zeal in arming Kiev for a war increasingly serving as a proxy for Western interests against Russia. “We are standing by Ukraine in this existential fight. The RCH 155 represents not only our technical capabilities but also our steadfast support,” Pistorius declared. Yet, for many Germans, each such statement lands like a hammer blow to national confidence in their government.
Comments online have laid bare the growing resentment, with users describing each new arms shipment as “another 0.5% boost for the AfD.” This remark reflects a troubling but undeniable trend in German politics: the ruling coalition’s unwavering support for Ukraine is alienating voters at home. The RCH 155 is an advanced artillery system mounted on a Boxer wheeled vehicle, boasting a range exceeding 40 kilometers and cutting-edge mobility. It was intended to play a key role in modernizing Germany’s military – a long-overdue initiative for the Bundeswehr, which has been plagued by underfunding and outdated equipment. Instead, these cutting-edge weapons will first see action in Ukraine, leaving Germany’s armed forces waiting. Critics argue that this decision exemplifies the government’s misguided priorities. “The Bundeswehr is not only defending Germany but also the NATO alliance,” said one military analyst.
“If we are not equipped to fulfil that role, it weakens the very foundation of our defense strategy.” The irony is inescapable: while Pistorius makes sweeping promises to Kiev, German soldiers continue to train on aging and inadequate equipment. This frustration is not confined to military circles. Across the political spectrum, Germans are increasingly questioning their country’s role as a financial and military backer of Ukraine. The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), a far-right populist party, has capitalized on this discontent, surging in the polls to become a significant political force. Recent state elections have seen the AfD achieve double-digit gains, fueled by voter dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of domestic issues. Energy prices remain high, inflation eats into wages, and public infrastructure continues to crumble.
Many Germans feel that resources and attention should be directed inward, not outward. For them, each new pledge to Ukraine serves as a stark reminder of Berlin’s neglect of its own citizens. The government’s unwavering support for Ukraine – a proxy for Western interests against Russia – is also being called into question. Pistorius’ rhetoric about an “existential fight” may resonate with international allies, but for many Germans, it rings hollow. They see a government that appears more concerned with maintaining its standing in Washington and Brussels than with addressing the needs of its own people. Comments on Die Welt reports about the transfer often highlight this disconnect. One user wrote, “We’ve become the arms supplier for the world while our own army remains underfunded and ill-equipped. How long will this madness continue?” Another opined, “Every tank, every howitzer we send is another nail in the coffin of this coalition’s credibility.”
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has sued Elon Musk in connection to his $44 billion purchase of Twitter (now X) in October 2022. In a Tuesday press release, the agency claims that by delaying the filing of a beneficial ownership report by 11 days, Musk saved $150 million, or 0.34% on several subsequent tranches of stock he bought before filing the disclosure on April 4, 2022. According to the agency, Twitter shares surged by 27% after Musk filed the ownership report – by which time he already owned 9% of the company’s shares. “Investors who sold Twitter common stock during this period did so at artificially low prices and thus suffered substantial economic harm,” reads the complaint. The agency wants Musk to disgorge any profits he incurred due to the late filing, along with pay a civil fine.
In response, Musk’s attorney, Alex Spiro, told the Epoch Times that Musk did nothing wrong – calling the SEC’s lawsuit a “sham.” “Today’s action is an admission by the SEC that they cannot bring an actual case,” he said, adding that Musk “has done nothing wrong and everyone sees this sham for what it is.” As the Epoch Times notes further, Spiro accused the SEC of running a “multi-year campaign of harassment” against Musk and insisted the agency was blowing the alleged late disclosure filing out of proportion, adding that this type of infraction carries a nominal penalty.
The lawsuit is the latest chapter in Musk’s contentious relationship with the SEC. In 2018, the agency sued him for posting on social media that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 per share, a claim that was later revealed to be exaggerated. The SEC contended that Musk’s “misleading” post caused Tesla’s stock price to jump by over 6 percent and led to “significant market disruption.” That case was settled with Musk agreeing to pay a $20 million fine and step down as Tesla’s chairman for three years. The settlement did not require Musk to admit to any wrongdoing.
Musk’s “funding secured” post also sparked another lawsuit by a group of Tesla investors, who claimed that it was materially misleading and led them to suffer as much as $12 billion in financial losses. During a three-week trial in the case, Musk’s attorneys argued that he believed his statements about taking Tesla private were truthful, citing discussions with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) as evidence of potential funding. Musk testified that PIF representatives showed strong interest in the deal, which led him to claim that the funding was secured.
“I had no ill motive,” Musk said in court. “My intent was to do the right thing for all shareholders.” The jury sided with Musk in the case. Jurors delivered a unanimous verdict in February 2023, finding that Musk and Tesla were not liable for misleading investors with the posts. The investors appealed the decision, arguing that the judge gave erroneous instructions to the jurors. The appellate court upheld the jury’s decision, clearing Musk of securities fraud.The SEC’s current chair, Gary Gensler, plans to step down from his post on Jan. 20, the day President-elect Donald Trump will be inaugurated for a second term. Meanwhile, SEC Chief Accountant Paul Munter will retire from the agency effective Jan. 25 – making it unclear if the agency will even proceed with its filing against Musk.
JD Vance Gensler
Joe Biden’s Head of The SEC Gary Gensler is suing Elon Musk over his Twitter acquisition
Gary Gensler has a LONG history of weaponizing The SEC against Democrat’s political enemies. In fact, it got so bad JD Vance had to threaten Gary Gensler over it
Tech giants Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg will all attend President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration next week, and will be featured in a prominent spot together on the stage, according to NBC News. The three CEOs have all donated at least $1 million to Trump’s campaign or the Trump-Vance inaugural committee, and Musk is considered a close Trump ally. Musk, who runs and owns multiple companies including the social media platform X, will be co-leading the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) during the second Trump administration, and has donated more than $250 million to getting Trump reelected.
Bezos, who owns the Washington Post and is the owner and founder of Amazon, instructed his paper not to endorse a presidential candidate in the 2024 elections. Amazon has also donated $1 million to the inaugural fund. Zuckerberg, who runs and founded the social media platform Facebook and its parent company Meta, recently reshuffled his company’s moderation policies in a move that some believe was done to appease the incoming Trump administration. He will also co-host a black tie reception on Monday night with Republican megadonor Miriam Adelson, per the Associated Press. Trump will officially be sworn into office on Capitol Hill on January 20. All three CEOs are expected to be seated with Trump and his administration officials on the platform.
President-elect Donald Trump is considering issuing an executive order to delay the enforcement of a US law that mandates the sale or shutdown of TikTok, potentially granting the popular social media platform a temporary reprieve, according to The Washington Post. The current legislation, which was passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden last year, requires ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, to divest from its US operations by January 19, 2025. Failure to comply would result in TikTok being removed from US app stores and losing access to essential infrastructure, effectively ceasing its operations in the country.
Trump has reportedly been “mulling ways to save the day,” including potentially issuing an executive order that would extend the compliance deadline by 60 to 90 days, allowing for further negotiations, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing two people familiar with the matter. TikTok has already devised a plan to “go dark” for 170 million US users on Sunday. According to anonymous insiders cited by Reuters, the app would greet American users with a pop-up message explaining the ban and providing an option to download their data. This move would exceed the law’s requirements, which permit existing users to continue using the app without new downloads. The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on TikTok’s appeal against the law. During recent oral arguments, the justices appeared to prioritize national security concerns over potential free speech implications.
During his first term, Trump attempted to ban TikTok, citing national security risks due to its Chinese ownership. However, during the recent campaign, he changed his mind, stating: “For all of those who want to save TikTok in America, vote for Trump. The other side is closing it up, but I’m now a big star on TikTok.” In December, Trump reportedly met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, further signaling a shift in his stance toward the platform. Trump’s legal team has also requested the Supreme Court to halt the ban’s implementation, seeking additional time to pursue a political solution.
We all know the old joke: when a European referendum delivers the “wrong” outcome, the country votes again until they get it “right”. The EU thought this would be the case after Brexit. But so far, no one’s laughing. If anything, things have got worse. Take Romania, which recently cancelled its presidential election when Calin Georgescu, leader of a nationalist Right coalition, won the first round. Thierry Breton, former French European Commissioner, revealed the EU’s mindset during a damning recent TV interview. “We did it in Romania and we will obviously do it in Germany if necessary,” he said. In other words, if you can’t beat the far-Right, ban them.
I disagree with almost everything Breton has ever said, but I am grateful to him for stating his case with such revealing clarity. During his time as industry commissioner in Brussels, from 2019 until last summer, when Emmanuel Macron replaced him with a more compliant figure, he was the driving force behind a series of laws designed to keep Europe in the digital dark ages. The most extreme of which is the Digital Services Act (DSA) which compels “very large online platforms”, such as X and Meta, to check facts and filter out fake news. But, thanks to Breton, the truth is out there. Europe’s ultimate aim isn’t to save public discourse, it is to suffocate far-Right parties by depriving them of the oxygen of information. The DSA isn’t even the last word in the EU’s anti-digital jihad. One of Ursula von der Leyen’s big ideas last year during the European election was the so-called “democracy shield” — effectively launching even more legislation to prevent outside interference in EU affairs.
This notion conjures up images of laser beams and light-sabre fights. And in some respects it’s not far from the truth: a frightened bloc needs a shield to protect itself from the encroaching enemy. Mark Zuckerberg is certainly on the attack. Last week he announced that he is abandoning fact-checking on his platforms — effectively defying the DSA. And he is betting on Donald Trump to protect him from the legal consequences. Given that J.D. Vance, the Vice President-elect, has already threatened to end US support for Nato if Europe tries to censor Elon Musk’s X, surely the same will apply to Facebook. And the EU is far too dependent on the US to be able to mount an effective campaign against any of America’s social media platforms once Trump is president. The DSA, hastily drawn up during the pandemic, not only misjudges the nature of the social media, it misjudges political power. It exposes Europe’s essential weakness before America.
This isn’t just a geopolitical battle, though. It is also a European one. The attempted clampdown reveals that there is something the bloc fears more than free speech: populism. MEPs found it hard enough to stomach Nigel Farage’s brutal outbursts when he was a member of the European Parliament. Now they have Musk breathing down their neck, endorsing candidates from the AfD, a party that sits on the far-Right in the European Parliament’s benches and which supports German withdrawal from the EU. The German media had a collective breakdown when Musk tweeted an endorsement for the AfD, interviewed Alice Weidel, the party’s co-leader, on X, and then endorsed her in an article for Die Welt. The op-ed editor of the German daily resigned in protest. And an article in another newspaper hysterically described Musk’s intervention as unconstitutional. That journalists would advocate censorship seems shocking, until one understands the role of journalism in continental European society. It operates firmly inside a narrow centrist political consensus, which spans all the parties from the centre-left to the centre-right. Naturally, the AfD does not get much airtime in the German media.
But while marginalised by traditional media, the AfD thrives on TikTok, where it has large following. So what irks the German media, and politicians from other parties, is that the censorship cartel is no longer functioning as well as it once did. In the US and in the UK, the once mighty legacy media have already lost their power. Hillary Clinton expressed the frustration perhaps most clearly when she said that social media companies must fact check, or else “we lose total control”. But Europe still lives in a twilight zone where the traditional media still basks in the dwindling sunset of power, trying to ignore social media rising on the other horizon. Like all the modern political battles in Europe, this is about protecting vested interests.
The Romanian case demonstrates how these restrictions on freedom of speech are the first salvos in a greater war of repression. The presidential elections there were cancelled on the grounds that a Russian-infested TikTok had misinformed voters. I am sure that the Russians were active. But it is shocking to think that an election was cancelled because someone lied on TikTok. Let’s be clear, there was no suggestion of any vote rigging. Georgescu won the first round of the election fair and square. But as with the laughable misperception in Brussels after the Brexit vote, the presumption behind the EU’s support for the nullification of the result, was that voters were too stupid to make up their own mind. The rerun is to take place on 4 May, followed by a run-off between the most successful candidate two weeks later. Georgescu is still the most likely candidate to win according to opinion polls, but the Romanian political establishment is still determined to find ways to disbar him, the most promising of which is the hope that he may have received undeclared funds.
There are similar patterns elsewhere. Marine Le Pen faces potential disqualification from the 2027 presidential elections following accusations of irregularities regarding her assistants in the European Parliament. More recently, Brussels was spooked by the victory in Austria of the Freedom Party, which managed to obtain 28.8% of the vote in the September general election. It surpassed a threshold at which point it became politically impossible for the other parties to form coalitions. Herbert Kickl, the FPÖ’s leader, is now likely to become Austria’s next chancellor. Meanwhile, in Germany, a group of 113 MPs has ganged up to ban the AfD. Their story is that the far-Right wants to destroy democracy. While the party is not yet polling high enough to frustrate yet another centrist coalition in Berlin after next month’s elections, Germany may only be a few percentage points away from an Austrian-style impasse.
Surely, though, the sensible approach to the rise of the AfD, the FPÖ and other parties of the Right is not to censor them, but to address the underlying problem that has made them so strong: persistent economic uncertainty, loss of purchasing power, and dysfunctional policies on migration. Failing that, why not co-opt parties of the far-Right as junior coalition partners as they did in Sweden and Finland? If Weidel were suddenly thrust into the job of economics minister, we would see whether she could defend her record in government. But the centrist parties in Germany and France do neither. They have erected political firewalls against the far-Right. And they are doubling down with the same old policies.
It’s an approach that will inevitably backfire. A banned Le Pen would be far more dangerous for the centrist establishment, and possibly even more extreme when she eventually gets to power. Likewise the AfD would surely be radicalised after a ban. Until then, the EU’s blunt weapons of choice — the legal bans, political firewalls, and censorship — will inflict more self-harm than good. In the pecking order of democratic rights, freedom of speech has a relatively low priority in Europe. Like the creatures in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, I am struggling to spot the difference between the extremists of the Right, and those who are trying to fight them.
Doocy: “— in the briefing, thank you for all that — you could have stopped taking the hard questions years ago, and you didn't, so we appreciate that.”
5 days before Inauguration Day, the news feels like a bunch of bits and snippets and loose ends. Guess there’s no other way. We’re getting ready.
Here’s why Biden lost the elections in a landslide. It’s because he’s winning. Or rather, he’s lost but America’s winning. Does that also mean that if he were winning, America would lose?
Outgoing US President Joe Biden has claimed that his four years of leadership have made America stronger and its enemies weaker. In remarks about the foreign policy achievements of his administration at the Department of State on Monday, Biden hailed his time in office as a boon to America’s global standing. “The United States is winning the worldwide competition compared to four years ago. America is stronger. Our alliances are stronger. Our adversaries and competitors are weaker. We have not gone to war to make these things happen,” he said. He described his handling of the Ukraine conflict as a success. Biden urged people to “think about” the fact that he “stood in the center of Kiev” since the tensions with Russia escalated into open hostilities. “I’m the only commander-in-chief to visit a war zone not controlled by US forces,” he said of his visit to Ukraine in February 2023.
“I had two jobs. One, to rally the world to defend Ukraine, and the other is to avoid war between two nuclear powers. We did both those things,” the US leader said. The remarks confirm that Washington was intentionally engaging in nuclear brinkmanship in Ukraine, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said, commenting on Biden’s speech. His administration “knew it was pushing the world towards the abyss and escalated the conflict nevertheless,” she said. Biden has claimed credit for undermining other rivals of the US, particularly Iran and Syria in the Middle East, while giving Israel credit for doing “plenty of damage to Iran and its proxies.” He also said the US was now in a stronger position to compete with China militarily and economically.
“On China’s current course, they will never surpass us. Period,” he declared. America has been forging new alliances all around the world, Biden said. Nations like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have been growing closer together too, he acknowledged, but “that’s more out of weakness than out of strength,” according to Biden. The president also claimed credit for “not leaving a war in Afghanistan to his successor,” referring to the chaotic withdrawal of the US-led coalition from the nation in the early years of his term.
“..Obama “banished 120 [Russian] diplomats from the US and arrested five sites of [Russian] diplomatic property” just three weeks before his successor’s inauguration.”
The outgoing administration of US President Joe Biden is working hard to create problems for President-elect Donald Trump before he arrives at the White House, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Lavrov made the statement during a press conference on Tuesday when asked about the sweeping new sanctions against the Russian energy industry, which Washington announced last week. The curbs target two major petroleum producers – Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegaz – as well as their subsidiaries, including Naftna industrija Srbije (NIS), which handles deliveries of Russian oil to Serbia and neighboring European nations. Related insurance providers, as well as more than 30 oilfield service companies and over 180 vessels used to deliver Russian oil, have also been slapped with restrictions.
According to the foreign minister, the move made by the Biden administration simultaneously targets Serbia, Russia and Trump, who expressed a readiness to resume dialogue with Moscow in order to try to find a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. “The Democrats have such a manner in American politics to spoil the whole thing for the next administration before the end of their mandate,” he said. Lavrov reminded that the same thing had happened before Trump’s first term when outgoing Democratic President Barack Obama “banished 120 [Russian] diplomats from the US and arrested five sites of [Russian] diplomatic property” just three weeks before his successor’s inauguration.
“This whole case did not help Russian-American relations” back in 2017, he stressed. Regarding the Biden administration, the minister suggested that after not winning reelection “from the moral point of view, you should just wait before the inauguration [of Trump on January 20]; you should understand that your people want a different kind of policy.” “No, they are unwilling to do so. They want to spoil the whole thing,” he stressed.
The head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has just made an admission which surely won’t help Ukraine at the negotiating table in any potential future talks. The fresh words might also be by designed aimed at sabotaging expected Trump efforts to quickly end the war. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Monday described that Ukraine is not yet in a strong position to begin peace talks, now with less than a week before President-elect Donald Trump enters the White House. “At this moment, clearly, Ukraine is not there,” Rutte told the European parliament’s foreign affairs and defense committees. “Because they cannot, at this moment, negotiate from a position of strength. And we have to do more to make sure, by changing the trajectory of the conflict, that they can get to the position of strength.”
He went on to say that the hope is to obtain security guarantees so that Ukraine can never be attacked by Russia again. He said that this involves mapping out Ukraine’s future relations with NATO. “But it’s too early now to exactly sketch out what that exactly will mean, also something we have to discuss with the incoming U.S. administration,” he stated. “But let’s hope that we will get to that point as soon as possible.” White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said last Friday that the latest energy sanctions placed on Russia were not intended to be a “bargaining chip” that can be taken off the table when Ukraine is ready to negotiate. “There’s no expectation right now that either side is ready to negotiate,” he stated, also emphasizing that timing is up to the Ukrainian government.
Another Biden official has been quoted as saying, “It’s entirely up to [the next administration] to determine whether, when, and on what terms they might lift any sanctions we put in place.” The Kremlin has described this as a “sanctions trap” left by the Biden administration to make things harder for Trump to negotiate and maneuver: “Of course, we are aware that the administration will try to leave the most difficult legacy possible in bilateral relations to Trump and his associates,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said ahead of the sanctions announcement. Biden officials have framed the sanctions as a long-term strategy. “We believe our actions are leaving a solid foundation upon which the next administration can build,” one official said, predicting the measures would cost Russia billions in monthly revenue and force “hard decisions” between sustaining its economy.
The Washington Post had also observed of the comments, “Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, speaking before the widely anticipated sanctions were announced, said Friday that the Biden administration was trying to make things difficult for the incoming Trump team.” Continued defense and economic aid to the Ukraine has also been something that Europe and the Biden administration have long been trying to ‘Trump-proof’. So far, the president-elect has said he doesn’t immediately plan to cut or end aid, but this could be him telegraphing negotiations or an attempt to maintain leverage in this regard over the Russian side. As for the battlefield, there’s near universal consensus at this point that Russian forces are winning. Steady gains have persisted in the Donetsk region, while Ukraine tries to make life difficult for Russian leadership in Kursk region.
US President-elect Donald Trump does not consider the Ukraine conflict a key priority for America’s national interests, according to Bloomberg, which cited several anonymous EU officials. The media outlet alleged on Tuesday that the Republican had given his European counterparts the “impression that he wasn’t strongly invested in Ukraine’s destiny or didn’t recognize a strategic significance of the war to US interests.” Nevertheless, the latest signals coming out of Trump’s team gave European governments grounds for cautious optimism, suggesting that the US president-elect would not push Ukraine into “premature negotiations with Russia,” the publication wrote, citing a “series of private talks” with his entourage. According to Bloomberg, Trump may continue supporting Ukraine to ensure it occupies a “position of strength before any talks take place.”
The incoming president is supposedly anxious to avoid a humiliating debacle in Ukraine like the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan overseen by President Joe Biden in 2021. The article alleged that Trump is also wary that an outright Russian victory in Ukraine could embolden China to make more aggressive moves. Bloomberg also quoted Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who said after her recent meeting with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida that she did not expect Washington to disengage from Kiev. Sources told the media outlet, however, that Trump’s unpredictability means that no one can reliably say what course of action he might take after assuming office on January 20. During an interview with Newsmax on Monday, Trump insisted that Russian President Vladimir Putin “wants to meet, and I’m going to meet very quickly.”
The Kremlin has responded positively to Trump’s declared intention to engage with Russia. However, it said the Ukraine conflict needed to be resolved in a way that addresses its core causes, including NATO’s eastward expansion. Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, incoming US National Security Advisor Michael Waltz stated: “I just don’t think it’s realistic to say we’re going to expel every Russian from every inch of Ukrainian soil.” “President Trump has acknowledged that reality, and I think it has been a huge step forward that the entire world is acknowledging that reality,” he added, suggesting that this realization could pave the way to ending the bloodshed. Shortly before the US election on November 5, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance similarly suggested that Kiev might have to cede some territory to Moscow in the end.
“..the idea the taxpayer needs to fund a government unit to ‘monitor’ Elon Musk’s tweets is ridiculous” since “it costs nothing to open an account on X and once you’ve done that Elon’s tweets are completely unavoidable.”
The British establishment will not hold a national inquiry into gangs of mostly Pakistani men who raped girls across the UK, but it will expend its resources on monitoring tweets shared by Elon Musk. A government counter-extremism unit has been assessing the risk posed by Musk’s often outlandish claims, The Mirror has revealed. Last week, the Twitter/X boss labelled Labour’s Jess Phillips, the safeguarding minister, a “rape genocide apologist” after it emerged that she rejected a request for the government to commission a public inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Oldham, Greater Manchester, in October. The monitoring unit is part of the Homeland Security Group, which claims to focus on “the highest harm risks to the homeland, whether from terrorists, state actors, or cyber and economic criminals.”
However, it will now devote some of its time to Musk’s free-to-access ramblings, even while experts share concerns of the potential return of Islamic State terrorism. Reform MP Rupert Lowe said this “spying” is “pathetic,” given that there is to be “no inquiry into thousands of foreign rapists.” (Musk later shared Lowe’s post.) And even before news of the monitoring came to light, Allison Pearson—the journalist who was visited by the police in November over a year-old tweet—pointed to one hideous incident in the rape gang scandal to suggest that the PM “genuinely seems more outraged” about Musk’s posts “than he is about the 12-year-old who was driven at night to a Yorkshire wood where she was forced to give oral sex to at least 10 men … before being left alone in the dark.”
Priority concerns aside, Free Speech Union director Toby Young told europeanconservative.com that “the idea the taxpayer needs to fund a government unit to ‘monitor’ Elon Musk’s tweets is ridiculous” since “it costs nothing to open an account on X and once you’ve done that Elon’s tweets are completely unavoidable.” What, asked Young, is the government’s ‘report’ going to consist of? “A compendium of those tweets? You can see all of them by clicking on Elon’s avatar and it’s completely free.” What piece of world class detective work is this spy unit going to produce next? The revelation that the person responsible for these ‘dangerous’ tweets is a close friend of the President of the United States?
Meanwhile, fresh calls for an inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal continue to proliferate, including from survivors and, with potentially more influence, leading Labour figures. There is also talk of Starmer “appearing to soften his opposition to a new probe,” just days after he used a three-line whip to order Labour MPs to block one in Parliament—but skipped the vote himself. The Mirror’s report has since come under fire after a government spokesman “denied” that Musk was being monitored, although—as veteran press officer Gawain Towler pointed out —it is more likely that he was being snooped but no longer is “because of the Mirror scoop.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom has lashed out at Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk over his “lies” after the billionaire businessman blasted the state’s response to raging wildfires in Los Angeles. In a series of posts on X, Musk – a longtime critic of the Democrat politician – blamed the scale of damage in LA on “bad governance at a state and local level that resulted in a shortage of water” and retweeted a post calling on the governor to resign. Musk’s claim comes as LA mayor Karen Bass admitted that around 20% of the city’s fire hydrants ran dry last week, with Newsom calling for an independent investigation into the issue on Friday. Responding to Musk on Monday, however, Newsom posted a video clip showing the business mogul asking a firefighter if water availability was an issue.
The firefighter explained that there was water in “several reservoirs,” but the problem is that they are “flowing an amount of water that the system couldn’t bear,” which is why water trucks are being brought in to compensate as “mobile hydrants.” “(Musk) exposed by firefighters for his own lies,” Newsom wrote. According to former chief engineer at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Marty Adams, the scale of the wildfires has created a situation that is “just completely not part of any domestic water system design.” There needs to be “some new thinking about how systems are designed,” he told the New York Times. Wildfire and water expert Faith Kearns told National Geographic that the current situation “was like a worst-case scenario.” “But I think we should be planning for those worst-case scenarios…I do think this is where we’re headed,” she said.
Musk and Newsom have also sparred on X over the issue of looting amid reports that criminals were raiding areas where people had been forced to evacuate their homes. Newsom accused Musk of “encouraging looting by lying” after the tech CEO claimed that California Democrats had “decriminalized looting.” “It’s illegal – as it always has been,” Newsom wrote, adding that “bad actors will be arrested and prosecuted.” US President-elect Donald Trump has also taken aim at Newsom, with Trump accusing the governor of refusing to sign a “water restoration declaration” which Newsom said does not exist. Musk, a close Trump ally, has been appointed to co-lead the president-elect’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) advisory board. The devastating LA wildfires have killed at least 24 people so far and displaced thousands more. Fierce winds are expected to pick up this week, making the blazes more difficult to control.
🚨Kevin O’Leary wants to float an idea to Trump on CA aid:
"I think every taxpayer in America, including those in California, would like to tie this aid to removing Newsom and Bass."
"I know Trump likes new ideas. Here's one. Not a dime until those two are whacked from their… pic.twitter.com/yUJcrMjw3p
Bloomberg is relying upon unnamed sources “familiar with the matter” as anchor sources in an overnight report about Elon Musk potentially acquiring the US operations of Chinese video-sharing platform TikTok. The company faces a Sunday deadline to find a US buyer or risk a ban. The report said: “Senior Chinese officials had already begun to debate contingency plans for TikTok as part of an expansive discussion on how to work with Donald Trump’s administration, one of which involves Musk, said the people, asking not to be identified revealing confidential discussions. Under one scenario that’s been discussed by the Chinese government, Musk’s X would take control of TikTok US and run the businesses together, the people said. With more than 170 million users in the US, TikTok could bolster X’s efforts to attract advertisers. Musk also founded a separate artificial intelligence company, xAI, that could benefit from the huge amounts of data generated from TikTok.”
Following Bloomberg’s report citing anonymous sources, a TikTok spokesperson told BBC News the whole story about China considering to sell the video-sharing platform to Musk as “pure fiction.” “We can’t be expected to comment on pure fiction,” the spokesperson told the British media outlet. BBC noted, “TikTok has repeatedly said that it will not sell its US operation.” On X, Musk responded with laughing emojis to Autism Capital’s video of angry white liberals melting down in a forest, referring to them as the potential response of TikTok’s audience if Musk bought the Chinese video-sharing platform.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1878970370335928670
In April of 2024, Musk wrote on X, “In my opinion, TikTok should not be banned in the USA, even though such a ban may benefit the 5yO› platform,” adding, “Doing so would be contrary to freedom of speech and expression. It is not what America stands for.” Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Mandeep Singh and Damian Reimertz recently estimated that TikTok’s US operations could be valued between $40 and $50 billion. Recall that Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter in 2022. President-elect Trump, who takes office next Monday, one day after TikTok’s deadline to sell or risk a ban, has sought to delay the ban on the video-sharing platform to allow time for negotiations. Trump has previously stated that he wants to “save” the app. Also, the Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of a law that would ban the platform from the US if the TikTok’s owner ByteDance does not find a buyer by Sunday.
SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk has labeled the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) “a totally broken organization” after it filed a lawsuit against him, linked to his purchase of Twitter (later re-branded as X). The SEC, which is tasked with enforcing laws against market manipulation, sued Musk in a federal court in Washington on Tuesday, claiming that he had failed to disclose his ownership of more than 5% of Twitter stock in a timely fashion in early 2022, several months before buying the social media platform. The agency alleged that this allowed the tech billionaire to “underpay by at least $150 million for shares he purchased after his beneficial ownership report was due.”
On Wednesday, the tycoon responded to a post on X by an account under the name Satoshi Nakamoto – a reference to the unidentified creator of Bitcoin – who expressed surprise that “the SEC is suing Elon Musk for buying Twitter at ‘artificially low prices’ even though he bought it for $44 billion and industry analysts said it was worth more like $30 billion.” The Securities and Exchange Commission is “a totally broken organization,” Musk, who has been tapped by US President-elect Donald Trump to head DOGE, a special advisory body tasked with identifying government inefficiency, wrote. “They spend their time on sh*t like this when there are so many actual crimes that go unpunished,” he said.
Musk’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, insisted that his client has “done nothing wrong” and called the SEC’s lawsuit a “sham.” The action by the agency “is an admission… that they cannot bring an actual case” against the billionaire, he said in a statement. The SEC’s “multi-year campaign of harassment” targeting Musk resulted “in the filing of a single-count ticky tack complaint… for an alleged administrative failure to file a single form – an offense that, even if proven, carries a nominal penalty,” Spiro stressed. The head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Gary Gensler, has said that he will step down from his post on January 20 when Trump is inaugurated. Last month, the president-elect nominated Paul Atkins, a cryptocurrency advocate and CEO of the Patomak Partners consultancy firm, to become the new chair of the SEC.
US President-elect Donald Trump has compared the devastation of the Los Angeles wildfires to a nuclear attack, warning that the death toll may rise in the coming days. He criticized California’s leadership, particularly Governor Gavin Newsom, suggesting that mismanagement has exacerbated the crisis. The wildfires that began last week in southern California have claimed at least 24 lives, burned more than 40,000 acres, and destroyed over 12,000 structures, leveling entire neighborhoods. Los Angeles Sheriff Robert Luna has reported 16 deaths from the Eaton fire and eight from the Palisades fire, with 16 individuals still missing. Authorities expect the death toll to rise as search teams with cadaver-sniffing dogs continue to comb through the rubble.
In an interview with Newsmax, Trump predicted that rescuers would find “many more dead” and expressed bewilderment at the scale of destruction. “I believe it’s greater damage than if they got hit by a nuclear weapon. I’ve never seen anything like it. Vast miles and miles of houses just burned to a crisp. There’s nothing standing,” Trump told the outlet. He added that he had seen “very guarded pictures” of the destruction, claiming that the catastrophe is “far worse than you even see on television, if that’s believable.” The president-elect went on to blame the Californian leadership for the scale of the tragedy, insisting that the crisis could have been prevented if water from Canada was allowed to flow to the state and its forests were properly maintained. Trump specifically accused California Governor Newsom of prioritizing environmental policies over human lives and called for his resignation.
Trump is considering paying a personal visit to southern California to survey the damage caused by the fires, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with his plans. In his interview with Newsmax, the president-elect also expressed interest in taking part in the rebuilding of the area, stating that “we’re gonna do things with Los Angeles. You know, I’m already putting my developer cap on.” Newsom has declared a state of emergency in the affected areas and has called on federal agencies for additional support in dealing with the fires. Outgoing President Joe Biden has also approved a Major Disaster Declaration, which enables federal resources to be directed toward response and recovery operations. According to the latest estimates by the AccuWeather forecasting service, the wildfires have caused losses of between $250 billion and $275 billion, accounting for property destruction, firefighting expenses, and economic disruption.
” While Southern California’s fires have exposed the resilience of its residents and the bravery of its first responders, they have also laid bare the failures of leadership.”
The catastrophic wildfires raging across Southern California have brought widespread devastation, but also incredible stories of heroism. As human and animal rescues showcase the bravery of citizens and the resilience of communities, questions arise about the roles of California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in wildfire prevention and response. The Palisades and Eaton fires have ravaged over 27,000 acres combined, destroying more than 10,000 structures, displacing over 180,000 people, and claiming at least 42 lives, according to updated reports. These numbers highlight the immense human and environmental toll. However, amidst the chaos, tales of heroism have emerged.
In Pacific Palisades, 83-year-old Parkinson’s patient Aaron Samson narrowly escaped the flames thanks to the quick thinking and bravery of his son-in-law and neighbors. In Altadena, volunteers and emergency responders evacuated 90 elderly residents from a senior care facility, saving lives as the flames closed in. Animals have also been gravely impacted. In Altadena, residents risked their own safety to rescue horses, with dramatic footage showing people running through embers with the animals. Veterinarian Annie Harvilicz transformed her clinic into a sanctuary for over 40 displaced pets, demonstrating selflessness and dedication.
While these acts of bravery unfolded, critics point to systemic failures at the leadership level. Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass have faced mounting criticism for decisions that may have exacerbated the wildfire crisis. In 2020, Governor Newsom reduced the state’s wildfire prevention budget by $150 million, and reports revealed that actual fire prevention efforts were significantly below publicly stated targets. Mayor Bass has also come under scrutiny for a $17.6 million budget cut to the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), impacting the department’s emergency response capabilities. During the fires, Mayor Bass was on a diplomatic trip to Ghana as part of a Biden delegation, sparking public outrage over her absence despite days of warnings about unprecedented winds increasing fire risk.
Accountability and allegations. Critics argue that a combination of budget cuts, resource mismanagement, and misleading public statements about wildfire preparedness could amount to gross negligence. Advocacy groups have called for investigations into whether these leaders violated their duty to protect the public. Some legal experts suggest that proven negligence could lead to lawsuits or even criminal charges. Additionally, speculation about potential “land grabs” following the destruction of valuable property has fueled public mistrust. Some residents have accused officials of using the crisis to advance agendas favoring developers and special interests.
Insurance crisis. The crisis has been compounded by insurance companies dropping fire coverage for residents in high-risk areas. Months before the fires, many Los Angeles homeowners received notices that their fire insurance policies were being canceled or not renewed. Insurers cited the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires as reasons for deeming many areas uninsurable. In the mid-1990s I worked for a California Stare Senator, another Willie Brown protegee like Newsom. Fraudulent practices with fire and earthquake insurance were a problem back then, and they are worse now, having been left unchecked. The insurance groups have lobbied both political parties very hard to not hold them accountable for fraudulent practices. And they succeeded.
Without fire coverage, families face the prospect of financial ruin, unable to rebuild their homes and communities. This has left thousands of Californians vulnerable to not only the immediate dangers of the flames but also long-term economic hardship. The Palisades and Eaton fires will eventually be contained, but the damage to communities may be irreversible due to restrictive rebuilding permits and the lack of insurance options. Residents and advocacy groups are demanding accountability from state and local officials, though skepticism remains about whether meaningful investigations will occur.
I was in my late teens and early twenties when I lived around many of the iconic places which are now on fire or gone. Generations of families lived in some of these communities and it is heartbreaking to see the direct result of mismanaged fire policies, with millions in funding, having been squandered by corrupt officials. Los Angeles, once a beautiful dream for many, has now become a hellscape of ruin. Governor Gavin Newsom’s rumored ambitions for higher office, including a potential presidential bid, have drawn attention to his track record. Critics warn that his leadership during California’s wildfire crises reveals systemic corruption and mismanagement, which could have broader implications if he ascends to national leadership. While Southern California’s fires have exposed the resilience of its residents and the bravery of its first responders, they have also laid bare the failures of leadership that allowed this devastation to occur.
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials have released part of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report about President-elect Donald Trump. Part one of Smith’s report was made public early on Jan. 14 (1am), after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon allowed its release. In the report, Smith – who recently resigned – said that he believes the evidence against Trump was strong enough to yield a conviction, even though the DOJ dropped its prosecutions of the president-elect. “As alleged in the original and superseding indictments, substantial evidence demonstrates that Mr. Trump then engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power,” Smith wrote. An indictment against Trump charged him with multiple federal crimes, including conspiring to obstruct the certification of the 2020 presidential election.
After the charges were brought, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution for official conduct. Smith’s team subsequently reanalyzed the evidence it had gathered. “Given the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Office reevaluated the evidence and assessed whether Mr. Trump’s non-immune conduct—either his private conduct as a candidate or official conduct for which the Office could rebut the presumption of immunity—violated federal law,” Smith wrote in the newly released report. “The Office concluded that it did. After doing so, the Office sought, and a new grand jury issued, a superseding indictment with identical charges but based only on conduct that was not immune because it was either unofficial or any presumptive immunity could be rebutted.” Part two of the report is being kept back, at least for now, as Trump’s co-defendants in the case fight its release on grounds such as Smith being found to be unconstitutionally appointed.
Smith said in the report that Trump sought to defraud the United States and obstruct the certification of electoral votes in part by conspiring with others to send alternate slates of electors to Washington. After Trump won the 2024 election, consistent with the DOJ’s interpretation that the U.S. Constitution prohibits prosecution of a sitting president, the DOJ dropped the charges against Trump. “The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind,” Smith said in the report. “Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”
Trump’s lawyers said in a recent letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland that the DOJ’s actions represented a “complete exoneration” of their client. Trump wrote on his Truth Social website early Tuesday that Smith “was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his ‘boss’ … so he ends up writing yet another ’Report.’” “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!” Trump added later. Smith, who was appointed by Garland, said in the report that the decision to prosecute Trump was solely his and refuted any allegations to the contrary. “Nobody within the Department of Justice ever sought to interfere with, or improperly influence, my prosecutorial decision making. The regulations under which I was appointed provided you with the authority to countermand my decisions, 28 C.F.R. § 600.7, but you did not do so,” Smith said.
“Nor did you, the Deputy Attorney General, or members of your staff ever attempt to improperly influence my decision as to whether to bring charges against Mr. Trump. And to all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable.” Smith also defended prosecuting Trump, arguing that doing so served federal interests, including the interest in applying the law equally with regards to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. “There is a substantial federal interest in ensuring the evenhanded administration of the law with respect to accountability for the events of January 6, 2021, and the Office determined that interest would not be satisfied absent Mr. Trump’s prosecution for his role,” Smith said.
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Sunday explained why he is stepping down as head of the law enforcement bureau as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office in one week. “My decision to retire from the FBI, I have to tell you, it was one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever had to make,” Wray told CBS’s “60 Minutes” in what is likely his last interview as FBI chief. “I care deeply, deeply about the FBI, about our mission, and in particular, about our people. However, he said, the “president-elect had made clear that he intended to make a change and the law is that that is something he’s able to do for any reason or no reason at all.” In December 2024, Wray announced he would be leaving his post at the end of President Joe Biden’s term amid comments made by Trump signaling he would replace him. Trump has since named Kash Patel, a former intelligence official, to be in charge of the FBI, a position that needs Senate confirmation.
Trump in his first term nominated Wray to lead the FBI in 2017 for a 10-year term ending in 2027. However, the president-elect has often expressed his displeasure with the federal law enforcement bureau, particularly after its agents searched his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida in August 2022 for classified documents. Trump was later charged by special counsel Jack Smith for what prosecutors say was the illegal retention of classified materials and for obstructing attempts to get them back. Last month, Smith opted to drop an appeal of a federal judge’s earlier order that had dissolved the case, and late last week, Smith resigned as special counsel. When Wray announced last month that he would leave, Trump responded in a Truth Social post that it is a “great day for America” because, according to him, “it will end the Weaponization of” the Department of Justice.
“I just don’t know what happened to him. We will now restore the Rule of Law for all Americans,” Trump wrote. The president-elect then praised Patel, saying he would be “committed” to bringing “law, order, and justice” to the United States. In Sunday’s interview with “60 Minutes,” Wray elaborated on why he would leave the law enforcement bureau. “My conclusion was that the thing that was best for the Bureau was to try to do this in an orderly way, to not thrust the FBI deeper into the fray,” he said before praising FBI officials and agents. “They tackle the job with a level of rigor and tenacity and professionalism and objectivity that I think is unparalleled, and I will tell you, it’s been the honor of a lifetime to serve with them,” he said of the agents. Regarding the Mar-a-Lago search, Wray backed his agents’ decision, saying it is the FBI’s responsibility to “follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it.”
He also said that searching Trump’s Palm Beach property and resort was seen as a last resort. “And when we learn that information, classified material, is not being properly stored, we have a duty to act. And I can tell you that in investigations like this one, a search warrant is not and here was not anybody’s first choice,” he told the outlet. When he was asked about Patel and other Cabinet nominees, Wray said he would not weigh in on Trump’s selections. “Facts and the law drive investigations, not politics or partisan preferences,” he said, referring to the FBI. Aside from speaking on his tenure as FBI director, Wray again warned that the greatest threat that the United States faces is the Chinese communist regime as state-backed malign actors have repeatedly targeted and hacked into U.S. infrastructure and companies.
An epic political scandal derailed for years from the public attention it deserved by false Democrat and news media claims of “conspiracy theories” and “Russian misinformation” came to an abrupt and harsh conclusion Monday. And that repudiation was delivered by an unlikely source: the prosecutor who originally tried to give Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal that would have spared the first son prison time. Special Counsel David Weiss’ report was not a manifesto of new disclosures dug up by the FBI or a grand jury. It barely filled 27 pages and failed to answer several questions submitted by Congress, and thus it was blasted by lawmakers for being “incomplete.”
But in simple terms it affirmed for history some simple conclusions: 1.) Hunter Biden broke the law. 2.) The Biden family engaged in a political grift that sucked millions from foreign interests by trading on its powerful name. And 3.) the family patriarch, Joe Biden, misled the public by suggesting his family was a victim of politics that warranted a pardon that erased his son’s dual convictions in tax and gun cases. “The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history,” Weiss wrote in one of several poignant repudiations of the sitting president.
Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyoming, a member of the House Judiciary Committee that investigated a large part of the Biden scandal, told Just the News on Monday evening that Weiss’ report left much to be still investigated by Congress, including the potential national security implications of Joe Biden’s decisions for countries where his son collected millions. “To what extent has our national security been compromised because of the activities and actions of Hunter Biden?” she asked during an appearance on the Just the News, No Noise television show. “I constantly have to question the position that this administration has taken with regard to China, what we’re seeing with the with the drones on the East Coast and even in Wyoming, the Chinese spy balloon that was allowed to traverse the entirety of the entire United States, the situation in Ukraine, with spending another $500 million there in the last week that he is in office.
“All of these are countries that had contact with and were paying Hunter Biden massive amounts of money, and that’s why this is an important issue for the American people, because we cannot allow family members of elected officials to be able to sell our country to the highest bidder of foreign countries,” she added. House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., who led an impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden, said the report was “incomplete” but that its most important contribution was to confirm for history that the Biden family engaged in corruption and tried to cover it up as his committee had shown. “Joe Biden will be remembered for using his last few weeks in office to shield his son from the law and protect himself. The president’s legacy is the same as his family’s business dealings: corrupt,” he said.
Most of Weiss’ grievances dealt with Joe Biden’s attacks on the FBI and IRS agents and federal prosecutors who brought charges against his son, a proverbial defense of institutions by a career prosecutor who eventually was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Donald Trump, then special counsel by Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland. “Politicians who attack the decisions of career prosecutors as politically motivated when they disagree with the outcome of a case undermine the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system,” he wrote. “The President’s statements unfairly impugn the integrity not only of Department of Justice personnel, but all of the public servants making these difficult decisions in good faith.”
Weiss himself faced questions about the judgement of his staff after his team tried to give Hunter Biden a prison-sparing deal that was scuttled by a federal judge only when two IRS whistleblowers, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, came forward to Congress with evidence of political interference in the case. Weiss then doubled back and sought more serious cases against Hunter Biden after the embarrassment, securing a jury conviction in his home state of Delaware on gun charges and a guilty plea on sweeping tax charges in California.
The dual convictions placed the first son in jeopardy of facing prison time, but President Biden intervened before sentencing and issued a pardon in December that he earlier had vowed to avoid. His office’s wobbly performance left just one final unknown: How would the special prosecutor define Hunter Biden’s conduct for history in the final report. The first few paragraphs gave a succinct answer. “I prosecuted the two cases against Mr. Biden because he broke the law,” Weiss wrote in a passage that refuted years of claims by the family and its defenders that Joe Biden’s son had done nothing wrong. “Eight judges across numerous courts have rejected claims that they were the result of selective or vindictive motives,” he added for emphasis.
Weiss then proceeded to describe the scheme that led to the charges: Hunter Biden traded on his politically powerful family name to collect millions from foreigners seeking influence, performed little work, then failed to pay taxes on some of the income. Some of that money came from Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy firm deemed corrupt by the State Department that prompted the scandal back in 2019 in a series of columns written by this author in The Hill newspaper. “Mr. Biden made this money by using his last name and connections to secure lucrative business opportunities, such as a board seat at a Ukrainian industrial conglomerate, Burisma Holdings Limited, and a joint venture with individuals associated with a Chinese energy conglomerate,” the prosecutor wrote. Weiss added for emphasis: “He negotiated and executed contracts and agreements that paid him millions of dollars for limited work.”
“Trump 2.0 is gearing up to be an extended exercise in the capacity to hurt The Other. Any Other. Hostile takeovers – and blood on the tracks. That’s how we “negotiate”.
It’s the greatest show on earth – unleashing a double bill of New Paradigm and Manifest Destiny on crack. We are the greatest. We will rock you – in every sense. We will crush you. We will take whatever we want because we can. And if you wanna walk away from the U.S. dollar, we will destroy you. BRICS, we’re coming to get ya. Trump 2.0 – a mix of professional wrestling and MMA played in a giant planetary cage – is in da house starting next Monday. Trump 2.0 aims to be on the driving seat on the global financial system; on control of the world’s oil trade and LNG supply; and on strategic media platforms. Trump 2.0 is gearing up to be an extended exercise in the capacity to hurt The Other. Any Other. Hostile takeovers – and blood on the tracks. That’s how we “negotiate”.
Under Trump 2.0, global tech infrastructure must run on U.S. software, not just on the profit front but also on the spy front. AI data chips must be American only. AI data centers must be controlled by America only. “Free trade” and “globalization”? That’s for losers. Welcome to neo-imperial, techno-feudal mercantilism – powered by U.S. tech supremacy. Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has named a few of the targets ahead: Greenland; Canada; assorted cartels; the Arctic; the Gulf of “America”; oil and gas; rare earth minerals. All in the name of strengthening “national security”. A key plank: total control of the “Western Hemisphere”. Monroe Doctrine 2.0 – actually the Donroe Doctrine. America First, Last and Always.
Well, let’s delve a bit on pesky material imperatives. The Empire of Chaos faces a humongous debt, owed to usual suspect loan sharks, that may only be – partially – repaid by selected export surpluses. That would imply re-industrialization – a long, costly affair – and securing smooth military supply chains. Where the resource base will be for this Sisyphean task? Washington simply cannot rely on Chinese exports and rare earths. The chessboard needs to be rejigged – with trade and tech unified under U.S. unilateral, monopoly control. Plan A, so far, was to simultaneously confront Russia and China: the two top BRICS, and key vectors of Eurasia integration. China’s strategy, since the start of the millennium, has been to trade resources for infrastructure, developing Global South markets as China itself keeps developing.
Russia’s strategy has been to help nations recover their sovereignty; actually helping nations to help themselves on the sustainable development front. Plan A against the concerted geoeconomic and geostrategic strategies of the Russia-China strategic partnership miserably failed. What has been attempted by the ghastly, exiting U.S. administration generated serial, massive blowbacks. So it’s time for Plan B: Looting the allies. They are already dominated chihuahuas anyway. The – exploitation – show must go on. And there are plenty of chihuahuas available to be exploited. Canada has loads of fresh water plus oil and mining wealth. The Canadian business class in fact has always dreamed of deep integration with the Empire of Chaos. Trump 2.0 and his team have been careful not to name names. When it comes to the Arctic as a crucial, evolving battlefield, there may be a vague allusion to the Northwest Passage.
But never a mention of what really matters; the Northern Sea Route – the Russian denomination; the Chinese call it the Arctic Silk Road. That’s one of the key connectivity corridors of the future. The Northern Sea Route encompasses at least 15% of the world’s unexplored oil and 30% of the world’s unexplored natural gas. Greenland is smack in the middle of this New Great Game – capable of supplying years of uranium, as much oil as Alaska (bought from Russia in 1867), plus rare earths – not to mention providing useful real state for missile defense and offense. Washington has been trying to grab Greenland from Denmark since 1946. There’s a deal with Copenhagen in place guaranteeing military control – mostly naval. Now Greenland is being revamped as the ideal U.S. entry point into the Arctic Great Game against Russia.
At the St. Petersburg forum last June, I had the privilege to follow an exceptional round table on the Northern Sea Route: that’s an integral part of Russia’s 21st century development project, focused on commercial navigation – “We need more icebreakers!” – and bound to surpass Suez and Gibraltar in the near future. Slightly over 50,000 Greenland residents – which already enjoy autonomy, especially vis a vis the EU – would more than accept a full Danish exit; Copenhagen actually abandoned them since 1951. Greenlanders will love to profit from vast U.S. investments. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov went straight to the point: “The first step is to listen to the Greenlanders” – comparing it to how Russia listened to the residents of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya vis a vis Kiev.
What Trump 2.0 actually wants from Greenland is crystal clear: total militarization; privileged access to rare earths; and commercially excluding Russia and Chinese companies. Chinese military expert Yu Chun noted that “soon, the long-desired ‘golden waterway’ of the Arctic Ocean is expected to open, allowing ships to traverse the Pacific Ocean and sail along the northern coasts of North America and Eurasia into the Atlantic Ocean.” As the Northern Sea Route is “a key element of Sino-Russian cooperation”, it’s inevitable that the U.S.’s “strategic vision is to prevent the establishment of a ‘golden waterway’ between China, Russia, and Europe by controlling Greenland.”
Judge Foss, sitting at the London First-Tier Tribunal, has ruled that the Crown Prosecution Service must explain how it came to destroy key files that would have shed light on why it pursued Assange for 14 years. The CPS appears to have done so in breach of its own procedures. Assange was finally released from Belmarsh high-security prison last year in a plea deal after Washington had spent years seeking his extradition for publishing documents revealing US and UK war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CPS files relate to lengthy correspondence between the UK and Sweden over a preliminary investigation into rape allegations in Sweden that predate the US extradition case. A few CPS emails from that time were not destroyed and have been released under Freedom of Information rules. They show that it was the UK authorities pushing reluctant Swedish prosecutors to pursue the case against Assange.
Eventually, Swedish prosecutors dropped the case after running it into the ground. In other words, the few documents that have come to light show that it was the CPS — led at that time by Keir Starmer, later knighted and now Britain’s prime minister — that waged what appears to have been a campaign of political persecution against Assange, rather than one based on proper legal considerations. It is not just Britain concealing documents relating to Assange. The US, Swedish and Australian authorities have also put up what Stefania Maurizi, an Italian journalist who has been doggedly pursuing the FoI requests, has called “a wall of darkness”. There are good grounds for believing that all four governments have co-ordinated their moves to cover up what would amount to legal abuses in the Assange case.
Starmer headed the CPS when many highly suspect decisions regarding Assange were made. If the documents truly have been destroyed, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to ever know how directly he was involved in those decisions. Extraordinarily, and conveniently for both the UK and Sweden, it emerged during legal hearings in early 2023 that prosecutors in Stockholm claim to have destroyed the very same correspondence deleted by the CPS.
The new ruling by Judge Foss will require the CPS to explain how and why it destroyed the documents, and provide them unless it can demonstrate that there is no way they can ever be retrieved. Failure to do so by 21 February will be treated as contempt of court. The UK and the US have similarly sought to stonewall separate FoI requests from Maurizi concerning their lengthy correspondence while Washington sought to extradite Assange on “espionage” charges for revealing their war crimes. The British judiciary approved locking Assange up for years while the extradition case dragged on, despite United Nations legal experts ruling that Assange was being “arbitrarily detained” and the UN’s expert on torture, Nils Melzer, finding that Assange was being subjected to prolonged psychological torture that posed a threat to his life.
From the beginning, the Russian Embassy in London issued formal requests for consular access to the Skripals and protest notes when this was denied by the Foreign Office. In reply to British stonewalling on access and propagandizing the allegations against the Russian government, the Embassy issued a detailed summary of every action Russian officials had taken and the statements they made. The one option the Embassy in London did not take was to engage British lawyers to obtain a hearing and an order of habeas corpus in the High Court to compel the appearance of the Skripals to testify for themselves. This option was obvious to the Embassy and lawyers in London between March 21, 2018, when the Home Office went to the court for legal authority to allow blood testing of the Skripals, and April 9, when Salisbury District Hospital announced that Yulia Skripal had been released; and then on May 18 when Sergei Skripal was also discharged from hospital.
During this period it was reported that Yulia was able to telephone her cousin Viktoria in Russia. Years later, as Chapters 67, 71, and 73 reveal, it became clear in retrospect that Yulia had recovered consciousness in hospital much earlier than the hospital allowed to be known, and that doctors had then forcibly sedated her. At the time the Russian Embassy was announcing it “questioned the authenticity” of the statements issued by the London police and media on Yulia’s behalf. The Embassy was right; it was not believed. It is possible the Embassy did attempt to engage barristers to go to court for a habeas corpus hearing for the Skripals, but learned that no one would take the case. At the time I made an independent request for this engagement to the well-known human rights barristers in London; the outcome was that none agreed to represent the Skripals. The refusals were point-blank – no one would give a reason.
British officials anticipated that an effort might succeed in forcing a High Court hearing, however. So, on May 24, 2018, a one minute fifty-five second speech by Yulia Skripal was presented on video in which she spoke from a script and appeared to sign a statement. Referring to “offers of assistance from the Russian Embassy,” she claimed “at the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services.” Skripal’s Russian text spoke of “help” from the Russian Embassy: “now I don’t want and [I am] not ready to use it.” “Obviously, Yulia was reading a pre-written text,” the Russian Embassy responded publicly. “[This] was a translation from English and had been initially written by a native English-speaker…With all respect for Yulia’s privacy and security, this video does not discharge the UK authorities from their obligations under Consular Conventions.”
At first, Putin seemed unprepared on the facts of the case – the Russian facts – and unprepared for the British government’s propaganda blitz. The president cannot have been unprepared. On March 15, 2018, the Kremlin revealed that at a Security Council meeting on that day Putin was briefed by the Foreign and Defense Ministers and the intelligence chiefs. “While talking about international affairs,” the official communiqué said, “the Council members held an in-depth discussion on Russia-UK relations against the backdrop of Sergei Skripal’s case. They expressed grave concern over the destructive and provocative position of the British side.”
The line which Putin and his advisers decided at that meeting they planned to follow in public was revealed by Putin three days later at a press conference. He tried to feign ignorance himself, and then dissimulated on the weapon, the motive, and the opportunity. “Regarding the tragedy you have mentioned,” Putin told reporters, “I learned about it from the media. The first thing that comes to mind is that, had it been a warfare agent, the victims would have died immediately. It is an obvious fact which must be taken into account. This is first.”
“The second is that Russia does not have such chemical agents. We destroyed all our chemical weapons, and international observers monitored the destruction process. Moreover, we were the first to do this, unlike some of our partners who promised to destroy their chemical weapons but have not done so to this day, regrettably. Therefore, we are ready for cooperation, as we said immediately. We are ready to take part in any investigations necessary, provided the other side wants this too. We do not see their interest so far, but we have not removed the possibility of cooperation on this matter from the agenda.” “As for the overall situation, I believe that any reasonable person can see that this is total nonsense. It is unthinkable that anyone on Russia would do such a thing ahead of the presidential election and the FIFA World Cup. Absolutely unthinkable. However, we are ready for cooperation despite the above things. We are ready to discuss any issues and to deal with any problems.”
Studies based on 28 Greenland sharks determined by radiocarbon dating of crystals within the lens of their eyes, say that the oldest of the animals had lived for 392±120 years and was consequently born between 1504 and 1744.pic.twitter.com/P8pb16S0rY
The opening scene of a concert as seen from the ceiling of Teatro San Carlo in Naples, which was built in the first half of the XVIII century and is the world's oldest active opera house.
REPORTER: Why are you calling a special session of the legislature now instead of later to help Trump's deportations?
DESANTIS: Because he is going to sign orders as soon as he takes office. Why would we twiddle our thumbs when we know this is coming? We need to be ready. pic.twitter.com/px7rSOQotj
BREAKING: First Lady Melania Trump just revealed that she is cutting down the size of the First Lady's office to save money.
"I don't want to hire too many people on my team, spending too much taxpayer money. I want to make sure that every position, they are talented, they have… pic.twitter.com/ebhXUooyDR
I just got back from Mar-a-Lago, where Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and I sat down with Donald Trump. We tackled tariffs, pipelines, and why a strong Canada-U.S. partnership matters now more than ever.
Last week, Lavrov, for a reason, said Trump envoy Keith Kellogg needed to ‘dive into’ the relevant material. Trump et al must realize that Crimea and the 4 territories are not up for negotiation; they are part of Russia now. 3 years ago, before the SMO, Russia suggested leaving them be part of Ukraine. That’s no longer a option, Putin’s suggestions then were rejected by Zelensky and NATO.
There will be an argument that being too easy on Putin will mean a loss of face for US and NATO. Trump can put that on its head by saying it’s a loss of face for Biden, Blinken and the Democrats, plus a whole slew of wildly unpopular European leaders like Starmer, Macron and Scholz.
Trump wants the killing to stop. Easy. He and Putin can pick a date (Jan 21?) for a ceasefire, in a way that no-one will dare break. After that, it’s no nukes, no nazis, no NATO.
US President-elect Donald Trump has announced plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin “very quickly” after being sworn in on January 20. During an interview on Monday, Newsmax host Rob Schmitt asked Trump about his strategy to end the Ukraine conflict, to which Trump said “there is only one strategy, and it’s up to Putin.” He added: “I can’t imagine he’s too thrilled with the way it’s gone, because it hasn’t gone exactly well for him either.” “I know he [Putin] wants to meet, and I’m going to meet very quickly,” the incoming US leader said. “I would have done it sooner, but … you have to get into the office.” During his campaign, Trump promised to end the Ukraine conflict and multibillion-dollar US funding of the government in Kiev. He claimed he could stop the hostilities “in 24 hours” by making several phone calls.
Since his election as president, Trump and members of his transition team have moderated expectations, acknowledging that a resolution will probably take several months at least. In the interview with Newsmax, Trump blamed the outgoing President Joe Biden for allowing the conflict to escalate on his watch. The fighting has had devastating consequences for both Ukraine and Russia, he said. ”This was gross incompetence. That’s the only reason this war has taken place,” he stated. Biden, speaking at the Department of State on Monday, defended his handling of the crisis, claiming it was one of his administration’s foreign policy achievements. ”I had two jobs – one to rally the world to defend Ukraine, and the other is to avoid war between two nuclear powers. We did both those things,” he said.
”Ukraine is still free, independent country, with a potential, a potential for a bright future,” Biden said, adding that it was up to the Trump administration to “protect the bright future of the Ukrainian people”. The Kremlin has responded positively to Trump’s declared intention to engage with Russia, but stressed that the Ukraine conflict needs to be resolved in a way that addresses its core causes. Those, according to Moscow, include NATO’s expansion in Europe and Ukraine’s discrimination against its ethnic Russian citizens. Russian officials have accused the Biden administration of intentionally escalating tensions to justify a proxy war against their country, which is how the conflict is viewed in Moscow.
President-elect Donald Trump’s Republican allies in the US House of Representatives have introduced draft legislation aiming to authorize negotiations for the United States to buy Greenland from Denmark. The island’s pro-independence leader has said he is “ready to talk,” after Trump refused to rule out a military takeover. The bill, circulated on Monday by Representative Andy Ogles and backed by ten co-sponsors, would allow Trump to begin talks with Denmark immediately upon his inauguration. “Congress hereby authorizes the President, beginning at 12:01 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 20, 2025, to seek to enter into negotiations with the Kingdom of Denmark for the purchase of Greenland,” the bill states. The proposal follows Trump’s renewed interest in making Greenland part of the US, calling it an “absolute necessity” for national security and refusing to rule out the use of military or economic pressure to achieve this goal.
“People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to [Greenland], but if they do, they should give it up because we need it,” Trump said last week. Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede reiterated the island’s ambition to gain independence from Denmark last week, emphasizing that the Greenlandic people do not want to be either Danish or American. Egede also expressed readiness to “talk” with Trump, acknowledging that his refusal to rule out the use of force to acquire Greenland was “serious.” Greenland is the world’s largest island, with shores on the Atlantic and Arctic oceans. From the early 19th century to the 1950s, it was a territory under the full control of Denmark. During WWII, it was occupied by the US after Denmark was captured by Nazi Germany. Currently, the island hosts a US military base and an early warning system for ballistic missiles.
The island has grown increasingly autonomous, and was granted home rule in 1979, ultimately gaining the right in 2009 to declare independence if a referendum passes. “The desire for independence, the wish to be in one’s own house, is probably understood by all people in the world,” Egede stressed, adding that an independence vote “will come soon.” Greenland is home to fewer than 57,000 people and is 80% covered with ice, but it is rich in gold, silver, copper, and uranium deposits and is believed to have vast oil reserves in its territorial waters. According to a recent survey by US research firm Patriot Polling, approximately 57% of Greenland’s population supports Trump’s proposal. The poll involved 416 respondents and was conducted earlier this month while Donald Trump Jr., the president-elect’s son, was visiting the island on a “personal day trip.”
It was back in August 2019, just about the time Democrats were wasting everyone’s time with the first fake impeachment scandal, when Donald Trump originally introduced the idea of buying Greenland from Denmark. At the time, the notion was dismissed by the pointy-headed arbiters of right and wrong known as the mainstream media, who concluded that Trump must see his presidency as an extended season of “The Apprentice.” In this episode, the modern-day land baron outsmarts the Scandihoovian rubes who didn’t know the “green” in Greenland was cold hard cash. Like almost every other preconception of Trump in his first term, that take was nonsensical. There was considerable historical and geo-political justification for Trump’s proposal to rescue Greenland from European colonialism, and perhaps if his enemies had not sprung the Ukraine phone call impeachment hoax shortly after the Greenland gambit was proposed, it might have become a major accomplishment of Trump’s first term.
I wrote about the original proposal on Aug. 26, 2019, for RealClearPolitics in an article that declared “Trump’s No Safe Bet; He’s a Leader.” The premise was that unlike the feckless, washed-out, safety-in-numbers politicians who lead by following polls, Trump used common sense and intuition to find solutions to problems no one else even liked to think about. Building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants might seem like an obvious idea now, but before Trump, no one would have dared to say it. The same is true of his wish to reclaim Greenland as North American territory. Few if any of Trump’s contemporaries had considered the idea, but it was not without precedent. Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward had sought to purchase Greenland for the United States in 1867, the same year he famously acquired Alaska from Russia.
These days, it may seem jarring to talk about buying large chunks of real estate for the purpose of national aggrandizement, but it wasn’t always so. In addition to Seward’s purchase of Alaska, the United States also can be grateful for Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase, which nearly doubled the size of the country, as well as for the largely free acquisition of Florida from Spain. Land deals are not just in Trump’s blood; they are part of our national heritage. They can also be vital to national security. Certainly everyone can agree we were infinitely better off during the era of the Soviet Union because Alaska was no longer in the hands of the Russian oligarchs. And President-elect Trump alluded to a similar benefit on Truth Social when he appointed his ambassador to Denmark in December: “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”
Trump elaborated on that sentiment last week during his impromptu press conference at Mar-a-Lago. “We need Greenland for national security purposes. … People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security. That’s for the free world. I’m talking about protecting the free world. You don’t even need binoculars. You look outside, you have China ships all over the place. You have Russian ships all over the place. We’re not letting that happen. We’re not letting it happen.” So again, we have the Russian threat, but this time added on top of the perhaps even greater Chinese threat. As I pointed out five years ago, China has its own eyes on Greenland, not just for the strategic importance but because it is a repository of rare earth minerals and other resources:
“President Trump was well aware that the Chinese had already expressed their own interest in Greenland, offering to fund millions of dollars of infrastructure improvements on the island as part of the plan for global economic domination known as the ‘Belt and Road Initiative.’” Fortunately, pressure on Denmark largely thwarted China’s Greenland ambitions, but meanwhile Trump’s appetite for American expansionism was whetted. It is perhaps significant that the play for Greenland has been paired with Trump’s threat to take back the Panama Canal, which was turned over to the nation of Panama by Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. The canal zone, after all, has proven to be a lucrative foothold for China in the New World, and provides a chilling warning of what might happen if someone of Trump’s stature did not step forward to hold the communist state out of Greenland.
And one thing is certain. No one is laughing at Trump this time around for his pitch to Denmark. Far-fetched? Maybe, but no one dares to underestimate Trump any longer. His willpower is a force of nature, and if he says he wants Greenland, don’t count him out. Trump has already become the dominant force on the world stage weeks before he takes office. His attendance at the reopening of Notre Dame caused ripples throughout Europe. Mexico and Canada were put on notice that there was no more free ride once Trump took office, as he threatened them both with tariffs. Trump’s jest about making Canada the 51st state deserves a lot of the credit for (Governor?) Justin Trudeau’s resignation as prime minister. And that’s just the beginning.
With all of 416 respondents, it’s not much of a poll. But this is even before Trump has offered to make every Greenlander a millionaire, and split proceeds of any resource exploitation 50-50.
Some 57.3% of Greenland’s population supports US President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal to make the island an American territory, a new survey has suggested. The number of those rejecting Trump’s proposal stands at 37.4%, with 5.3% undecided, US research firm Patriot Polling said on Monday. “Our survey finds that a substantial majority of Greenlandic residents support joining the US,” the pollster’s statement read. According to Patriot Polling, the survey involved 416 respondents in Greenland, and was conducted between January 6 and 11, while Donald Trump Jr., the president-elect’s son, was visiting the Danish autonomous territory. The little-known company had never previously conducted a poll outside the US.
Trump, who had offered to buy Greenland from Copenhagen during his first term in office, has returned to the issue in recent weeks. At a press conference last Tuesday, he refused to rule out using force to bring the world’s largest island under Washington’s control, saying: “It might be that you will have to do something… We need Greenland for national security purposes.” Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede stressed on Friday that the island “…is for the Greenlandic people. We do not want to be Danish, we do not want to be American.” The islanders’ desire is to be an independent nation, the prime minister said, promising that a vote on the issue “will come soon.”
However, Egede stressed that he was “ready to talk” to Trump, and expressed eagerness to keep cooperating with the US in the future. In 2008, Greenland held a non-binding referendum on increased autonomy from Denmark, resulting in 75% voter approval and a 72% turnout. This led to the 2009 Self-Government Act, granting the island greater control over its internal affairs. Spanning an area of 2.2 million sq km (about six times the size of Germany), Greenland is home to fewer than 57,000 people, and is 80% covered with ice. The island is rich in gold, silver, copper and uranium deposits, and is believed to have vast oil reserves in its territorial waters.
SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk has accused British Prime Minister Keir Starmer of meddling in American elections. The tech billionaire has been tapped by US President-elect Donald Trump to head DOGE, a special advisory body tasked with identifying government inefficiency. On Sunday, Musk commented on an X user’s post that Starmer has not been invited to Trump’s January 20 inauguration, despite the UK being among the closest allies of the US. The tech billionaire made it clear that the UK prime minister’s absence from the ceremony’s guest list is no surprise, given that “he sent operatives to America to undermine the US elections.” Musk’s claim apparently stems from the accusations of “blatant foreign interference” made by Trump’s campaign against Starmer’s Labour Party in October.
At the time, the US president-elect’s team filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over reports of the British activists campaigning in the US for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. Musk has been increasingly critical of Starmer on his X platform in recent weeks, saying that he runs a “tyrannical government,” from which the US might need to “liberate the people” in the UK. Among other things, he branded the British prime minister “evil” and accused him of being “complicit in the rape of Britain” over Starmer’s purported role in the cover up of the grooming gangs scandal while head of the Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013.
Those gangs, mostly made up of Pakistani males, targeted white British girls for some two decades. The UK authorities failed to act against them due to political correctness concerns, multiple government and media reports have alleged. Last week, Starmer hit back at Musk, calling his claims “lies and misinformation” and blaming the tech billionaire for spreading the “poison of the far-right.” On Thursday, the Financial Times reported that Musk is allegedly considering a campaign to force the British prime minister out of office by undermining his approval ratings. The outlet’s sources claimed that the SpaceX and Tesla CEO had privately discussed such plans with his allies, acting out of the belief “that Western civilization itself is threatened.”
X owner Elon Musk has denounced former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton as “the tyrant of Europe” over an interview that appeared to endorse the cancelation of Romania’s presidential elections. Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the vote last month, citing since-debunked claims by intelligence services that front-runner Calin Georgescu had been boosted by a Russian campaign on TikTok. It has since emerged that the campaign had been the work of a rival Romanian party, but the court has refused to reverse its ruling. In an interview with the French outlet BFMTV/RMC last week, Breton appeared to warn that the upcoming German elections could suffer the same fate should the Musk-endorsed Alternative for Germany (AfD) party emerge triumphant.
“Let’s stay calm and enforce the laws in Europe, when they risk being circumvented and if not enforced, could lead to interference,” Breton said. “It was done in Romania and obviously, it will have to be done, if necessary, in Germany as well.” The minute-long video, in French, was shared by the Polish-based account ‘Visegrad24’, prompting Musk to reply, deriding “the staggering absurdity of Thierry Breton as the tyrant of Europe.” Breton objected to the label on Saturday, however, arguing that he was only referring to online censorship through the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and that the EU “has NO mechanism to nullify any election” in the bloc. “Lost in translation… or another fake news?” he wondered on X. Breton’s clarification did not address the fact that the alleged “interference” in Romanian democracy came from inside the country, undermining the basis for the Constitutional Court’s annulment.
Breton’s initial remarks came in response to Musk’s interview on X with Alice Weidel, AfD’s candidate for chancellor in the upcoming German election. Musk has endorsed her party and urged German voters to oust sitting Chancellor Olaf Scholz, which some EU officials have denounced as unacceptable foreign meddling. The Frenchman was the EU commissioner for Digital Affairs and Internal Markets in August, when he threatened Musk with penalties over an upcoming X interview with Donald Trump, then the Republican candidate for US president. When Musk threatened to expose “secret deals” the EU offered in exchange for censorship on X, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen claimed the French commissioner had acted on his own. Breton resigned in September, accusing the Brussels leadership of “questionable governance.”
FRENCH TAUNTER DENIES EU TOLD ROMANIA TO CANCEL ELECTION RESULTS
Thierry Breton, the former EU Commissioner who tried to interfere with Elon’s interview with Trump, claimed his recent comments were taken out of context.
“We are protesting against the coup d’état that took place on Dec. 6. We are sorry to discover so late that we were living in a lie and that we were led by people who claimed to be democrats, but are not at all.”
“At this rate we won’t be voting anymore, they will impose a leader like in the old days.”
Upwards of 100,000 Romanians of various political stripes took to the streets on Sunday to express outrage over the voiding of a presidential election that seemed poised to put a NATO and Ukraine War skeptic in power. George Simion, leader of the right-wing Alliance for the Unity of Romanians, summed up the intent of the demonstrations his party organized: “We are protesting against the coup d’état that took place on Dec. 6. We are sorry to discover so late that we were living in a lie and that we were led by people who claimed to be democrats, but are not at all. We demand a return to democracy through the resumption of elections, starting with the second round.”
🇷🇴 Close to 100,000 people on the streets of Bucharest protesting against the decision to cancel the elections and in support of Georgescu
Man tries to find the end of the protest, gives up after he keeps running into masses of people pic.twitter.com/EEs7C2ga3P
In November, Romania held the first balloting in its two-round election. It resulted in Europe’s latest instance in which a populist, nationalist, right-wing candidate posted a result that far exceeded what polls indicated he was capable of. In a 13-contender field, that candidate, Calin Georgescu, led the pack with 23%, setting him up to advance to the second and final round against reformist Elena Lasconi of the Save Romania Union party. However, just two days before that second round was to take place on Dec. 8, Romania’s constitutional court annulled the election, and ordered a complete do-over of both rounds. Their justification: Supposed Russian meddling manifested in manipulated votes, campaign irregularities and secret spending. The ruling came after incumbent President Klaus Iohannis reportedly shared intelligence claiming Russia organized thousands of social media accounts to boost Georgescu’s campaign.
“You petty politicians, with your ungrateful and immature games, you won’t even know what hit you in this global storm,” said Georgescue in a social media post in which he promoted the protest and compared Romanian leaders and judges with former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who’s on trial on corruption charges. “You are so small that you aren’t even able to understand anything. Nothing you do will make a difference anymore. The inevitable, is inevitable.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1876584350898413985
On Sunday, crowds — estimated in size from tens of thousands to more than 100,000 — marched through the streets of Bucharest, with Reuters reporting that many left-wingers joined the protest. The slogans on their signs included “We Want Free Elections,” “Bring Back The Second Round,” “Freedom,” and “Democracy Is Not Optional.” In a country that is among the most religiously observant in Europe, many carried Christian Orthodox icons. According to video posted to social media, protesters also vented their aggravation with establishment media: Social media was the principal catalyst of 62-year-old Georgescu’s success. He didn’t run as a member of any political party, but his TikTok account racked up 1.6 million likes for content showing him going to church, running, practicing judo, and being interviewed by podcasters.
Iohannis’ term was supposed to end on Dec. 21, but he’s now slated to remain in power until the do-over election is complete. The dates are not yet official, but, last week, leaders of the ruling coalition government said they’d agreed on holding the two rounds on May 4 and May 18. Georgescu’s views are anathema to the European establishment. He’s pledged to restore Romanian sovereignty and put an end to what he characterizes as subservience to NATO and the EU. He has taken a hard line against the presence of NATO’s missile defense system that’s based in Deveselu, southern Romania, calling it a “shame of diplomacy” that is more confrontational than peace-promoting.
Romania shares a 400-mile border with Ukraine and hosts a NATO missile defense system in the country’s south (via Britannica)
He’s also pushed for Romania to pursue a non-interventionist policy in the Ukraine war, and said US arms-makers were manipulating the conflict. Since Russia’s invasion, Romania has facilitated Ukrainian grain exports and furnished military assistance including the donation of a Patriot missile battery. In addition to his broad theme of restoring Romanian sovereignty, Georgescu also ran on countering price inflation, addressing Romania’s worst-in-EU poverty rate, supporting farmers and decreasing the country’s reliance on imports. However, now it is the sovereignty of the Romanian people themselves that is in peril. As a flag-wrapped economist named Cornelia told Reuters on Sunday: “At this rate we won’t be voting anymore, they will impose a leader like in the old days.”
Scott Ritter pointed out that Antony Blinken has facilitated the Ukraine conflict because “peace with Russia was never an option, only war.” Outgoing US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is “a war criminal in every sense of the word,” former American Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter wrote on X, commenting on Blinken’s video, in which he praised the Biden administration’s work. Ritter accused Blinken of being “singularly responsible for the deaths of more than a million people” as a result of the conflict in Ukraine. “You took advantage of a mentally diminished president to take our nation to the brink of nuclear war with Russia, violating the Constitution’s due process,” the ex-intelligence officer wrote, referring to the outgoing US President Joe Biden.
Ritter voiced hope that Blinken would be “investigated, charged, and found guilty of betraying” his country. “And I hope you are given the justice you so richly deserve,” the ex-intelligence officer concluded. Blinken earlier told the New York Times that when it comes to the Biden administration, there’s allegedly “a very strong record of achievement, historic in many ways.” These claims are clearly out of sync with Biden’s plummeting approval rating, which hit a new low in December, when just 34% of respondents ok’d his job as POTUS, according to a Marquette Law School national poll.
A federal judge has cleared the way for the public release of volume one of special counsel Jack Smith’s final report on investigations involving President-elect Donald Trump while opting to keep volume two of the report restricted. Volume one pertains to Smith’s election interference case against Trump, while volume two relates to the classified documents case. In a Jan. 13 order, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon partially denied an emergency motion by two Trump co-defendants—Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira—to block the public release of the report. Nauta and De Oliveira had filed an emergency motion seeking to prevent the release of both volumes of Smith’s report, citing concerns that it would prejudice their pretrial rights.
Cannon upheld their request to restrict volume two, which pertains to a classified documents probe involving Trump in which Nauta and De Oliveira are co-defendants. The judge noted that the release of volume two would be “inconsistent” with the defendants’ right to a fair trial. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the selective release of volume two to congressional leaders was in the public interest but stopped short of advocating broader dissemination. Nauta and De Oliveira argued that releasing the volume, even in a limited capacity, could irreparably damage their legal position. Cannon scheduled a hearing for Jan. 17 to address the DOJ’s request for limited disclosure of volume two to congressional leaders while withholding it from the public.
“Release of Volume II, even on a limited basis as promised by the United States, risks irreversibly and substantially impairing the legal rights of Defendants in this criminal proceeding,” Cannon wrote. “The Court is not willing to make that gamble on the basis of generalized interest by members of Congress, at least not without full briefing and a hearing on the subject.” The judge noted that a portion of the hearing may need to be conducted under seal to prevent parts of volume two from being disseminated to the public. However, Cannon agreed with the DOJ’s position that volume one contained no substantive references to the defendants or the classified documents case. Noting that there was “insufficient basis” to restrict the public release of volume one, Cannon cleared the way for its public release.
After Trump won the presidential election, Smith moved to dismiss the classified documents case and the election interference case against Trump, citing DOJ rules regarding not prosecuting presidents. The motions to dismiss were made “without prejudice,” meaning that charges could be refiled after Trump finishes his second term as president. However, the statute of limitations and the prospect that Trump pardons himself stand in the way of potential re-prosecution.
The expected release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report will occur as early as this weekend, albeit without those sections dealing with the Florida documents case. (Other defendants are still facing prosecution in that case.) However, the most glaring omission will be arguably an explanation of how Smith lost this war without firing a single shot in a trial. After more than two years, two separate cases and countless appeals (not to mention more than $50 million spent), Smith left without presenting a single witness, let alone charge, at trial. It is an example of how a general can have the largest army and unlimited resources and yet defeat himself with a series of miscalculations. History probably won’t be kind to Smith, whose record bespeaks a “parade general” — a prosecutor who offered more pretense than progress in the prosecution of an American president.
Indeed, this report will be one of Smith’s last chances to display a case that notably never got close to an actual trial. One-sided and unfiltered, it will have all of the thrill of a Sousa march of a regiment in full dress. We know because we have seen much of this before. At every juncture, Smith has taken his case out on parade in the court of public opinion. The Smith report will reportedly concern only the Washington case alleging crimes related to Jan. 6 and the 2020 election — a case that was always a bridge too far for Smith. When first appointed, Smith had a straightforward and relatively easy case to make against Trump over his removal and retention of presidential materials. The case was not without controversy. Some of us questioned the selective nature of the prosecution given past violations by other presidents, particularly as shown by the violations of President Biden going back decades found by another special counsel.
However, the case originally focused on the conspiracy and false statements during the federal investigation into the documents at Mar-a-Lago. Those are well-established crimes that Smith could have brought to trial quickly with a solid shot for conviction. But Smith’s undoing has always been his appetite. That was evident when he was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court in his case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R). In Florida, Smith was in signature form. He took a simple case and loaded it up with press-grabbing charges regarding the retention of classified material. In so doing, he slowed the case to a crawl. As a defense lawyer who has handled classified documents cases, I said at the outset that I did not believe he could get this case to a jury before the 2024 election, and that after that election, Smith might not have a case to present. Smith had outmaneuvered himself.
Then came the Washington filing, the subject of this forthcoming report. It was another vintage Smith moment. Smith played to the public in a case that pushed both the Constitution and statutory provisions beyond the breaking point. He simply could not resist, and he was only encouraged after the assignment of Judge Tanya Chutkan, a judge viewed by many as predisposed against Trump. In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan had said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then, “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her for trial by Smith. nThe D.C. case was doomed from the outset by both a prosecutor and judge who, in their zeal to bag Trump, yielded to every temptation. As time ticked away, Smith became almost apoplectic in demanding an expedited path to trial, including cutting short appeals.
After refusing to recuse herself, Chutkan seemed to indulge Smith at every turn. But the Supreme Court failed to agree that speed should trump substance in such reviews. With both cases slipping out of his grasp, Smith then threw a final Hail Mary. He asked Chutkan to let him file what was basically a 165-page summary of this report against Trump before the election. There was no apparent reason for the public release of the filing, except to influence the election — a motivation long barred by Justice Department rules. Chutkan, of course, allowed it anyway, despite admitting that the request was “procedurally irregular.” It did not work. Although the press and pundits eagerly repeated the allegations in the filing, the public had long ago reached its own conclusion and rendered its own verdict in November.
British Eurosceptic politician David Kurten has called for a partial relaunch of the Nord Stream pipeline system – which previously pumped Russian natural gas to the EU – amid freezing weather and supply fears. In a statement on X on Sunday, the politician, who leads the Heritage Party, advocated purchasing gas from Russia to address a potential energy shortage. “One of the four Nord Stream pipelines is undamaged and could be turned on again very quickly. Let’s buy good, cheap gas from our friends in Russia once again,” Kurten wrote. British gas supplier Centrica warned last week that “plunging temperatures… have reduced UK winter gas storage to concerningly low levels.” “Stubbornly high” gas prices have made it “more difficult to top up storage,” the company added. The network operator National Gas has since downplayed the concerns, stating that the storage level “remains healthy.”
The Nord Stream system, operated by Russia’s Gazprom and designed to pump gas under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, consists of two parts – Nord Stream 1 and 2. The first was launched in 2011, becoming a key energy source for the EU. Nord Stream 2, completed in 2021, was intended to double the system’s capacity, but never went online due to certification issues in Germany – which were exacerbated by the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict the following year. Both Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 were ruptured in September 2022 in what EU officials described as an act of sabotage. Explosions rendered three of the four conduits inoperable. Russia has repeatedly called for an impartial international investigation, while criticizing the transparency of European-led probes. Moscow has suggested that the United States may have been behind the explosions, in an attempt to reduce Russia’s energy leverage.
The Nord Stream shut-down has sent energy prices soaring in Germany, which previously bought over 50% of its natural gas from Russia. In 2023, the EU’s largest economy recorded a recession, according to official statistics. Other countries, including Austria, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia, have also experienced disruptions, which have been further exacerbated the suspension of Russian gas transit via Ukraine, after Kiev refused to extend a transit deal. German opposition politician and candidate for chancellor Alice Weidel pledged last week to put Nord Stream back into operation if her party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), wins next month’s general election.
The UK, unlike many European nations, historically imported only a small percentage of its gas from Russia. Before 2022, Russian imports accounted for less than 4% of the UK’s total supply, trailing behind domestic production in the North Sea, and imports from Norway, Qatar, and the United States. The Heritage Party was founded by Kurten in 2020. It claims to defend traditional family values and national sovereignty, while seeking to scale back UK ties with the European Union. In the UK general election last July, it contested several constituencies but did not secure any seats in parliament.
“It is true that an end to the fighting would save many Ukrainians from dying in a hopeless, unnecessary war for literally less than nothing, namely an even worse outcome for their country.”
“President-elect” Trump is about to turn into simply “president.” Signs are multiplying that, once he is in the White House again, Trump will at least try to actually end the insanity of the Ukraine War. He as well as his man for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, have distanced themselves from the obviously rhetorical campaign promise to end the war in one day. Now they are suggesting more realistic but still short – between 100 days (Kellogg) and six months or less (Trump) – deadlines. That is, actually, a sign of being serious. More important again is the fact that Trump has now publicly signaled understanding for Moscow’s refusal to accept Ukraine joining NATO. Since this has always been the single most important reason Russia went to war, Trump showing a new – if terribly belated – American readiness to finally acknowledge the issue’s make-or-break importance is essential for establishing a basis for meaningful talks.
These talks are now as good as certain to happen fairly soon and at the highest level: Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have both made it clear that they are ready to meet without fussy pre-conditions. Again, another sign that we are not dealing with mere PR moves but a genuine attempt to find a compromise. That does not mean that it will succeed. But it does mark a key change from the past, when all serious negotiations were blocked by the West’s obstinate refusal to face reality. If Russia and America should manage to mend fences comparatively quickly, not everyone will be happy, of course. It is true that an end to the fighting would save many Ukrainians from dying in a hopeless, unnecessary war for literally less than nothing, namely an even worse outcome for their country.
But that does not seem to interest the Kiev regime under president-beyond-best-by-date Vladimir Zelensky. A recent meeting at the Ramstein base in Germany has shown that at least publicly Kiev keeps beating the war drums and insisting on even more Western support, while preparing its own population for further mobilizations down to the age of 18. Zelensky’s old, devastatingly failing recipe abides: “You, West, give us the money, arms, and ammunitions, and we feed our people into the meatgrinder.” And then there are Washington’s European clients and vassals. They are also still putting on a brave face. For instance, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron – both, as it happens, abysmally unpopular at home – have dreamy dinners fantasizing about “supporting Ukraine as long as it takes.”
True, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz – another EU-NATO placeholder greatly not beloved by his people – has crashed his government and is facing an election and is therefore downplaying further support for Ukraine. Yet his foreign minister, the indefatigable Annalena “360 Degrees” Baerbock and his defense minister, Boris “Panzer” Pistorius, want more, as always. As so often, it is hard to tell how serious they are, but, on the whole, the official party line among Western European leaders still is that, even with Trump in the White House and the Russians steadily advancing in Ukraine – strapped for money, equipment, and troops as well as politically unstable and psychologically gloomy – will stay the moronic course of prolonging the great Western proxy war. Even if it has to do so on its own. That will not work, of course, one way or the other. But it is a policy with the potential to get even more people unnecessarily killed and make everything worse all around for everyone – including Ukraine but not, actually, Russia and the US – before it finally crashes and burns.
Soon to be Vice President JD Vance has slammed the outgoing regime for leaving “an absolute dumpster fire” in its wake on multiple issues. During a Fox News interview Sunday, Vance spoke about the economy, the California fires and the Southern border, and urged that there has been a “serious lack of competent governance.” “I will always be an optimist about our country, but I think that optimism has to start with a bit of realism. And the real truth is that Joe Biden has left us a dumpster fire,” Vance asserted. He added that “Donald Trump is going to have to put it out. But he’s good at doing that.” Vance emphasized, “we’re excited to get to work. But we need to be open and honest about the fact that President Biden has not left the next administration in a good place, right?
JD Vance: "If you want to fix the overall border crisis, you have to engage in law enforcement." pic.twitter.com/edw5YqaIs1
“FEMA’s funds are depleted. We have a wide open southern border. Oil is going through the roof. Bond yields went from 4.1 percent to 4.8 percent in a month. And that’s on top of the fact that President Biden has been running the largest peacetime deficits in the history of this country.” “So we’ve got a lot of debt, a lot of problems, and a wide open southern border. And thank God that Donald Trump takes office in a week-and-a-half because we need somebody to actually govern this country effectively,” Vance further declared. On the border, Vance promised “dozens of executive orders” immediately to allow Customs and Border Patrol “to do your job again.” “To illegal immigrants all over the world, you are not welcome in this country illegally,” Vance further outlined, adding “if you came into this country illegally, you need to go back home. You need to have basic law enforcement.”
Vance explained that Democrats have been hiding behind having “compassion” for families and not wanting to separate families, using it as an excuse not to crack down on illegal immigration. “It is not compassion to allow the drug cartels to traffic small children,” Vance urged, adding “It is not compassionate to allow the worst people in the world to send minor children, some of them victims of sex trafficking, into our country. That is the real humanitarian crisis at the border. You’re not going to exacerbate it through law enforcement. You’re going to fix it through law enforcement. And that’s what Donald Trump is going to do.” On the economy, Vance emphasised that Biden “has added trillions and trillions of dollars to the federal debt during a time of peace. He has left us with bond yields, meaning how we’re going to finance that debt, we have to sell treasury bonds. And the treasury bonds have gotten more expensive because of Joe Biden’s policies.”
Vice President-elect @JDVance: “I wish Joe Biden all the best but the fact is, he has left us a dumpster fire.” pic.twitter.com/rQHDQjwhb5
On the California fires, Vance stated “There is a serious lack of competent governance in California, and I think it’s part of the reason why these fires have gotten so bad. We need to do a better job at both the state and federal level.” “President Trump has committed to doing a better job when it comes to disaster relief,” Vance continued, adding “We need competent, good governance. Now, that doesn’t mean you can’t criticize the governor of California for I think some very bad decisions over a very long period of time.” “I mean, some of these reservoirs have been dry for 15, 20 years. The fire hydrants are being reported as going dry while the firefighters are trying to put out these fires,” Vance further stated.
British politicians can no longer be trusted to probe themselves. That is a problem. Who are you going to bring in? Maybe Elon Musk has a suggestion. Insert smiley.
Only a nationwide inquiry into the grooming gangs and the authorities’ handling of the sex-abuse scandal can restore the public trust, a Labour MP for Rotheram and advocate for women and children’s rights, Sarah Champion, has said. The lawmaker, who represents one of Britain’s worst rape hotspots, made the call in a statement on Monday, saying Child sexual abuse has become an “endemic” problem for the UK and must be recognized as a “national priority.” “It is clear that the public distrusts governments and authorities when it comes to preventing and prosecuting child abuse, especially child sexual exploitation,” the MP said. The statement constituted a sharp change in Champion’s stance on a potential inquiry, as the MP appeared to reject the idea just a week ago.
During a debate in the Commons on a Conservative-proposed amendment to a child protection bill that would have set up a national inquiry into the grooming gangs, the MP called for immediate implementation of the recommendations outlined in the 2022 Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse instead. “With the best will in the world – you all know me; I am not making a party-political point – another inquiry will mean another ten years of waiting,” she reasoned at the time. The Tory amendment fell through, getting overwhelmingly rejected by the parliament by 364 votes to 111, with all 411 Labour MPs either voting against it or abstaining. Earlier in the day, Paul Waugh, a Labour MP for another grooming hotspot, Rochdale, had made similar remarks while speaking to BBC News. “I’m not against a national inquiry but it has got to have some key caveats,” the MP said, raising concerns about the victims of the abuse having “to re-experience their trauma every time they explain this” as well as suggesting the probe should “not cut across live police investigations.”
The notorious grooming gangs, primarily involving men of Pakistani origin, have been active in the UK for decades, engaging in the systematic rape torture of vulnerable girls. According to multiple independent inquiries, public authorities have shown a failure to properly investigate the crimes or to bring perpetrators to justice, opting to hide the incidents instead. The long-standing controversy has gained new attention in recent weeks due to criticism from US-based billionaire Elon Musk. Musk has publicly attacked British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, calling for his resignation and prosecution. Starmer served as the head of the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013, during which Musk accused him of inadequately addressing the issue of grooming gangs. In response, Starmer condemned Musk’s statements as “lies and misinformation” and has rejected calls for a new inquiry into the matter.
An inquiry into police failings during the Rotherham grooming scandal in the UK avoided investigating senior officers, focusing instead on junior ranks, despite systemic issues enabling the abuse of over 1,400 young girls, a whistleblower has told The Times newspaper. The ‘grooming gangs’ scandal involves groups of Asian men who, over the past two decades, have raped and abused thousands of underage girls in towns across northern England. Most of the perpetrators were Pakistani men, while the victims were predominantly white British girls. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) led Operation Linden, a seven-year probe into South Yorkshire Police’s handling of child sexual exploitation cases between 1997 and 2013.
The investigation revealed that police frequently failed to file crime reports for serious offenses like rape, neglected to question older men accompanying vulnerable young girls, and treated victims as troublesome rather than vulnerable. Despite this, some officers were cleared of misconduct by filing minimal intelligence reports. The investigation concluded in 2022, identifying leadership failures, lack of training, and cultural issues within the force. However, the whistleblower claims the inquiry was hindered by instructions to avoid examining senior officers’ roles in the scandal. “We were actively told not to pursue senior officers,” the whistleblower told The Times. “It was just largely incompetent. There was just no passion or desire within the IOPC to understand what went wrong in Rotherham and find out why those girls were let down.”
Operation Linden investigated 91 cases, reviewing 265 allegations from 51 complainants. Of 47 officers examined, eight were found to have committed misconduct and six faced charges of gross misconduct. Yet, the most severe punishments issued were written warnings or “management advice.” No officer lost their job, and the highest-ranked individual investigated was a detective inspector. The whistleblower criticized the limited scope of the inquiry, recalling that it was “very clear not only that there were force-wide systemic problems but problems in other parts of the country. I don’t think the failings have been truly properly investigated.” In response, the IOPC has defended its work, emphasizing the thoroughness of its investigations and the adoption of its recommendations by police. “Our priority was the welfare of survivors, who showed incredible bravery in coming forward,” an IOPC spokesperson said. The watchdog noted that its findings prompted measures to improve victim care and enhance officers’ capabilities to handle child sexual exploitation cases.
[..] you must wonder what is happening to those tens of thousands of displaced persons and families right now? How many of them are sleeping out on their smoldering properties, or in their cars, or just shivering on a sidewalk somewhere. It does not seem possible that they all found a place to go, certainly not at their neighbors’ houses, who were all burnt-out, too. . . and there are just so many hotel rooms not occupied by “the undocumented.” Anyway, how many families can stay in hotel rooms that go for $1,000-a-night, and for how many nights? How many of them lost absolutely everything, including the possibility of a future? Which gets you to the realization that we have barely begun to see the knock-on effects of this catastrophe. Those tens of thousands of the burnt-out will not be reporting to work anytime soon.
They will have all they can do to find a roof over their heads while they hassle with FEMA officials, State of California bureaucrats, insurance company claims agents, and other “helpers.” The rebuilding quandaries have already been rehearsed in the news. Even if politicians suspended all the building and zoning codes, and the tax issues, where will so many contractors come from in any reasonable time-frame? And where do you put all that melted plastic goop and toxic ash that remains on-the-ground where peoples’ lives used to be? If you lost a house valued at $5-million, it will cost you at least $10-million to replace it. Good luck, even if you were a mid-level movie star. Of course, if your insurance got cancelled lately — or you just didn’t have any because it cost too much — then there is zero chance you will get to even fantasize about living in the hills above Malibu ever again. And that job you’re not able to go to right now due to the pressing needs of sheer survival on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. . . you might never go to that job again. The business you worked for might not be there anymore, either.
If there was ever a proverbial last-grain-of-sand-in-a-landslide, the Great 2025 Los Angeles Fire must be a sure thing vis-a-vis the US economy, especially the financial side of it. An awful lot of homeowners will not be paying their mortgages on a smoldering empty lot. The banks are not in super-fabulous condition these days. How many loans-gone-bad will it take to wreck already unstable banks? And, by the way, the collateral isn’t even there anymore. The re-po man is out of the picture. What happens to the insurance companies? And the re-insurance companies who theoretically stand behind the insurers? I’ll tell you what happens: they will be backstopped by the government, which doesn’t have the money to backstop them. . . but will create it out of pixels on screens. . . which means expect a considerable uptick in inflation (i.e., a downtick in the purchasing power of the dollar), which will be a black eye for the new Trump administration. How does all this thunder through the US economy as a whole?
The Washington Post’s web traffic has cratered over the past four years, with daily active users dropping from a high of 22.5 million in January 2021 when outgoing President Joe Biden took office, to around 2.5-3 million by the middle of 2024, according to internal data shared with news website Semafor. Internal financial and editorial struggles are rampant at the Jeff Bezos-owned broadsheet, according to various reports, with the paper’s rivals poaching talent, ad revenue falling dramatically, and layoffs on the horizon. In April last year, the Washington City Paper reported that the nosedive in the Post’s traffic was so staggering that the paper stopped sharing its traffic information publicly. An ‘Audience & Traffic’ tag on the website, which had been regularly updated for years, has not been updated since January 2023.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Post’s advertising revenue fell from $190 million in 2023 to $174 million in 2024. Leaders at the paper are “struggling to convince staff that they have a clear editorial vision and continuing commitment to hard-hitting journalism” and rivals have poached top talent, with more exits on the way, the WSJ said, citing over a dozen insiders. The reader exodus gathered steam in October last year, when Bezos decided to withhold an expected endorsement of outgoing Vice President Kamala Harris during the presidential election against now-President-elect Donald Trump. In an op-ed, Bezos argued that endorsements from newspapers “do nothing to tip the scales in an election,” and “create a perception of bias.”
The move backfired, however, resulting in a reported 250,000 canceled subscriptions just weeks before election day, or about 10% of the Post’s 2.5 million paid subscribers, according to NPR. Last week, the Post announced it was laying off around 4% of its staff. The cuts will affect nearly 100 workers in the paper’s business division, including sales and marketing, as well as its IT units, it said. The job cuts are “all in service of our greater goal to best position The Post for the future,” the paper’s statement said.
“Musk apologized on X for SoCal customers who won’t be taking their expected Cybertruck deliveries this week, but those trucks got drafted into service.”
You’re hot. You’re starving and thirsty. You’ve just lost everything to one of the number of wildfires sweeping through Los Angeles and you can’t even call for help or let your sister in Poughkeepsie know you’re OK because the cell service is down. You’re about as weary and frustrated as a human being can be. Just as you’re about to give up hope, like all ye who enter Los Angeles, a small fleet of the world’s ugliest truck comes into view, bearing gifts of food, drink, and internet connectivity. Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk ordered his company’s Cybertrucks into action, equipped with all the goodies they can carry — including SpaceX (another company he heads up) Starlink satellite internet transceivers. Musk apologized on X for SoCal customers who won’t be taking their expected Cybertruck deliveries this week, but those trucks got drafted into service.
Unbeknownst to me until I started gathering links, Tesla is also delivering Mobile Powerwall Units (MPUs) to parts of L.A. without power. Powerwalls are the giant batteries that come with Tesla solar home solar panels. The mobile versions can be loaded on trucks — fully charged, of course — to bring power wherever it’s needed. I don’t even like Tesla, but what it’s doing in L.A. makes that an increasingly untenable position. So you grab a protein bar and a bottle of water, plug your phone into the MPU, and borrow Starlink’s WiFi to let Little Sis in Poughkeepsie know you’re all right. “Some parts of America still work,” Glenn Reynolds likes to remind readers at Instapundit, and it would be shocking had it not become so routine how many of those parts are connected to Musk. But that’s only a part of what I want to discuss in this column.
[..] When it comes to natural disasters, there are three steps (broadly speaking) that competent leadership takes:
1) Prepare in advance to mitigate the potential effects of the disaster
2) React decisively and competently to mitigate the actual effects.
3) Get and stay the hell out of the way of people who would rebuild after the disaster.
California generally and Los Angeles particularly failed spectacularly on Steps 1. and 2. [..] Gov. Gavin Newsom claims that he’s taken action on Step 3. but… well…he doesn’t exactly make your heart swell with hope, does he? Thank goodness then for private individuals with the basic competence that Newsom and Bass lack, even though a huge company like Tesla can’t come anywhere close to matching the resources Washington and California can muster. So let’s go back to Tesla’s relief effort. It’s said that scotch is an acquired taste and, if so, I acquired it the first time I tasted it. The same might be said about Tesla’s polarizing Cybertruck, which people seem to love or hate based largely on its looks. While I appreciate that Tesla thought outside the box — waaaaay outside the box — designing Cybertruck, I still wince every time I see one. But you know what? Cybertruck is growing on me with today’s news.
Remember when Kash Patel said THIS? “I'm working on a measure to subpoena Judge Merchan's daughter who has made $15,000,000 off this trial.” @Kash_Patel He was on it! pic.twitter.com/npA3IhB9tx
“JUDGE MERCHAN DECIDED TO OUTSMART SCOTUS, SO HE ANNOUNCED IN ADVANCE THAT HE WOULDN’T SEND TRUMP TO JAIL!” @AlanDersh believes Merchan played a game for the Supreme Court, and they fell for it. “The whole thing is a distortion of our legal system!” @AmandaHeadpic.twitter.com/ch3Y4xmmge
The guys who bankrolled @JoeBiden and covered up the laptop are flying to Florida to kiss the ring. These guys want their own villas at Mar-A-Lago just like @ElonMusk, but Elon had to earn it. Mark Zuckerberg, who's been increasingly MAGA-curious, is trying to earn his stripes by… pic.twitter.com/1aPPd9NmOM
President-elect Donald Trump’s past few months have been unusually busy for an incoming president and have seen him notch key agenda wins before even returning to office. With President Joe Biden essentially absent from the public eye, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate has taken on the role of a shadow White House, from which he has begun to operate a sort of pre-presidential administration. Foreign dignitaries, domestic politicians, and billionaire investors alike have flocked to the Palm Beach resort to meet with the incoming president, some of whom have brought with them economic and/or ideological offerings. His reach has extended well beyond the confines of his compound, reverberating across allied nations while he and his surrogates work to seemingly push out opposition figures leading key American partners. Here’s a look at his biggest moves while waiting to reclaim the Oval Office:
Outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speedily traveled to Mar-a-Lago after Trump floated the possibility of imposing tariffs on the country. The meeting was widely panned in Canadian media and even led to comedic skits depicting Trudeau eating a Big Mac without the use of his hands at Trump’s behest. The president-elect’s subsequent retorts referring to Trudeau as the “governor” of Canada further belittled his status in the eyes of the Canuck electorate. Already struggling in the polls, Trump’s proposition of making Canada the 51st state seems to have helped fuel Trudeau’s already significant decline in public opinion and he subsequently announced his plans to resign once the Liberal Party selected his replacement.
Trump notched a major win on digital censorship when Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced the platform would end its partnerships with fact-checking organizations and instead switch to a user-driven correction system similar to X’s community notes. The move followed a late November meeting at Mar-a-Lago between Zuckerberg and Trump. Facebook was one of the major platforms that banned Trump in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, incident at the U.S. Capitol, though it later restored his accounts. In December, Facebook parent company Meta donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund. Google and Boeing this week each donated $1 million to the same fund, helping the pot reach a record $170 million. Amazon Executive Chairman Jeff Bezos, moreover, congratulated Trump on his comeback and later met with him at Mar-a-Lago as well. The owner of the Washington Post prevented the left-wing outlet from issuing an endorsement in the 2024 election. He has further worked to tone down the outlet’s anti-Trump bias in the wake of the election.
Trump’s victory evidently signaled to some Democrats that the public favors some of key policies, namely on reducing the size of government and cracking down on illegal immigration. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., made headlines this week with plans to visit Mar-a-Lago at Trump’s request. Fetterman has developed a reputation as a moderate willing to work with Republicans and co-sponsored the “Laken Riley Act” in the Senate, which would require the detention of illegal immigrants accused of a wide array of crimes. That bill passed the House this week and cleared a procedural hurdle in the upper chamber. It is expected to pass the Senate and reach the president’s desk in time for Trump’s inauguration. “I think it’s pretty reasonable that if the president would like to have a conversation — or invite someone to have a conversation — to have it. And no one is my gatekeeper.”
He also appears to have found an ally in Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., who in December joined the DOGE Caucus, a group of lawmakers dedicated to working with Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). “The Caucus should look at the bureaucracy that the DHS has become and include recommendations to make Secret Service and FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] independent federal agencies with a direct report to the White House,” Moskowitz said of the bloc. Trump notched two multi-billion dollar investment deals with foreign companies during his transition, including from SoftBank and DAMAC Properties, which pledged $100 billion and $20 billion investments in the U.S., respectively. DAMAC Chairman Hussain Sajwani and SoftBank Group CEO Masayoshi Son both visited Mar-a-Lago and announced their investments in joint press conferences with Trump.
The incoming president used the DAMAC conference to highlight his pledge to help clear administrative red tape for foreign investors as an incentive to do business in the U.S. “And I made it a point of telling people, if you invest a billion dollars or more, and we’ll do this for people with far less too, but we guarantee it, we’re going to move them quickly through the environmental process,” he said this week. Trump has also used the transition period to unveil an ambitious foreign policy agenda that includes the acquisition of foreign territory, including at the expense of treaty allies. He has vowed to use economic coercion to reclaim the Panama Canal and acquire Canada and Greenland. He further said he wouldn’t rule out military force to take Greenland or the Canal Zone. Denmark currently maintains official control over Greenland and is a member of NATO, as is Canada.
When pressed on whether he would rule out a military seizure, he told reporters that “I’m not going to commit to that now, it might, it might be that you’ll have to do something. Look, the Panama Canal is vital to our country.” Trump has insisted that Panama, which purchased the canal zone for $1 dollar under President Jimmy Carter, has repeatedly violated the terms of the agreement by overcharging American ships for passage and allowing the Chinese government to exert control over the critical waterway. The president-elect has insisted that the United States needs the Panama Canal and Greenland “for economic security.” “The Panama Canal was built for our military,” he added during a press conference in Palm Beach, Fla. Donald Trump Jr. visited Greenland this week along with Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in a highly publicized trip that saw them tour the area and meet with locals.
President-elect Donald Trump will sign around 100 executive orders as soon as he takes office, according to Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK). Mullin did not go into details, however Trump has previously said he would sign a variety of border and immigration-related EOs following his second inauguration, including a national emergency over illegal immigration – and rolling back ‘climate agenda’ regulations surrounding drilling for oil and natural gas. “I will sign Day One orders to end all Biden restrictions on energy production, terminate his insane electric vehicle mandate, cancel his natural gas export ban, reopen ANWR in Alaska—the biggest site, potentially anywhere in the world—and declare a national energy emergency,” Trump said in December.
According to Trump transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, “The American people can bank on President Trump using his executive power on day one to deliver on the promises he made to them on the campaign trail.” Bloomberg reports that Trump will put a hiring freeze on the government, and mandate that federal employees return to the office for in-person work, a position pushed by billionaire Elon Musk as part of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In recent weeks, the Trump team has been working behind-the-scenes to make sure its initial months are as productive as possible.
“While chief of staff Susie Wiles has said she views the first 100 days as an artificial metric, she and the entire Trump team see the first two years — before midterm elections could imperil Republican majorities in the House and Senate — as the best opportunity for the term-limited incoming president to achieve his sweeping goals”. -Bloomberg. That said, as Mullin noted further in an appearance on Fox & Friends, EOs can easily be undone by future administrations. “As he said, it’s not permanent,” said Mullin. “I would like reconciliation so we can start making this stuff into legislation, so we can move forward.” “The president was very clear, he wants results,” Mullin continued. “He said he can wait if we can do one big, beautiful bill. He’d like to have one big, beautiful, beautiful bill. But if the House were to get bogged down, maybe we have to divide it up in two.”
As the Epoch Times notes, the senator was making reference to comments made by Trump this week after he met with Republicans in Washington. “I think there’s a lot of talk about two [bills], and there’s a lot of talk about one (bill), but it doesn’t matter,” Trump told reporters. “The end result is the same,” he said, adding that his meeting with GOP lawmakers showed the party is ”unified.” Mullin added that Republicans need to “deliver for the American people on securing the border, on energy independence, on getting the regulations rolled back and making sure that we have taxes that are permanent, so we don’t have a $4 trillion tax increase on the American people right now.”
In an unprecedented twist in global politics, the Trump administration is rumored to be preparing a dramatic response to revelations of foreign interference in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. With undeniable proof surfacing that UK Labour leader Keir Starmer allegedly orchestrated a covert operation involving 100 staffers to support Donald Trump’s rival, Kamala Harris, the political landscape has been shaken to its core. As Donald Trump triumphantly prepares to return to the White House, insiders close to the administration suggest that his approach to this betrayal could mark a turning point in U.S.-UK relations. The weight of the evidence reportedly leaves no room for doubt: this was not just meddling—it was a calculated assault on American democracy. And now, Trump may be ready to wield the full force of the presidency to hold the Starmer government accountable.
Extreme Measures on the Table Behind closed doors, discussions are said to be taking place within the Trump inner circle. Options under consideration range from economic sanctions targeting Starmer’s allies to severe diplomatic actions that could isolate the UK on the world stage. One unnamed senior advisor was quoted as saying, “This isn’t just politics—it’s treason against the American people. The response will be swift and decisive.” Whispers of even more drastic measures have surfaced, with some speculating that the administration may seek an international tribunal to prosecute Starmer for violating U.S. election integrity. Others suggest that covert operations to destabilize the Labour-led UK government could be on the table, a stark reminder that the Trump presidency is unafraid to take bold action when American sovereignty is at stake.
The End of the ‘Special Relationship’?This scandal threatens to unravel the longstanding “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom. Trump, a known advocate of strong nationalist policies, could view this betrayal as the ultimate affront to American independence and might use it to justify a dramatic recalibration of the alliance. Sources close to the administration say Trump has already warned of “serious consequences” during private conversations, leaving the Starmer government scrambling to contain the fallout. Starmer’s alleged interference, if confirmed, could not only undermine his credibility at home but also plunge the UK into political chaos. Already, opposition voices in Parliament are calling for investigations into Starmer’s actions, fearing repercussions that could devastate Britain’s economy and its standing on the world stage.
A Warning to All Foreign Leaders By making an example of Starmer, Trump could send a stark message to any foreign leader contemplating interference in U.S. elections: no one is beyond the reach of American justice. The world is watching as the Trump administration crafts its response, knowing that the actions taken in the coming weeks could set a precedent for how the U.S. deals with foreign adversaries.
A New Era of Retribution This unfolding drama signals a new era in international politics, where foreign meddling in American elections is met with fierce and uncompromising retaliation. As Trump prepares to step back into the Oval Office, one thing is clear: the rules of the game have changed, and the cost of betrayal has never been higher. The stage is set for an international showdown, and the Starmer government may soon find itself in the crosshairs of an administration determined to defend American democracy at all costs. As the world holds its breath, one question looms: how far is Donald Trump willing to go to settle the score?
🚨 STARMER IN PANIC MODE AS THE TRUTH COMES OUT 🚨
Reports reveal that Starmer sent 100 staffers to the U.S. in an effort to undermine the re-election of Donald Trump—a shocking interference in American democracy and to "kill Elon Musks Twitter."
Elon Musk, and a host of other critics, have been going after Keir Starmer for his and Jess Phillips’ decision to refuse a national inquiry into the grooming gangs in Oldham. Keir Starmer is furiously angry about the grooming scandal. Unfortunately, what he is mostly angry about seems to be those attacking his record, rather than the rape gangs. Before we get to what was wrong with his response, and there was a great deal, we should first understand where he and his supporters are coming from. Musk is ill-informed, unconcerned with the truth and making reckless assertions, and he is doing so from a massive social media platform, on the eve of his becoming an official in the US government. Musk and his allies have attacked Starmer and Jess Phillips, both of whom believe they have taken a substantive role in fighting against sexual abuse.
From inside No 10, the situation feels desperately unfair, and manipulated by an irresponsible right wing press and social media. Labour refused a national inquiry into abuse in Oldham, instead encouraging the council to hold its own, as many others had already done so with some success. In this judgement, they were backed by none other than Professor Alexis Jay, who led the previous national inquiry in 2015, and who argues that another inquiry will just delay justice and vitally needed reforms. The government says they are intent on implementing her recommendations, and point out that much of the inaction happened on the watch of the Conservative Party. Labour allies understandably wonder where this anger on the issue has been for the last ten years, when the Conservatives were at the helm, and in a position to do something about it.
From Labour’s perspective, the issue they are handling responsibly is being turned into a cynical political football by a Right that cares little about white working class girls, and quite a lot about using migration to rack up votes. Reform, led by Nigel Farage, has been unrelenting online and in the press condemning Keir Starmer personally. Robert Jenrick attacked the culture of British Pakistanis in a statement that so offended the political Left that the leader of the Lib Dems called on him to resign. Aside from divisive language, an amendment mandating a national inquiry was added by the Tories to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill, which Labour says could kill the legislation and endanger children.
You can see why Labour feels it needs to be combative and set the record straight. Unfortunately, this approach is a catastrophic error of political judgment, and reveals severe moral failings in Starmer’s approach to leadership. Put aside the wild exaggerations bandied about online, and forget about the sickening tussle in Westminster to lay the blame at a rival party’s door. What actually matters here? The truth, public safety, and justice for victims. In this situation Starmer isn’t the former head of the CPS, he isn’t even the leader of the Labour Party — he is the leader of this country, and the representative of the British crown. The grooming gang scandal touches every political party and level of government. Police, courts, social workers, local councils, and the national government all failed victims, and many colluded in their victimisation.
The seriousness of Musk’s claims, which millions of people saw, needed to be addressed, but ultimately Musk is a private individual living in America, making these allegations on social media. A simple statement setting the record straight from a spokesperson was all that it merited, and the Prime Minister personally responding was wildly disproportionate. For all that Musk is an adolescent throwing fuel on the fire of British politics, he is also a father and a human being encountering, probably for the first time, reports of the British police allowing thousands of children to be raped and, in at least one case, killed, out of a fear of appearing racist. His untruths and half truths are unforgivably irresponsible from the owner of a social media company, but his anger was entirely legitimate.
Why is it that people are always calling for someone to think “outside the box,” then when someone does, say, “Aaaak! He thought outside the box!” In that view, President-elect Donald J. Trump has already committed (at least) three heresies: Buy Greenland, stop China from controlling the Panama Canal and deepen America’s affiliation with Canada. All three ideas are neither crazy nor even new. President Harry S. Truman looked at acquiring Greenland in 1946. Thomas Jefferson, after the Louisiana Purchase, proposed buying Cuba – just think how the Cubans would be prospering now, politically and economically, if that deal had gone through. Those acquisitions didn’t take place but in 1917, the US did acquire Denmark’s Virgin Islands for $25 million.
As historian Stephen Press writes, “As secretary of state, John Quincy Adams arranged debt relief for Spain in exchange for Florida. Secretary of State William Seward acquired Alaska. “What Mr. Trump proposes is consistent with this American tradition—and with our current borders. Sovereignty purchases are responsible for more than 40% of U.S. land… “History suggests the benefits of being open-minded about this. Inhabitants of Alaska wouldn’t be better off under Russian sovereignty. Bringing Greenlanders into closer affiliation with the U.S., and sweetening the deal with economic subsidies, could conceivably prove beneficial to all parties” As for the Panama Canal, President Jimmy Carter handed it to Panama for $1, but on the condition that it permanently remain a neutral zone – not one controlled at both ends by China.
“We gave the Panama Canal to Panama,” Trump has pointed out. “We didn’t give it to China. They’ve abused that gift.” The US built the Panama Canal in the first place to be able to avoid having commercial and military sea traffic avoid the long journey around South America’s southernmost sea route, the Strait of Magellan – where the Chinese Communist Party also located a base. If there were to be a conflict with Communist China, it would be easy enough for them to block the Canal to U.S. use. As China expert Gordon G. Chang has pointed out: “China’s port facilities are at both ends of the canal. And when Gen. Laura Richardson took a helicopter ride over the Canal Zone, this was the middle of 2022; she said she ‘looked down and saw all of these dual-use facilities.’ … at a time of war, they could make the canal totally useless…. They say that we have a two-ocean Navy. Well, we would have two separate navies. It’d be very difficult to get ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or vice versa.”
Closer ties with Canada, as Trump appears to see them, would make a united-in-some-way North America a formidable landmass to any would-be adversary. “You get rid of that artificially drawn line,” Trump stated, “and you take a look at what that looks like, and it would also be much better for national security. Don’t forget, we protect Canada.” Trump seems to have been merely responding to the opening provided him by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, days before the latter announced that he would be resigning. According to Trump:
“I said what would happen if we didn’t do it. He said Canada would dissolve. Canada wouldn’t be able to function, if we didn’t take their 20% of our car market… So, I said to him, well, why are we doing it? He said, I don’t really know. He was unable to answer the question, but I can answer it. We’re doing it because of habit, and we’re doing it because we like our neighbors, and we’ve been good neighbors. But we can’t do it forever and it’s a tremendous amount of money. And why should we have a $200 billion deficit and add on to that many, many other things that we give them in terms of subsidy?” Trump has also announced a “Made in America,” tax break incentive for investment in the US, and a “Golden Age of America.” It seems to have begun already — and he is not even president yet.
At a press conference in Rome earlier this year, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said that Elon Musk’s political posts on X do not pose a threat to democracy; while oligarch George Soros, however, continuously interferes in the politics of other nations, according to Italy’s leader. “The problem is when wealthy people use their resources to finance parties, associations and political exponents all over the world to influence the political choices of nation states”, Meloni told reporters at an annual press conference. “That’s not what Musk is doing,” she added. “Elon Musk financed an election campaign in his country, by his candidate, in a system in which, by the way, I would point out that this is quite common,” Meloni said. “But I am not aware of Elon Musk financing parties, associations or political exponents around the world. This, for example, is what George Soros does.”
“And yes, I consider that to be dangerous interference in the affairs of nation states and in their sovereignty,” she noted. Meloni also pointed to other wealthy people actively funding parties and NGOs around the world to influence local policies. “This is not the first time that famous and wealthy people have expressed their opinions. I have seen many such cases, often against me, and no one was offended then…” Musk, she said, is a very rich man who expresses his opinion and does not pose a threat to democracy. “Is the problem that Elon Musk is influential and rich or that he is not left-wing?” asked Meloni. She also noted that she and many others on the right are not financially dependent on Musk, unlike many on the left who are funded by Soros, or have been funded by him over the years. Meloni denied ever taking any money from Musk, “unlike those who have taken it from Soros”.
She also denied various media reports that her government is on the verge of signing a massive deal with Musk’s company SpaceX. However, even if that were true, signing a business deal is far different than receiving financial aid for political activities, which is behavior that Soros often partakes in with his beneficiaries. In response to a journalist’s question, Meloni also spoke about Elon Musk’s open support for the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD). Meloni stressed that if anyone tried to influence the Italian elections, it was Germany, under the then Social Democratic-Liberal-Green government. “I would like to remind you of the German side’s interference in the Italian election campaign,” Meloni said, referring to previous German concerns about the right-wing position she represented.
Soros has long been a controversial figure due to his outsized role in the politics of nations around the world, however, few on the left-liberal spectrum ever criticized this interference. Soros has also long called for the removal of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, with both figures antagonistic towards each other over the years.
X owner Elon Musk has said that he purchased the platform, then known as Twitter, in order to “destroy the woke mind virus.” Musk has blamed much of modern society’s ills on radical liberalism. “In 2021, I set out to destroy the woke mind virus and now it has been deleted,” Musk wrote on X on Saturday, after sharing a post he made in 2021 reading “traceroute woke_mind_virus.” A traceroute is a diagnostic command used to troubleshoot Internet Protocol networks. Asked by a follower if this was “the main reason you bought twitter?” Musk replied “Yes.”Musk has frequently lashed out against the “woke mind virus,” a catch-all term used by some conservatives to condemn radical liberal philosophies and policies including transgenderism, censorship, and the promotion of diversity in the workplace at the expense of merit.
In an interview with Canadian psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson last July, Musk said that the “woke mind virus” killed his son, referring to his transgender child Xavier. Musk claimed that he was “tricked” by doctors into signing documents authorizing his son to undergo hormone treatment, which permanently sterilized him. “I lost my son, essentially. They call it deadnaming for a reason,” the billionaire said. “The reason it’s called deadnaming is because your son is dead. My son Xavier is dead, killed by the woke mind virus. I vowed to destroy the woke mind virus after that.” Musk purchased Twitter for $44 billion in 2022, rebranding the platform as X, firing most of its content moderation staff, and rolling back the majority of its censorship policies.
X was the first major social media platform to reinstate US President-elect Donald Trump’s account, which was suspended after his supporters rioted on Capitol Hill in January 2021. The platform’s overhaul initially made it an outlier, with most of its competitors maintaining their restrictive speech policies. However, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently announced that his platforms – which include Facebook and Instagram – will dial back their moderation policies to “restore free expression” and will no longer work with third-party “fact checkers” to label political content. Alongside these planned changes, Meta ended its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) hiring programs this week, and according to the New York Times, removed tampons from men’s bathrooms in its offices, where they had been provided “for nonbinary and transgender employees.”
The Trump Organization on Friday announced that President-elect Donald Trump will place his investments into a trust controlled by his children and will have limited access to the company during his presidency. The organization released a five-page ethics plan on Friday that included several of the adjustments the company will make while Trump works from the Oval Office. The organization has also hired a new ethics advisor to ensure the company meets and exceeds its ethical and legal obligations. The release comes 10 days before Trump is set to take office on January 20. The company said that Trump would not be consulted on most matters related to the business and would only receive “general business updates,” according to NBC News. The investments will also be managed independently by “outside financial institutions” that will not seek his input on specific holdings or transactions.
It also said the company “will not enter into any new material transactions or contracts with a foreign government, except for Ordinary Course Transactions,” but does not mention whether it would do business with any foreign private entities. The disclosure comes after the Trump Organization backed away from foreign business dealings following Trump’s first election in 2016. The company also said that it would donate all profits from foreign governments at its hotels and similar businesses to the U.S. Treasury Department, as it did in 2016, and offer discounted rates to members of the U.S. Secret Service and other government agencies that lodge at Trump hotels. The Trump Organization is largely operated by the Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., who are executive vice presidents.
US Special Counsel Jack Smith, who led two federal cases against President-elect Donald Trump, has resigned after handing in his final report on his findings, according to court documents lodged on Saturday. The prosecution filed a motion to urge District Judge Aileen Cannon not to extend her injunction temporarily blocking the release of a portion of the special counsel’s report pertaining to the classified documents case against Trump. News of Smith’s resignation from the US Justice Department came in a brief footnote in the court filing. “The Special Counsel completed his work and submitted his final confidential report on January 7, 2025, and separated from the Department on January 10,” the footnote said.
Judge Cannon presides over the mishandling of classified documents case against Trump. Her block on releasing Smith’s report on the case lasts until Monday. Attorney General Merrick Garland intends to publicly release the other part of Smith’s report – detailing his findings in the case of Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 US election, according to court documents released on Wednesday. Smith led two of the four criminal cases brought against Trump after his first presidency. Cannon dismissed the first case in July last year, while DC District Judge Tanya Chutkan dropped the second in November, citing legal immunity afforded a sitting US president.
Neither of the cases went to trial. Smith’s resignation comes just ten days before Trump takes office on January 20. The incoming president had said he would fire Smith “within two seconds” of assuming office. The president-elect has repeatedly stated that the charges against him are groundless and “lawless.” On Friday, Trump was sentenced in the ‘hush money’ case brought against him in New York. While the ruling means he will not face fines or jail time, Trump will be considered a felon under US law.
This week, the sentencing of President-Elect Donald Trump saw one of the most impassioned defense arguments given at such a hearing in years . . . from the judge himself. Acting Justice Juan Merchan admitted that the case was “unique and remarkable” but insisted that “once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique, and extraordinary than the other 32 cases in this courthouse.” If so, that is a chilling indictment of the entire New York court system. Merchan allowed a dead misdemeanor to be resuscitated by allowing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively prosecute declined federal offenses. He allowed a jury to convict Trump without any agreement, let alone unanimity, on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the jury did not have to agree on why Trump committed an alleged offense in describing settlement costs as legal costs.
Neither the defendant nor the public will ever know what the jury ultimately found in its verdict. I once described this case as a legal Frankenstein: “It is the ultimate gravedigger charge, where Bragg unearthed a case from 2016 and, through a series of novel steps, is seeking to bring it back to life…Bragg is combining parts from both state and federal codes.” Even liberal legal experts have denounced the case and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently called it total “b—s–t.” Now, Merchan seemed to assure this Frankenstein case that he was just like any other creature of the court. It did not matter that he was stitched together from dead cases and zapped into life through lawfare. Merchan knows that there is a fair chance this monstrosity will finally die on appeal, and he was making the case for his own conduct. The verdict, however, is likely to last far longer than the Trump verdict.
It is a judgment against not just Merchan but the New York legal system, which allowed itself to be weaponized against political opponents. In the Mary Shelley novel, Frankenstein says “I am thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel.” Trump can now appeal the case as a whole. Prior appeals in the New York court system were unsuccessful, and hopes are low that the system will redeem itself. However, Trump can eventually escape the vortex of the New York court system in search of jurists willing to see beyond the rage and bring reason to this case.
Notably, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass cited Chief Justice John Roberts in his argument before Merchan, noting that Roberts recently chastised those who attack the courts. (Roberts just the night before joined liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in refusing to stay the sentencing). Steinglass portrayed Trump as an existential threat to the rule of law. Roberts, however, is everything that Merchan is not. You can disagree with him, but he has repeatedly ruled against his own preferred outcomes in cases, including rulings against President Trump and his campaign and Administration. For his part, Trump declined to criticize the court and declared that “This is a long way from finished and I respect the court’s opinion.” Indeed it is. Merchan’s monster will now go on the road and work its way back to the Supreme Court. Outside of New York this freak attraction will likely be viewed as less thrilling than chilling.
The election had the feel of the townspeople coming to the castle in the movie. In this case, however, the townspeople were right about what they saw in the making of a creature that threatened their very existence. Lawfare is that monster. It threatens us all, even those who hate Trump and his supporters. Once released, it spreads panic among the public which can no longer rely on the guarantees of blind and fair justice. That includes businesses who view this case and the equally absurd civil case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James as creating a dangerous and even lawless environment. Many are saying “but for the grace of God go I” in a system that allows for selective prosecution. In the sentencing proceeding, Merchan was downplaying his hand in creating this Frankenstein. However, the case is the fallen angel of the legal system. While heralded in court by Bragg’s office as the triumph of legal process, it is in fact the rawest and most grotesque form of lawfare. Many will be blamed as the creators of this monster but few will escape that blame, including Merchan himself.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan on Thursday indicated that he would keep the investigation into first son Hunter Biden going in the 119th Congress, even though President Joe Biden already pardoned him for all crimes committed in the past decade. The wide-ranging pardon was announced last month, and blamed Republicans for the reason he broke a promise he had made to voters. The pardon even forgives any theoretical crimes Hunter Biden may have committed when serving on the board of Burisma. President-elect Donald Trump has also threatened to go after his political adversaries after they allegedly targeted him in a series of court cases during the Biden administration.
Jordan said that one way the investigation can continue is by interviewing special counsel David Weiss, who ultimately recommended Hunter Biden be prosecuted on federal gun and tax evasion charges. Weiss was interviewed last year as part of the committee’s impeachment investigation into the president, per Politico. “We think we need to look at David Weiss, the special counsel,” Jordan said. “There will be some additional work we need to do, I think, there because when we deposed him, he wasn’t willing to — he didn’t answer any questions, really, because it was [an] ongoing investigation.”
The Judiciary committee also questioned Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden, in closed-door interviews last year regarding the impeachment inquiry. Jordan also declined to investigate the president’s pardon of his son, claiming that even though he did not support the decision, the president has proper authority to pardon whoever they like.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has acknowledged that US authorities, including the CIA, can access WhatsApp messages by remotely logging into users’ devices, effectively bypassing the platform’s end-to-end encryption. Speaking on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast on Friday, Zuckerberg explained that while WhatsApp’s encryption prevents Meta from viewing message content, it does not protect against physical access to a user’s phone. His comments came in the context of a question by Rogan about Tucker Carlson’s quest to set up an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In February last year, while speaking about finally succeeding in talking to Putin after three years of failed attempts, Carlson blamed the US authorities, namely the NSA and the CIA, for stalling his efforts.
According to Carlson, the agencies spied on him by tapping his messages and emails, and leaked his intentions to the media, which “spooked” Moscow from talking to him. Rogan asked Zuckerberg to explain how this could have happened given encryption safeguards that are supposed to protect messages. “The thing that encryption does that’s really good is it makes it so that the company that’s running the service doesn’t see it. So if you’re using WhatsApp, there’s no point at which the Meta servers see the contents of that message,” Zuckerberg said, noting that even if someone were to hack into Meta’s databases, they could not access users’ private texts. The Signal messaging app, which Carlson used, uses the same encryption, according to Zuckerberg, so the same rules apply. However, he noted that encryption does not stop law enforcement from viewing messages stored on devices.
“What they do is have access to your phone. So it doesn’t matter if anything’s encrypted, they could just see it in plain sight,” he clarified. Zuckerberg mentioned tools such as Pegasus, a spyware developed by the Israeli company NSO Group, which can be covertly installed on mobile phones to access data. According to Zuckerberg, the fact that users’ private messages can be jeopardized by directly breaking into their devices is the reason Meta came up with disappearing messages, where one can have one’s message thread erased after a certain period of time. “If someone has compromised your phone and they can see everything that’s going on there, then obviously they can see stuff as it comes in… So having it be encrypted and disappearing, I think is a pretty good kind of standard of security and privacy,” he stated.
Zuckerberg’s remarks come amid ongoing debates about digital privacy and government surveillance. While end-to-end encryption is lauded for protecting user data, agencies like the CIA and FBI have argued it can impede efforts to combat crime and terrorism. A 2021 FBI training document indicated that US law enforcement can gain limited access to encrypted messages from services like iMessage, Line, and WhatsApp, but not from platforms such as Signal, Telegram, Threema, Viber, WeChat, or Wickr. Additionally, while encrypted messages cannot be intercepted during transmission, reports indicate that backups stored in cloud services may be accessible to law enforcement if an encryption key is attached.
The headline from Politico’s “Playbook” would have been unthinkable eight years ago: “Meta sends Trump a friend request.” After all, Meta’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, is a political lightning rod in conservative political circles, especially after the $300 million worth of “Zuckerbucks” spent during the 2020 election to elect like-minded politicians. Yet lately, Zuckerberg has been singing a much different tune. He referred to President-elect Trump as “badass,” visited him at Mar-a-Lago, and donated one million dollars to his inaugural fund. This week, Meta made news by adding Dana White, a longtime Trump ally and head of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), to its board of directors. Then came the real bombshell: Meta ended its so-called “independent fact-checking program,” ostensibly lifting restrictions on speech across Facebook, as well as their other platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp.
In doing so, Zuckerberg admitted the current content moderation practices – in place since criticism of his platform during the 2016 presidential election – have “gone too far” and stressed a commitment to “restoring free expression.” Make no mistake: Meta’s “independent fact-checkers” are neither independent nor fact-based. Their elimination is a positive step and should be encouraged. The announcement came less than 24 hours after the organization I lead – the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense – asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear our censorship lawsuit against Meta. But if Meta is serious about supporting “free expression,” they have a lot of work to do – and it requires more than moving workers from California to Texas, as Zuckerberg also pledged to do.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Meta not only censored our posts – many having to do with topics that the so-called medical “experts” like Dr. Anthony Fauci were dead wrong about – but outright kicked us off the platform without warning. Meta first took action against CHD in May 2019, from takedowns and restrictions to an outright ban in August 2022 that is still in effect. What were our offenses? Simply publishing data on the risks of COVID vaccines, Remdesivir, and ventilation, as well as having the temerity to raise the benefits of natural immunity and alternative treatment with ivermectin and other protocols. An unfettered discussion of all these issues would have saved lives. We knew that many of the government’s promises – on items like the pandemic’s origin and the best way to treat symptoms and prevent its spread – were not grounded in “science” as they claimed but political imperatives from the Biden administration.
In 2020, we took them to court, starting in the San Francisco federal court. We suffered some legal setbacks along the way, and this week ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Meta will not change its ways without a fight. They not only kicked us off the platform but censored our supporters and erased our past posts. Meta shut down the “free expression” they claim to be championing. Yes, Meta was coerced by the Biden administration, but there’s more to the story. Zuckerberg’s WhatsApp messages showed that he conspired with the government and chose to censor because he had “bigger fish to fry” than protecting free speech. He knew then that censorship violated the rights of free expression, and he knew then that it wouldn’t help the administration bring COVID under control, but he did it anyway.
The pandemic may be over, but speech about COVID is not. If the Supreme Court takes our case, it can guarantee accountability for Meta’s role in this man-made disaster – and prevent another in the future. Meta, like the other mega-platforms, must be held accountable when they knowingly conform their content-moderation process and decisions or cede active, meaningful control to the government’s preference to suppress constitutionally protected speech. This time it was CHD’s health and medical freedom issues. But who will be next?
Ultimately, this debate is not about any one group or individual but all of us. How many people suffered or lost their lives because they didn’t have access to information that could have helped them make better-informed decisions about their health? The American public is better served with more information rather than less, especially when it is grounded on data-based scientific information. People are smart enough to make up their own minds. Last November, voters sent an unmistakable message that they want a break from the status quo. Kudos to Mark Zuckerberg for recognizing the prevailing winds and saying the right things. But the free speech fight won’t be over until those who were kicked off his platforms are reinstated.
“I don’t see Trump as a friend of Russia. I don’t see him being in Putin’s pocket the way a lot of people in the West do. But I see him as willing to make deals..”
The strategy pursued by the US in the Ukraine conflict risks provoking serious responses from Russia, Peter Kuznick, professor of history and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, has said. Kuznick earlier appeared on US journalist Tucker Carlson’s podcast show alongside director Oliver Stone. In an exclusive interview to RT on Saturday, he warned against assuming Russia’s red lines can be crossed without consequence. “Russia keeps drawing red lines, and the United States keeps crossing them” on the assumption that Russia is “bluffing” and that President Vladimir Putin “is not going to follow through on his threats,” Kuznick said.
He described this approach as a “fool’s game,” warning it could lead to severe repercussions. Kuznick criticized the belief that Russia will remain passive, calling it “insanity” and stressing that such assumptions gamble with global safety. In December, Putin accused the US of encouraging escalation by arming Kiev and pushing Russia to the “red line.” He claimed the West uses these provocations to instill fear in their populations. Reflecting on Donald Trump’s policies, Kuznick noted Trump “does not view Russia as an implacable enemy,” though his administration provided lethal aid to Ukraine in 2019 and increased sanctions on Russia. “I don’t see Trump as a friend of Russia. I don’t see him being in Putin’s pocket the way a lot of people in the West do. But I see him as willing to make deals,” he said.
“Trump doesn’t have any fixed values or strong beliefs,” which “means that he could either be worse, dramatically worse, or he could be dramatically better,” Kuznick added. He and director Oliver Stone appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show earlier this week in the hopes Trump “would be listening” and “encourage the side of Trump that looks for peaceful solutions.”Kuznick warned that crises in Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, or the South China Sea could rapidly escalate into broader conflicts, including nuclear war. Highlighting the growing danger, he said he “would have moved the Doomsday Clock to 60 seconds to midnight.”
In November, Putin approved changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine that expanded the scenarios that could warrant a nuclear response to include aggression by a non-nuclear state backed by a nuclear power. The doctrine describes nuclear weapons as an “extreme and forced measure” aimed at conflict prevention.Kuznick urged the US to adapt to a multipolar world, emphasizing diplomacy over unilateral action. He also criticized the administration of current President Joe Biden for its aggressive foreign policy and unwavering support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, which he argued undermines Washington’s global standing. “You can’t have it both ways,” Kuznick asserted, highlighting the inconsistency in condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine while supporting Israel’s in Gaza.
Kuznick
‘Nyet means nyet’—even the CIA warned against crossing Russia’s red lines over NATO expansion in Ukraine.
In a conversation with Tucker Carlson, Peter Kuznick explains how U.S. actions since 2008, including NATO ambitions, regime change plans, and the Iraq War, fueled tensions… pic.twitter.com/L6TNjdvdYp
The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has overwhelmingly voted against including in its 2025 election manifesto a condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Ukraine conflict. The delegates gathered for a conference in Riesa, Germany on Saturday to decide on the platform for the snap parliamentary elections which will be held next month. Albrecht Glaser, a member of the Bundestag, proposed accusing Russia of failing to protect civilians in Ukraine and stating that the “AfD condemns the behavior of President Putin and once again calls on all warring parties to propose an immediate ceasefire and hold peace talks.” According to news channel N-tv, 69% of the delegates voted to reject the motion.
The draft program approved by the party leadership only briefly mentions the conflict, saying, “the war in Ukraine has disturbed the European peaceful order,” Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported. The draft reportedly says the AfD “sees Ukraine’s future as a neutral state outside of NATO and the EU,” and calls for the restoration of “undisturbed trade” with Russia. Known for its anti-immigration stance, the AfD is the second-most popular party in Germany, according to polls. The party has often been accused of parroting Russian narratives about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The party has rejected the ‘pro-Russian’ label, insisting that continuing military support for Kiev and sanctions on Russian trade and energy exports are counter to German national interests.
During a recent conversation with tech billionaire Elon Musk, AfD co-leader Alice Weidel argued that the EU has abandoned diplomatic efforts in favor of dangerous confrontation with Russia. The conflict could “escalate big time towards a nuclear exchange,” she warned. Early elections were called after Germany’s ruling three-party coalition collapsed in late 2024 due to disagreements over the budget.
Ursula
Is @ElonMusk interfering in German elections? Listen to Ursula von der Leyen who threatens Italians a few days before the elections won by Giorgia Meloni: "We will see the result of the vote in Italy. If things go in a difficult direction, we have the tools, as in the case of… pic.twitter.com/umWcBx63Sy
Former European Commissioner Thierry Breton says the EU has mechanisms to nullify a potential election victory of the AfD:
”We did it in Romania and we will obviously do it in Germany if necessary”
🇪🇺🇩🇪 Thierry Breton, former European Commissioner, claimed that the EU has tools to counter a possible AfD election victory:
"We did it in Romania, and we will do it again if necessary in Germany."
FRENCH TAUNTER DENIES EU TOLD ROMANIA TO CANCEL ELECTION RESULTS
Thierry Breton, the former EU Commissioner who tried to interfere with Elon’s interview with Trump, claimed his recent comments were taken out of context.
An empty reservoir and dry fire hydrants are now the symbols of California and local officials’ response to the horrific Pacific Palisades wildfire—one of six Santa Ana windblown firestorms still burning in Los Angeles. Gov. Gavin Newsom has ordered an investigation to demonstrate that he’s doing something, but the damage is being done right now. The 117 million-gallon Santa Ynez Reservoir was empty and down for maintenance when the devastating fire was sparked, perhaps in the brush, between the homes and the Pacific Coast Highway. You can see a map of the area in my story Good Intentions Might Be the Cause of Devastating Palisades Fire. Friday, officials confirmed that the reservoir had been down for nearly a year —closing in February 2024—for maintenance to the cover of the reservoir.
The New York Times reports that a contractor was hired in November to fix a crack in the cover. It is unclear why the reservoir had to be shut down for that extended period of time. The ripple effect was beyond devastating. The fires broke out Tuesday, Jan. 7. By the next day, Janisse Quiñones, the head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said their system tanks went dry three times. You’ll want to remember that because the story is about to get worse. We have three large water tanks, about a million gallons each. We ran out of water in the first tank at about 4:45 p.m. yesterday. We ran out of water in the second tank about 8:30 p.m. and the third tank about 3 a.m. this morning. She never mentioned the empty reservoir, though former DWP Commissioner and mayoral candidate Rick Caruso did say that “the reservoir” hadn’t been filled. He was right and righteously angry.
Firefighters complained that there was no water coming out of the hydrants. The fires burned uncontrollably. In addition to the “investigation” by Newsom, the New York Times reported that the Department of Water and Power, whose job it is to fill the reservoirs, is looking into whether the empty Santa Ynez reservoir in Pacific Palisades made a difference in their fire response. We are not kidding. [..] Water for the Pacific Palisades is fed by a 36-inch line that flows by gravity from the larger Stone Canyon Reservoir, said Marty Adams, a former general manager and chief engineer at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. That water line also fills the Santa Ynez Reservoir. Water from the two reservoirs then sustain the water system for the Pacific Palisades, and also pump systems that fill storage tanks that feed higher-elevation homes in the neighborhood.
It was unclear whether officials could have brought the reservoir back online before the fire, after forecasters began warning of dangerous wildfire conditions. Now, I’m no hydrologist or physicist, but wouldn’t water pressure be helped by having water in all the tanks and reservoirs? Am I missing something here? But, what ho! We get an answer. Mr. Adams said an operational reservoir would have been helpful initially to more fully feed the water system in the area. But he also said it appeared that that reservoir and the tanks would have eventually been drained in a fire that was consuming so many homes at once. Municipal water systems are generally designed to sustain water loads for much smaller fires than what consumed Pacific Palisades. [emphasis added]
Those are a lot of words to say that more water would have been helpful. Speaking of not being a hydrologist, I looked up the latest state hydrology report because the global warming crowd desperately hopes to blame “climate change/catastrophe” for the fires. Yeah, well, that dog won’t hunt. If you’re new here, from east to west Southern California, there’s desert, then mountains, then semi-arid land all the way to the ocean. While the media will tell you this is climate change, this is no change at all. This is the state of play in California all the time. However, California has received a surge in water in the last few years following a drought, but there have been no new reservoirs built to store water since the last one opened in 1979. According the latest hydrologist report, “Major flood control reservoirs are either near their respective top of conservation levels or below.”
Precipitation has been slow in the first couple of weeks of the year, but the “The statewide accumulated precipitation to end of November 2024 was 5.22 inches, which is 132% of average.” The snowpack, which is also where water is stored, and Gavin Newsom lets flow out to the Pacific Ocean to “save” a bait fish, is growing. “The statewide average snow water equivalent (SWE) was 5.1 inches for December 1, which is 168% percent of normal and 19% of April 1 average.” In other words, there’s been precipitation — remember all those atmospheric rivers? — and if there were more storage there would be more water available for drinking and fighting fires. I could go into the environmental rules that don’t allow much, if any, thinning in forests, road building, otherwise known as fire breaks, reservoir building, and preventative burning, which used to happen all the time to stop these conflagrations that the enviros like to blame on climate, but I do in my other stories.
Pope
https://twitter.com/i/status/1877908221987291462
Stone
“Ukraine changed in 2014 after Maidan. It became truly a dangerous country.”
Oliver Stone, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, explains how the 2014 Maidan coup brought zealous neo-fascists to power, destabilizing Ukraine and violating its neutrality. pic.twitter.com/ZFCnyotYyP
so let me get this straight… Nikola Tesla dies, and the ONLY person allowed access to his safe—the one containing all his most secret inventions—is John G. Trump, a brilliant MIT scientist and, oh yeah, Donald Trump’s uncle, who conveniently says, “nothing to see here” while the… pic.twitter.com/2SYaqqSLRC
Russian President Vladimir Putin is open to direct talks with US President-elect Donald Trump, but no specific details have yet been finalized, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Previously, Trump announced that a meeting with Putin is being set up, suggesting that it will likely take place after he officially assumes office on January 20. Throughout his 2024 presidential campaign, the Republican repeatedly vowed to end the Ukraine conflict “within 24 hours” of entering office and said he would compel Moscow and Kiev to restart negotiations. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Peskov confirmed that Putin and Trump have expressed their readiness to communicate, adding that there are no preconditions to holding a meeting between the two leaders.
“President Putin has repeatedly stated his openness to contacts with international leaders, including the US president and, in particular, Donald Trump,” Peskov said. “No conditions are required for this. What is required is a mutual desire and political will to conduct a dialogue, to resolve existing problems through dialogue,” the spokesman added, noting that Moscow has recognized Trump’s readiness to solve problems through talks. “We welcome this.” Peskov stated that there are still no specifics on when and where the meeting would be held and that Moscow is currently acting on “the assumption of mutual readiness for the meeting.” He added that it is likely there will be “some movement” in this regard after Trump enters the Oval Office. Speaking to journalists at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida earlier this week, Trump said he might need up to six months after taking office to help Moscow and Kiev reach a deal.
His special envoy on the Ukraine conflict, retired US Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, told Fox News that he would like to set a 100-day timeline to end the conflict. While Trump has yet to lay out any specifics about how he would achieve a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev, some media reports have suggested that the president-elect’s team is considering a freeze of the conflict along the current battle lines. Moscow, however, has repeatedly stated that it seeks to end the conflict once and for all instead of putting it on hold, which it said could be used by Kiev to recuperate and rearm itself for a future conflict. Putin has stated that a ceasefire and peace negotiations with Ukraine can only take place after Kiev withdraws its forces from all Russian territories, abandons its NATO ambitions, and commits to a neutral and nuclear-weapons-free status.
Trump at Truth Social: “The Radical Democrats have lost another pathetic, unAmerican Witch Hunt. After spending tens of millions of dollars, wasting over 6 years of obsessive work that should have been spent on protecting New Yorkers from violent, rampant crime that is destroying the City and State, coordinating with the Biden/Harris Department of Injustice in lawless Weaponization, and bringing completely baseless, illegal, and fake charges against your 45th and 47th President, ME, I was given an UNCONDITIONAL DISCHARGE. That result alone proves that, as all Legal Scholars and Experts have said, THERE IS NO CASE, THERE WAS NEVER A CASE, and this whole Scam fully deserves to be DISMISSED. The real Jury, the American People, have spoken, by Re-Electing me with an overwhelming MANDATE in one of the most consequential Elections in History. As the American People have seen, this “case” had no crime, no damages, no proof, no facts, no Law, only a highly conflicted Judge, a star witness who is a disbarred, disgraced, serial perjurer, and criminal Election Interference. Today’s event was a despicable charade, and now that it is over, we will appeal this Hoax, which has no merit, and restore the trust of Americans in our once great System of Justice. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump to go forward today. The bare majority was secured when Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with their liberal colleagues, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. However, part of the rationale for the decision was that Acting New York Justice Juan Merchan indicated that he was going to issue an unconditional discharge without any jail or probation. The question is whether Merchan could pull a bait-and-switch and decide to impose punishment. It is highly unlikely but intriguing. Some of us predicted this result and specifically noted that Chief Justice Roberts would not want to issue a stay. Roberts prefers regular order and, like many jurists, prefers for cases to be finalized to allow for a complete appellate review.
They tend to oppose interlocutory appeals for that reason. In his earlier order, Merchan discussed various options and only said “an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options.” That is where some of us said that this case would land after the conviction. After the election, such a sentence became all but certain. It is the only option that would avoid the constitutional problems — and likely reversal — for Merchan. The majority took that as a done deal and noted that the President-elect would not have to attend in person and would not face any punishment. The Court may believe that it has sealed Merchan’s suggestion in legal amber. There is little likelihood that Merchan will depart from the course, but could he?
The answer is probably yes. Defendants are allowed to address the court before sentencing and no sentence is finalized until the sentencing hearing. What if Trump came in and expressed open contempt for Merchan and mocked the case? Some judges might take such an allocution moment to increase punishment. Merchan could threaten contempt but that increasing punishment would go against the operating assumption of the Court’s 5-4 decision. The Supreme Court decision itself does not order Merchan to issue an unconditional discharge. It simply treats it as a done deal. It is not as a legal matter, but it is as a practical matter. Today, we will see the ignoble end to a raw form of lawfare by one of its most committed warriors. After millions in costs and years of litigation, it will result in no punishment.
What the left will get is the labeling of Trump as a convicted felon, a fact that will then be repeated like a mantra by the media. Merchan can be expected to add to that rhetoric with punishment soundbites, as he has in the past. However, the result shows how this case was more inflated by the Goodyear blimp. It will be punishment by soundbite in a case based on a ridiculous criminal theory. He will be sentenced without our even knowing what jurors concluded happened in the case since Merchan did not require them to agree on the specific motivation or purpose of underlying acts. The benefit for President Trump is that he can finally appeal this case. While expectations are low for the New York court system which failed to prevent the political weaponization of its criminal justice system, it can now be reviewed in its totality and eventually go back the United States Supreme Court.
Lawfare
President Trump just released his first statement in the wake of the New York criminal case sentencing.
Here's what the president-elect had to say;
"The radical Democrats have lost another pathetic, un-American witch hunt after spending tens of millions of dollars wasting over… pic.twitter.com/daIWCdQp0C
“The ultimate penalty on Friday morning from Judge Merchan reflects the lack of seriousness in the case. It was more inflated than the Goodyear blimp..”
With the sentencing of Donald Trump Friday, the final verdict on the New York criminal trial of the president-elect is in. The verdict is not the one that led to no jail or probation for the incoming president. Acting Justice Juan Merchan has brought down the gavel on the New York legal system as a whole. Once considered the premier legal system in the country, figures like New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Justices Arthur F. Engoron and Juan Merchan have caused the system to be weaponized for political purposes. Trump will walk away from this trial and into the White House in less than two weeks, but the New York system will walk into infamy after this day. The case has long been denounced by objective legal observers, including intense Trump critics, as a legal absurdity.
Even CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig denounced the case as legally flawed and unprecedented while Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., simply called it total “b—s–t.” It is a case based on a non-crime. Bragg took a long-dead misdemeanor and zapped it back into life with a novel and unfounded theory. By using federal violations that were never charged, let alone tried, Bragg turned a misdemeanor into dozens of felonies and essentially tried Trump for federal offenses. Merchan not only allowed those charges to be brought to trial but then added layers of reversible errors in the effort to bag Trump at any cost. For that, he was lionized by the liberal media and many New Yorkers. However, Trump still managed to pull in 3.6 million New York votes, or 42.7%, in the 2024 election.
After all of the lawfare and every advantage (including a heavily biased media and a larger war chest), Vice President Kamala Harris lost hundreds of thousands of votes in 2024 in comparison to Joe Biden just four years earlier. Many polls showed that the public saw the Manhattan criminal case for what it was: raw lawfare targeting a leading political opponent. The election itself felt like the largest verdict in history as citizens rejected the political, legal, and media establishments in one of our nation’s most historic elections. The New York court system will now have a chance to redeem itself but few are holding their breath. The appellate court has still not ruled on an appeal of Attorney General Lettia James’s equally absurd civil lawsuit against Trump. Despite judges expressing skepticism over Engoron’s use of a law to impose a grotesque $455 million in fines and interest, we are still waiting for a decision.
Most are waiting for this criminal case to escape the vortex of the New York court system. With this appeal, this peddler’s wagon of reversible errors will finally pull up in front of the Supreme Court itself. With its ruling on Thursday night, the setting for a decision could not be better for Trump. The Supreme Court has again demonstrated that it has shown restraint and independence in these cases. In response to the ruling, Trump struck the perfect note Thursday night and declined to criticize the Court, stating that “This is a long way from finished and I respect the court’s opinion.” The ultimate penalty on Friday morning from Judge Merchan reflects the lack of seriousness in the case. It was more inflated than the Goodyear blimp, pumped up by hot rage and rhetoric. The sentence was the pinprick that showed the massive void within this case. The verdict is in. The New York legal system has rendered it against itself.
Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede has said he is prepared to speak with US President-elect Donald Trump, who has stated that ownership of the Danish overseas territory is an “absolute necessity” for American national security. Trump, who takes office on January 20, refused to rule out military force or coercive economic methods to secure US ownership of the island, in a statement on Tuesday. At a press conference alongside Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in Copenhagen on Friday, Egede was asked whether he had been in contact with Trump. “No, but we are ready to talk,” he said. Asked about Trump’s refusal to rule out force in his goal of acquiring the island, Egede replied that he thinks the statement was “serious,” but “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.”
Egede noted that international cooperation with allies is very important, and that the island will continue working with the US in the future. Greenland was allowed home rule by Denmark in 1979, and granted the right to declare independence via a referendum in 2009. The Arctic island’s pro-independence leader reiterated this ambition in Friday’s press conference. “The desire for independence, the wish to be in one’s own house, is probably understood by all people in the world,” Egede said. “We do not want to be Danish, we do not want to be Americans, we want to be Greenlandic.” Egede told journalists that an independence “vote will come soon.” The Danish prime minister noted “a strong desire among many Greenlanders to move towards independence,” an aspiration she described as “both legitimate and understandable.”
Both Frederiksen and Egede rejected Trump’s proposals to buy Greenland in the past. “We are not for sale and never will be for sale,” Egede said in December, after Trump first expressed his renewed interest in the island. On Thursday, Frederiksen stated that she had proposed a conversation with Trump’s team. “Intensive work is underway with the Americans,” she told Danish TV2. Denmark and its number one ally, the US, share the common goal of “strengthening the security of the Western alliance.” Greenland hosts a US military base and ballistic missile early-warning infrastructure.
US officials pressured a Greenland-based precious minerals group not to sell a rare-earth project to Chinese investors, the company’s chief executive has claimed. Speaking to Reuters, Tanbreez Mining CEO Greg Barnes confirmed that the deposit was eventually sold to a US-based firm. The news comes amid US President-elect Donald Trump’s insistence that Washington should take over the island, which is rich in minerals and occupies a key strategic position in the Arctic. Barnes told Reuters that the privately owned developer struggled with funding for extraction and was forced to consider offers to sell its deposit at Kringlerne, in southern Greenland. He noted that he received a number of bids for the project from Chinese firms.
However, he also said that US officials, who visited the project twice last year, had repeatedly insisted that he not sell the deposit to a Beijing-linked buyer. According to the executive, he eventually decided to sell to Critical Metals, a New York-based mining development firm, as offers from Chinese and other companies had not clearly indicated how they would pay. Critical Metals CEO Tony Sage confirmed to the news outlet that “there was a lot of pressure not to sell to China” on Barnes. The latter was ultimately forced to accept a much less lucrative deal than what Chinese buyers offered, Sage claimed. Critical Metals paid Barnes $5 million in cash and $211 million in company stock. Neither Sage nor Barnes disclosed the names of officials they met or the Chinese companies that made offers. [..]
Rare earth minerals are critical components in advanced technologies and military equipment due to their strong magnetic properties, making them strategically important in industries ranging from electric vehicles to missile systems. The Tanbreez deposit is about 30% heavy rare earths. Among other minerals, the site contains gallium, which is common in semiconductors, transistors, and small electronic devices. Trump has voiced plans to acquire Greenland since his first term in office. The world’s largest island gained home rule from Denmark in 1979, and is already home to a big US military base. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Trump said the island was an “absolute necessity” for US national security, and he would not rule out either military or economic steps to acquire it.
Greenland’s government has firmly rejected Trump’s plans, calling them “an absurd idea.” Denmark has also opposed the proposal. There have been increasingly vocal warnings from Washington about the risks posed by China’s dominance in the global rare earths market. As of 2022, China accounted for some 60% of global production and 85% of processing capacity of rare earths, and the US has been concerned about dependency on Beijing for essential materials.
The United States is creating an airfield infrastructure in Greenland for planes capable of carrying nuclear warheads, Russian Ambassador to Denmark Vladimir Barbin told Sputnik. Last month, US President-elect Trump, who is due to assume office on January 20, called it “an absolute necessity” for the United States to own Greenland, thus commenting on his decision to appoint a new US ambassador to Denmark. Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede has since responded, saying that the island is not for sale. “The island-based US Pituffik Space Base [ex-Thule Air Base] today is a part of the US’ system for warning about a nuclear strike from the Arctic direction. It is undergoing comprehensive modernization, including radar systems worth billions of dollars. It is also building airfield infrastructure for F-35 fighter jets, which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Such jets have already used the base’s airfield for training,” Barbin said.
The US military has been permanently present in Greenland since World War II, the ambassador added. “Russia supports boosting stability in the Arctic. It is possible only on the foundation of creating a system of international security equal for all Arctic states,” Barbin said. “Greenland is interested in developing mutually beneficial international cooperation, including with the United States. The question of Greenland’s fate should be decided on the basis of the expression of the will of the Greenlanders themselves within the framework of the current Danish legislation and without any outside interference,” Barbin said. US President-elect Donald Trump, due to assume office on January 20, in December 2024 called it “an absolute necessity” for the United States to own Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Danish Realm, thus commenting on his decision to appoint a new US ambassador to Denmark.
Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede has since responded, saying that the island is not for sale. Trump told reporters earlier in January that he cannot guarantee he will not use military force to take over Greenland. Later, Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said there are currently no military plans in place to take control over Greenland by force. Trump first announced his claims for Greenland in 2019, when he was serving his first presidential term.
“The first person to congratulate Biden was Bibi. And not only did he congratulate him, he did it on tape,” Trump continued, adding: “I haven’t spoken to him since. F**k him.”
US President-elect Donald Trump has shared a video of an interview with Jeffrey Sachs in which the American economist calls Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a deep, dark son of a b***h.” Trump posted the clip on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday without comment. In the two-minute video, Sachs accuses former US President Barack Obama of arming jihadists in Syria in a bid to overthrow Bashar Assad’s government. Sachs also condemns former President George Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, and accuses Netanyahu of goading Bush into launching the two-decade war and pushing for US intervention in Syria and Iran. “He’s still trying to get us to fight Iran this day, this week,” Sachs says at the end of the clip. “He’s a deep, dark, son of a b***h… because he’s gotten us into endless wars.”
Trump posted the following video of Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who refers to Netanyahu as a "deep, dark son of a bitch". – How can this be interpreted? Trump presents himself as the best friend of Israel, but he wants to end the expensive forever wars pic.twitter.com/Lcmk7O1Aud
Trump was a close ally of Netanyahu during his term in the White House, and described himself as “history’s most pro-Israel US president.” He imposed sanctions on Iran at Netanyahu’s request, moved the US embassy in Israel to West Jerusalem, and brokered the Abraham Accords, which saw Israel normalize relations with Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Sudan. However, the two seemingly fell out after Netanyahu congratulated President Joe Biden while Trump was still attempting to challenge Biden’s electoral victory in the courts in late 2020. “I liked Bibi. I still like Bibi. But I also like loyalty,” Trump told Axios in 2021, using a nickname for the Israeli PM. “The first person to congratulate Biden was Bibi. And not only did he congratulate him, he did it on tape,” Trump continued, adding: “I haven’t spoken to him since. F**k him.”
Trump and Netanyahu have gotten back in contact in the meantime, with the pair speaking multiple times this year. Last month, Netanyahu said that he and Trump “had a very friendly, warm and important discussion” by phone, focused on Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza. Trump has publicly called on Israel to “finish up” the war. During a meeting with Netanyahu at the Republican’s Mar-a-Lago estate in October, then-candidate Trump reportedly told the Israeli premier that he wanted to see the conflict resolved by the time he takes office later this month. The incoming president has also warned Hamas that there will be “all hell to pay in the Middle East” if the Palestinian militants do not free their remaining Israeli hostages before inauguration day.
Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that the Israel Defense Forces will continue to wage war until they achieve “total victory” over Hamas, and that Israel will maintain “full security control” over the enclave afterwards. Netanyahu will not attend Trump’s inauguration, an aide to the PM told the Times of Israel on Thursday, without commenting further.
Thus we arrive at 2025, a year that is ushered in with Trump’s threats to trade relations with Canada and beyond. In light of what happened a couple of centuries ago, it is curious that in pursuit of his MAGA campaign motto, Trump has once again gone on the attack against Canada. It almost seems as if this thorn in the side never passes for Americans. The fact is even more interesting if one considers it from a strategic point of view: for the U.S., the ‘conquest’ of Canada or at least part of it, hand in hand with Greenland, would mean not only having access to the many energy delicacies found there, but also being able to position medium-range weapon systems towards Russia and China. Yes, the white war is more realistic than some mainstream analysts think. Geography is not an opinion and neither are international relations.
Going from the North, from the polar zone, is quicker than going round the entire world. However, there is the disadvantage of the inhospitable nature of the territory, so it is necessary to organize management strategies for this ‘new’ – so to speak – domain, so as to be able to play on a theatre of possible conflict with a certain familiarity. The urgency of this strategic acquisition is very strong. Indeed, a multipolar world is more complex to cope with than the old model, but it is still at an early stage, so the Nordic loophole must be played out with good timing. If we add to this the historical dislike for Canada, the combination works perfectly.
Politically, this can also be played out against liberalism and globalism: Trudeau is a progressive Dem leader, going against his presidency means gaining some support in the international conservative area. A more aligned Canada is convenient for the whole American bloc, according to the U.S. perspective. Moreover, Trudeau is too tied to Europe, so it is not convenient to keep him where he is. Let us therefore not be surprised if we see destabilization in the U.S.-Canadian border territories, beyond the usual migratory tensions: a continental infighting would be a nice play to achieve the strategic objectives of the northern route.
All this is consistent with the already well-known doctrine of the Northwest Passage, the sea route through the Canadian Arctic archipelago, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through polar waters. The increasing accessibility of the Northwest Passage, due to the melting of Arctic ice, has opened up new possibilities for maritime trade and the exploitation of natural resources, as well as for optimal military positions to ‘close’ Eurasia from above. However, this situation has raised a number of geopolitical issues, especially for the United States.
One of the main points of contention is the control of the sea route. Canada claims sovereignty over the waters of the Northwest Passage, classifying them as internal waters. The United States, on the contrary, considers the Passage an international waterway, arguing that it should be open to global navigation according to the rules of international law. This divergence reflects a potential conflict of interest, as recognition of Canadian sovereignty could restrict U.S. and other states’ freedom of movement. The presence of a navigable route in the Arctic increases the need to monitor and protect northern waters. For the U.S., this means developing military capabilities and infrastructure in the region to prevent intrusions from potential rivals, such as Russia and China, which are also expanding their influence in the Arctic.
Diplomatically, the U.S. could have sought a more balanced alliance with Canada to move beyond territorial issues, but American arrogance is apparently getting the better of them. The U.S. is planning quite a revival. Who knows if it will end up like the previous one? We only have to conclude with the irony of Dmitry Medvedev, who commented on X on the matter with these words: ‘It is not clear why the United States, as a country, should annex Canada, Greenland or even Great Britain and take back the Panama Canal. There is a more civilized way: Donald Trump and Elon Musk can simply buy the land, making it their own private property’. To each the president he deserves.
The first Trump term was marked by two impeachments that threatened to tarnish the legacy of his administration, namely, the Ukraine impeachment scandal and the aftermath of Jan. 6. But now, after both of those efforts were undermined by new evidence, their legacy could rebound on President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats. Donald Trump survived both impeachment attempts by House Democrats during his first term, but ultimately lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden. When he departed the White House on Inauguration Day in January 2021, just weeks after the Capitol riot, Trump had the lowest approval rating of his presidency. Many suggested his political career might be over. Democrats moved to impeach Trump the first time with a simple storyline: The then-president abused his power by requesting an investigation of Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine when Joe Biden’s son had done nothing wrong.
After the Republican Senate acquitted the president, this narrative was repeated by both candidate Joe Biden and friendly news anchors during the election. In the second attempt, Democrats tried to impeach Trump for allegedly inciting a riot against the Capitol building by claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election. After the second impeachment also failed, the Democrat-led Jan. 6 Select Committee echoed this narrative and ultimately asserted that Trump engaged in a “multi-part conspiracy” to overturn the election results and incited an insurrection. However, during Joe Biden’s term in office, evidence uncovered by dogged congressional investigators and the media have turned the premises of those dual impeachment pushes upside down, which in many ways exonerated the once and future president.
Republican Senator Ron Johnson, who will chair the investigating arm of the powerful Senate Homeland Security Committee, said congressional Republicans, with a new Washington, D.C., trifecta, may still have an interest in getting to the bottom of Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine and the conduct of the Democrat-led Jan. 6 Select Committee. “I think the American people deserve the truth here,” Senator Johnson, who represents Wisconsin, told the John Solomon Reports podcast. “President Trump has falsely accused your son of doing something wrong while serving on a company board in Ukraine,” CNN anchor Anderson Cooper claimed setting up an interview question for Joe Biden during the campaign. “I want to point out there is no evidence of wrongdoing by either one of you.”
Evidence uncovered by House Republicans and Just the News in the intervening years show that, in fact, there is significant documentary evidence that Hunter Biden and his father engaged in an influence peddling scheme in Ukraine while the younger Biden was serving on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma. The final report from House Republicans’ own impeachment inquiry into President Biden over the issue furnished several pieces of evidence to back this claim. Most importantly, evidence first reported by Just the News showed then-Vice President Biden changed official policy by calling an “audible” on a flight to Kyiv, linking a $1 billion loan guarantee for the struggling country to its firing of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma’s founder, Mykola Zlochevsky.
This evidence contradicted claims from several government witnesses and congressional Democrats during the 2019 probe that Joe Biden did not change U.S. policy and that the Ukrainian prosecutors were not investigating Burisma at the time Hunter Biden worked for the company. Now, Sen. Johnson says Joe Biden’s pardon of his son paves the way to call in Hunter Biden for his complete testimony on how his business role intersected with his father’s political responsibilities in Ukraine. “But what is interesting is, with the hunter Biden’s pardon, he has no Fifth Amendment right not to testify and tell the truth, and so he could be we could prosecute him for lying to Congress,” Sen. Johnson said. “He’s going to have to answer truthfully. So that’s a real possibility. Again, we’d have to get our ducks in a row. You know, you know me, I want documents, I don’t want to just come in for a show trial,” he continued.
Three out of four Britons want Prime Minister Keir Starmer to launch a national inquiry into the sexual abuse of thousands of underage girls by ‘grooming gangs’, according to a new poll. Starmer’s ruling Labour Party has already rejected calls for such an investigation. Conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Women’s Policy Center and published on Thursday by GB News, the survey suggested that 76% of the public back demands for a probe into the abuse, while only 13% reject these demands. Some 84% of Conservative voters and 65% of Labour voters support an inquiry, as do 91% of Reform voters, according to the poll. Hours before the poll was published, Parliament rejected a Conservative-proposed amendment to a child protection bill that would have set up a national inquiry into the gangs by 364 votes to 111.
All 411 Labour MPs either voted against the amendment or abstained, while 101 of 111 Conservatives and all five Reform MPs supported it. The vote came after weeks of constant posts by SpaceX CEO and X owner Elon Musk drawing attention to the activity of the gangs, and to Starmer’s handling of the rapes during his time in charge of the Crown Prosecutorial Service (CPS) from 2008 until 2013. The gangs systematically raped and tortured tens of thousands of underage girls in towns across northern England over the last two decades, according to multiple government and media reports. Almost all of the perpetrators were Pakistani men, and the victims white British girls. Successive governments declined to investigate the scandal – which received mainstream media attention after a series of reports by The Times in 2011 – and several police departments covered up the existence of the gangs, inquiries later found.
Under Starmer, the CPS was heavily criticized for declining to prosecute a gang in Rochdale, and police in Rotherham told a 2015 inquiry that they considered the CPS unwilling to bring charges against the alleged perpetrators. Musk has called Starmer “evil,” and according to the Financial Times, is working on a behind-the-scenes campaign to oust the British prime minister. Starmer’s already dismal approval rating has sunk even further since Musk began attacking his handling of the rape gangs last week. According to a YouGov poll published on Monday, 63% of voters disapprove of his government’s performance, while just 16% approve, a fall of two points since December.
Elon Musk’s tweets about Muslim pedophile gangs are being assessed by the UK Government’s counter-extremism unit, as a potential threat to the security of the country, it has emerged. The Daily Mirror reports that The Home Office unit has stepped up social media monitoring of accounts with large followings, including Musk’s, as pertains to the grooming gangs issue. Musk has posted hundreds of tweets in the past week related to the scandal, including openly calling Prime Minister Kier Starmer “evil,” accusing him of facilitating a cover up, and labelling Starmer and safeguarding minister Jess Philips as complicit in the “rape” of Britain. The Mirror report states that the UK government’s counterterrorism unit has “been involved in content analysis and wider risk assessment.” A government source told the Mirror “We keep a close eye on how disinformation and hate can proliferate, including online.”
John Woodcock, the government’s adviser on political violence and disruption, asserted that “Britain’s democracy isn’t a play thing for foreign billionaires – Elon Musk needs to back off and concentrate on his rockets and his cars or whatever he wants to obsess about next. Our electoral laws rightly forbid foreign donations and my recent review warns against our information channels being deliberately manipulated from abroad. We should be watching closely to ensure that doesn’t happen here.” The government’s website states that the counter-extremism unit “focuses on the highest harm risks to the homeland, whether from terrorists, state actors, or cyber and economic criminals,” While the tweets are being investigated, the government has rejected calls for a new national inquiry into the pedophile gangs scandal, with ministers voting down a move to legislate for an inquiry.
UK s Head of Counter-Terrorism Policing AC Matt Jukes is currently probing Elon Musk over his posts on 5yO› pertaining to the grooming gang scandal.
Matt Jukes served as Borough Commander in Rotherham from 2006-2010, which coincided with a peak in child sexual exploitation by& pic.twitter.com/AS3rKQGZIO
Ironically, the current head of counter-terrorism policing in the UK is an officer who served as Borough Commander in Rotherham, one of the areas most notorious for child sexual abuse at the hands of Muslim pedophile gangs, from 2006-2010. In comments to GB News, former Head of the Counter Terrorist Unit at Ministry of Defence, Major General Chip Chapman suggested that Musk’s tweets could influence others to take violent action, and that there is a history of ‘conspiracy theorists’ doing that in the UK.
Days after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg eliminated “politically biased” fact-checkers—and on the same day his Joe Rogan podcast episode was dropped—Business Insider leaked an internal memo revealing that Meta dialed back its diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. “The legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing,” Janelle Gale, vice president of human resources at Meta, wrote in the memo, adding, “The Supreme Court of the United States has recently made decisions signaling a shift in how courts will approach DEI.” Gale pointed out, “The term “DEI” has also become charged, in part because it is understood by some as a practice that suggests preferential treatment of some groups over others.”
Meta is the latest mega-corporation to roll back toxic DEI initiatives, following Walmart and McDonald’s. Over a year ago, Robby Starbuck’s campaign to end DEI in corporate America ignited this trend. The tides have turned in corporate America, and the reelection of Donald Trump will accelerate and ensure Marxist DEI initiatives are replaced with meritocracy (not just in corporate America – but across the government and the military).
I need a new grim reaper meme with all of these companies. We ran out of doors.
• Walmart • Tractor Supply • John Deere • Harley Davidson • Indian Motorcycle • Lowe’s • Ford • Coors • Jack Daniels • Caterpillar • Boeing • Toyota • Stanley Black & Decker •… pic.twitter.com/3Dkz6crVpv
* * *
Earlier, Joe Rogan dropped a podcast featuring Zuck. Zuck seems to be trying to get on the right side of history…
HOLY SHLIT. Mark Zuckerberg says the Biden admin called his employees and “screamed and cursed” at them to take down Covid/vaccine content. They wanted Meta to censor memes too.
When he pushed back, the Biden regime started investigating his companies.
Why are some folks gobbling up the notion that having the newly restored right to fire off as many “c**ts,” *d**ks,” and “a*****es” as you want on Facebook is the best thing for free speech since the Magna Carta? Facebook’s safe space for easily triggered mental midgets is now supposed to suddenly transform into a beacon of free speech and debate. But only for some. Sort of. Who are apparently now free to call transgenderism a mental illness, for example. Everyone else will have to wait for their potential future liberation from the virtual hall monitor. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook and its parent company, Meta, has just announced that audiences won’t be subjected to thought policing through fact-checking anymore. Well, American audiences, at least. And not by professional gatekeepers designated specifically for the task. The language patrol will also apparently unclench a bit.
“Starting in the US, we are ending our third party fact-checking program and moving to a Community Notes model,” the company announced, citing the open collaborative model of Elon Musk’s X Platform. The move comes in the wake of Zuckerberg’s pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago where he met with incoming US President-elect Donald Trump – who was himself banned and restricted by Meta until last summer – and his perpetual sidekick, self-styled “free speech absolutist” Musk. Meta’s statement cites “societal and political pressure to moderate content,” claiming that it “has gone too far.” You think? It took Zuckerberg until August 2024 to admit to a congressional committee that “in 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire,” and that it led to “choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today.”
In the same letter, he said the FBI warned his team ahead of the 2020 US presidential election about a “Russian disinformation operation” involving the Biden family and Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, served. Zuckerberg says he now realizes that the story turned out to be legit, and not Russian fake news as the FBI claimed – but only after the New York Post dared to counter the official narrative that Facebook had colluded in protecting by censoring debate. Until now, designated “professionals” in various countries have been working with Meta to ensure narrative compliance. In Canada, for example, partner AFP Fact Check has recently posted that there’s “no evidence linking methane inhibitors for cows to human health problems.” It’s a reference to the Western establishment’s new strategy, introduced in Canada and elsewhere, of suppressing cow farts with feed additive called Bovaer 10 – all in a valiant effort to save the planet from climate change.
Some people have been asking whether the fart suppressor could somehow end up in milk or meat. But the fact checkers say that the government says it’s safe. So case closed. Until it isn’t, of course. But that would require alternative information to come to light, as is always the case when the public finds out after the fact that something officially authorized was in fact problematic. But good luck having that debate on Facebook, where you risk posting something that ends up being scarlet-lettered with an official message from the online Gestapo constantly scouring the website via algorithms for wrongthink.
At least in the US, this is all now supposed to be ending precisely where it began in the wake of the 2016 presidential election when Democrats and other assorted anti-Trumpers were in hysterics over the idea that Russia singlehandedly got Trump elected through social media. That led to pressure on outlets like Meta to censor fake news as defined by establishment-friendly fact checkers. The slippery censorship slope then led to a move by Meta to then prioritize approved “trustworthy” information sources in 2018 – a system that expanded further under the pretext of the Covid fiasco in 2020. After the Capitol riots in January 2021, Facebook dumped Trump’s account indefinitely, citing the need to prevent violence and disinformation.
And in September 2024, amid the most recent US presidential election campaign, Meta globally banned Russian media accounts, like RT, citing “foreign interference” – a move that effectively reduces the odds of users being exposed to unauthorized or alternative views that risk challenging the status quo. RT news articles posted on Facebook warn the user to proceed with caution when reading. No such call to engage critical thinking accompanies Western news sources, because they’re always in unfailing alignment with the objective truth. There’s no evidence yet that anyone outside the US will be spared from Meta’s digital thought safety patrol. Or even that Americans still won’t be subjected to less obvious censorship of information sources.
France is straight-up expressing concern over the rule loosening anyway. “France remains vigilant and committed to ensuring that META, along with other platforms, comply with their obligations under European law, particularly the Digital Services Act (DSA),” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement, citing the same European law that led to the EU threatening Musk with 150 bureaucratic monitors ahead of his planned online interview with German right-wing populist leader Alice Weidel, currently polling as the voters’ favored choice for chancellor ahead of next month’s parliamentary elections.
“Freedom of expression, a fundamental right protected in France and Europe, should not be confused with a right to virality, which would permit the dissemination of inauthentic content to millions of users without any filtering or moderation,” the French government said. Yeah, well, it would also mean the dissemination of debate and an increased opportunity for contributions of all kinds.
“Life imitates art,” Oscar Wilde quipped, a most insightful glimpse into the human condition delivered as a wise-crack. Very Hollywood. Too bad there were no late-night talk shows in Oscar’s time. It took more than eighty years, but the apocalyptic burning of Los Angeles depicted at the climax of Nathanial West’s 1939 novel The Day of the Locust has finally come — the city of dreams turned into one big flaming nightmare. The adumbrations of this fiasco will darken our national life for years to come. Who knew that the best way to convert Utopian Woke Democrats back into a reality-based thought system would be to burn their houses down? The wealthy showbiz folk occupying the moral high ground of the Pacific Palisades voted Democratic by 90-percent. They were fully on-board with the agenda of the Party of Chaos, especially Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion (DEI) and the open border that allowed a deluge of mysterious strangers to flood the country.
Now, reports come across the “X” wires that these mystery folk are cruising the wreckage in the canyons on scooters and in cars to loot anything left of value. The police are shown on video capturing a mystery migrant with a blowtorch suspected of starting the latest outbreak named the Kenneth Fire on the edge of the San Fernando Valley. Loud-and-proud DEI firefighters were stymied in their work by neighborhood fire hydrants that were disappointingly not “full of water,” as they put it. Is that how it works? Each hydrant is supposed to get filled up on a regular schedule by water pixies?
You know by now that LA Mayor Karen Bass was unavailable for the early innings of the conflagration, having flown to the West African nation of Ghana for the inauguration of the new president John Dramani Mahama. But she managed to scramble back in time to mourn the smoldering ruins of Malibu. Governor Gavin Newsom dallied on a smoke-filled street with CNN’s disaster specialist, Anderson Cooper, pretending to manage the situation, which was, in fact, completely out of control. Among the things the governor has been criticized for is poor forest and brush management. Mr. Newsom has been lately working to pass a $25-million bill to fund measures for “Trump-proofing” California. For that same $25-million, he could have hired 500 workers at $50,000-a-year to cut brush around Los Angeles County. That is, if he didn’t avail himself of work-gangs from the California penitentiaries.
Even “Joe Biden” was in town, to announce the creation of a new national monument, the Chuckwalla National Monument, south of Joshua Tree National Park — 125 miles out in the Mojave Desert from LA. But he had helpful phone conversations with Governor Newsom. . . promises of federal funding to build Malibu back better. I wonder if the folks still camping out in tents back in the Mountains of Carolina heard about that. This same week “JB” also announced another $500-million aid package for Ukraine. Anybody wondering why “America First” helped get Mr. Trump elected?
You can’t overstate the amount and degree of family devastation to be endured in the months and years ahead. For one thing, many homeowners recently had their fire insurance cancelled. Decades of punitive bureaucracy made rate increases difficult in wildfire-prone areas, so companies like Allstate decided to quit doing business in the state. So, many of the thousands of lost houses will be total losses. A great many of these were multi-million-dollar houses, even modest ones built in the 1960s, due to the extreme desirability of neighborhoods like Pacific Palisades, the Hollywood Hills, and Malibu Beach. Some middle-class people had their entire nest-eggs vested in these houses.
The deployment of artificial intelligence could deal a heavy blow to the worldwide labor market and result in massive layoffs in global companies, the World Economic Forum (WEF) Future of Jobs report published on Wednesday, warns. The study, which surveyed hundreds of large businesses worldwide, found that 41% of companies plan to slash their workforce by 2030 in response to the increasing capabilities of AI. Further, 77% of companies are preparing to reskill and upskill their existing staff from 2025 to 2030 for better human-machine collaboration. The report predicted that 170 million new jobs will be created by the end of the decade, while 92 million jobs will be displaced. The WEF noted that skills in AI, big data, and cybersecurity are expected to be in high demand.
“Trends such as generative AI and rapid technological shifts are upending industries and labor markets, creating both unprecedented opportunities and profound risks,” Till Leopold, the head of Work, Wages and Job Creation at the WEF, said. The WEF said that advances in AI, robotics, and energy systems, particularly in renewable energy and environmental engineering, are expected to boost demand for specialist roles in these fields. The report also identified job categories that will face the largest decline in numbers due to AI and other technological trends. They include service clerks, executive secretaries, payroll clerks, and graphic designers.
“The presence of both graphic designers and legal secretaries just outside the top 10 fastest-declining job roles, a first-time prediction not seen in previous editions of the Future of Jobs Report, may illustrate GenAI’s increasing capacity to perform knowledge work,” the report said. The report stressed that the impact of AI extends beyond job displacement, highlighting the potential of the technology to augment human output, rather than replace it outright. The WEF concluded that “human-centered skills” such as creative thinking, resilience, flexibility, and agility will continue to be critical.
Meanwhile, high-profile figures and scientists have raised concerns in recent years over the potential dangers posed by AI. Last year, computer scientist and author Paul Graham warned that the use of AI for writing will result in the majority of people losing the skill in a few decades. The labor market will change significantly because of the adoption of advanced technology, according to Daniil Gavrilov, the head of the Artificial Intelligence Research Laboratory at T-Bank AI Research. Everything a human is capable of doing can be done by AI, and machines can do it well, he said in an interview with RIA Novosti last year. Gavrilov noted that in the short and medium term, employees will have to master AI skills in order to remain competitive.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has blasted the US media for what he perceives as partisan coverage of natural disasters in the country. California is battling some of the worst wildfires in recent history, with officials reporting ten fatalities in Los Angeles County as of Friday. Republican politicians are blaming the authorities in the Democratic-leaning state for undercutting the ability of emergency services to tackle the disaster with skewed policy priorities. On Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump called on Governor Gavin Newsom to resign for allegedly mismanaging water reserves in California. DeSantis confronted members of the press on Thursday evening, after one of them suggested that the call was inappropriate. The on-camera exchange took place during a press conference held by a group of Republican governors at Trump’s residence in Mar-a-Lago.
“Is it appropriate for people in your industry to try to create division and to try to create narratives anytime these things happen?” DeSantis reacted. “If Newsom was a Republican… you guys would have him nailed to the wall for what they’re doing over there.” The governor cited coverage of incidents in his own state, such as the deadly collapse of a condominium in the Miami suburb of Surfside in 2021. His people in Florida just assume that any such occurrence would be “politicized by the media,” he said, and other Republican state officials have similar expectations. Considering their track record, pro-Democratic journalists are in no position to complain about the party’s messaging now, DeSantis stated.
“You could criticize the president-elect, but I think you also have to hold these other people accountable, and I have not seen that,” he concluded, referring to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other elected officials in California. Bass was among the primary targets for conservative critics during the crisis. She was part of the US delegation to Ghana, which attended the inauguration of President John Mahama on Tuesday, and did not return home until Wednesday evening. By that time, more than 1,000 homes had been burned and some 100,000 people across the region had to evacuate, according to media reports. The mayor underestimated the risks to the city, when the National Weather Service in Los Angeles issued a warning of extreme weather conditions on Thursday last week, the New York Times has suggested.
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
The Empire of Chaos is relentless. Lawfare, destabilizations, sanctions, kidnappings, color revolutions, false flags, annexations: 2025 will be the year of BRICS – plus BRICS partners – as choice targets under fire. Inestimable Prof. Michael Hudson coined “chaos” as official US policy. That’s bipartisan – and it runs across all silos of the Deep State. In the absence of long-term strategic vision, and amidst the progressive imperial expulsion from Eurasia, all that’s left for the Hegemon is to unleash chaos from West Asia to Europe and parts of Latin America – a concerted attempt to Divide and Rule BRICS and thwart their collective drive affirming sovereignty and the primacy of national interests. US Think Tank had already floated a year and a half ago the notion of swing states. Not the parochial American electoral version, but its transposition to geopolitics.
All six candidates at the time were BRICS members (Brazil, India, South Africa), or potential BRICS members or partners (Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye). The code for “swing states” was unmistakable: all these are targets for destabilization – as in if you do not abide by the “rules-based international order”, you’re going down. Saudi Arabia, wary of its wealth parked in London and New York financial markets, is still cautiously hedging its bets: theoretically Riyadh is a BRICS member, but in practice not really. Turkiye has been invited as a partner (no official response yet). And then there’s Southeast Asia powerhouse Indonesia, which has just been admitted as a full member this week – under the Brazilian BRICs presidency. Call it BRIIICS: the predominant vector of a seismic recalibration of the geopolitical tectonic plates – bound to reshape trade, finance, and governance.
BRIIICS and selected partners are configuring a formidable network – bent on rewriting the rules of the game: currently 10 full members and 8 full partners – and counting, making up 41.4% of global GDP by PPP and roughly half of the world’s population. This is what the Empire of Chaos is up against. Imagine China-India-Russia-Iran-Indonesia-South Africa-Brazil-Egypt-Saudi Arabia as the transcontinental pearls of the emerging multi-nodal world. Huge populations; massive natural resources and industrial might; myriad development possibilities.
The ruling elites of the Empire of Chaos have nothing to offer as a counterpoint to this growing geopolitical powerhouse – complete with its own development bank (granted, that needs a lot of work); full commitment to develop and test alternative payment systems; and a sprawling transcontinental trade alliance bent on progressively sidestepping the US dollar. Instead of working on diplomacy, dialogue and cooperation, the Empire of Chaos – and the vassalized collective West – do “offer” something to the Global Majority: their full support for an ethnic cleansing genocide, and their full support for a suit-and-tie terror gang of “moderate” head choppers taking power in a former sovereign Arab nation. Welcome to Terror and Genocide R Us.
BREAKING: President Trump just announced that he will force Gavin Newsom to redirect water from the Klamath River into California cities instead of dumping it into the Pacific, which would stop all the fires.
It’s official: Mark Zuckerberg is transitioning. After colluding with the FBI to spike the Hunter laptop story, “fact-checking” everything @realDonaldTrump said for years, and booting him off Facebook — Zuck’s now transitioning into a Conservative. He flew down to Mar-a-Lago and… pic.twitter.com/j3wvDlWptI
SpaceX CEO and X owner Elon Musk has hammered Prime Minister of Britain Keir Starmer for his refusal to prosecute Pakistani gangs involved in the mass rape of underage British girls, calling the PM “evil” incarnate. ”Starmer is evil,” Musk wrote on his social platform on Wednesday morning, above a meme condemning Starmer for demanding an investigation into former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s lockdown-breaching parties during the Covid-19 pandemic, but declining to prosecute “politically protected UK rape gangs.” Musk has spent much of the last two weeks drawing attention to the UK’s so-called “grooming gangs,” and to the police departments, politicians, and prosecutors who allegedly failed to protect children from them.
The gangs in question systematically raped and tortured tens of thousands of underage girls in towns across northern England over the last two decades, according to multiple government and media reports. Almost all of the perpetrators were Pakistani men, and the victims white British girls. Successive governments declined to investigate the scandal – which received mainstream media attention after a series of reports by The Times in 2011 – and several police departments covered up the existence of the gangs, inquiries later found. “What was done to thousands of defenseless little girls in Britain was vile beyond belief,” Musk wrote in another post on Wednesday. “When the fathers of the little girls tried to save them, the authorities arrested their fathers,” he continued, referring to at least one infamous case in the town of Rotherham.
Starmer led the Crown Prosecutorial Service (CPS) from 2008 to 2013, at the height of the scandal. Under his leadership, the CPS was heavily criticized for declining to prosecute a gang in Rochdale, and police in Rotherham told a 2015 inquiry that they considered the CPS unwilling to bring charges against alleged perpetrators. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Starmer accused Musk of spreading “lies and misinformation” about his handling of the scandal. The PM claimed that he changed the CPS’ “whole prosecution approach” to cases of child sexual abuse and left the agency with the highest number in history of such prosecutions.
However, a BBC investigation noted that “the prime minister referred only to the broad category of child sex abuse prosecution data” and that CPS records do not distinguish between sexual abuse perpetrated by gangs and abuse perpetrated by individuals. The broadcaster also found that prosecutions under Starmer peaked at 4,794 between April 2010 and March 2011 but rose to 7,200 per year in 2016-2017, after Starmer left the CPS. Starmer’s already dismal approval rating has sunk even further since last week when Musk began attacking his handling of the rape gangs. According to a YouGov poll published on Monday, 63% of voters disapprove of his government’s performance, while just 16% approve, a fall of two points since December.
In a debate in parliament on Wednesday, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch demanded that an upcoming child protection bill include an amendment setting up a national inquiry into the gangs. Starmer rejected the proposition, arguing that a lengthy inquiry would stall the implementation of the rest of the bill. With Starmer’s Labour Party holding a 163-seat majority, the amendment is unlikely to pass “Now why would Keir Starmtrooper order his own party to block such an inquiry?” Musk wrote on X. “Because he is hiding terrible things. That is why.”
'Jess Phillips confirmed that she has yet to speak to a single victim about this scandal.'
Charlie Peters outlines the anger demonstrated over Jess Phillips' decision to turn down an independent investigation into grooming gangs in Oldham despite never meeting with survivors. pic.twitter.com/ODrHf5W6go
France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot has urged the EU executive branch to use existing legislation to crack down on outside interference. His comment to French media on Wednesday is related to US-based billionaire Elon Musk weighing in on European politics on his platform X (formerly Twitter). His words come a day after French President Emmanuel Macron slammed the owner of X for interfering in EU matters. He accused the world’s richest man of intervening directly in elections across the continent, including next month’s snap federal polls in Germany. “Either the European Commission applies with the greatest firmness the laws that we have to protect our unique space, or it does not, and then it should think about giving the capacity to do so back to EU member states,” Barrot said in an interview with France Inter radio, urging the lawmakers to “wake up.”
Asked whether the X platform could be banned in the bloc, the minister replied that a mechanism allowing the move “is laid out in our laws.” The foreign minister’s comments came ahead of a livestream conversation on X with the co-leader of the right-wing AfD (Alternative for Germany) party, Alice Weidel, scheduled for Thursday, where the South African-born tech mogul is set to participate as a host. On Monday, an EC spokesperson said the institution will investigate whether the conversation is in breach of the bloc’s social media rules. In December, Musk provoked major controversy by claiming in a post on X that “only the AfD can save Germany.” The statement was followed by an op-ed piece posted by the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag later that month, in which the entrepreneur defended the party against accusations of extremism and praised its economic policies.
Additionally, Musk sparked indignation across the block with a wave of verbal attacks on various political leaders. Last month, following a tragic attack at a Christmas market in Magdeburg, the billionaire demanded the immediate resignation of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, calling him an “incompetent fool.” Last week, the tech mogul lambasted British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, accusing him of failing to tackle the Pakistani grooming gang issue and refusing to properly investigate the mass rape of underage girls while head of the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013. He also urged Washington to step in and “liberate” the Brits from their “tyrannical government.”
World leaders that attack Musk for free speech are ‘proving his point,’ says TrendMacro CIO "All I can say is you know you're over the target when you when they start shooting the flak at you. You know, for the president of France to say that Elon Musk is interfering directly in… pic.twitter.com/JhXOJU7yGL
The foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland are planning a joint trip to the US as a show of unity, Politico EU has reported. While the visit is still at the planning stage and no date has been set, the trio wants to arrive shortly after the January 20 inauguration of President Donald Trump, three EU diplomats told the outlet on condition of anonymity on Wednesday. Jean-Noel Barrot of France, Annalena Baerbock of Germany and Radoslaw Sikorski of Poland might even be accompanied by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, according to two of the diplomats. The idea behind the trip would be to make a “show of European unity,” one of the diplomats said. The EU has struggled to respond to Trump’s talk of the US taking over Greenland, an Arctic island that is currently an autonomous territory of Denmark.
The Danish government has ruled out selling the island and suggested it would be unacceptable of the US to take it from a fellow NATO member by force. “There is no question of the EU letting other nations in the world, whoever they may be, attack its sovereign borders,” Barrot has told France Inter radio. The European Commission, however, declined to take a position on the issue. French President Emmanuel Macron has argued that Trump won’t be able to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict quickly and that the role of Washington should be to bring Moscow to the table. Barrot, who has been France’s foreign minister since September, is a holdover from Michel Barnier’s cabinet that lost parliamentary confidence in early December. Germany’s ‘traffic light’ coalition that Baerbock is part of crumbled in November and faces a general election in February.
The current government of Poland took power in December 2023 through post-electoral coalition-building. While still in the opposition, Sikorski caused a minor scandal by posting “Thank you, USA” after the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines which had delivered Russian gas to Germany. Trump has also rattled the European NATO members by declaring this week that their levels of military spending were too low. As many as 15 members of the bloc have failed to reach the minimum target of 2% of their GDP by mid-2024. According to the US president-elect, even that is nowhere near enough and they ought to be spending at least 5%, which none of the members of the bloc are currently capable of.
President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, said Tuesday that he was traveling to Qatar to take part in Gaza hostage and ceasefire negotiations with Biden administration officials. Chances of a deal seem slim as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear he has no intention of ending the genocidal war, and Hamas is saying any deal must lead to a permanent ceasefire, but Witkoff insisted progress was being made. “We’re making a lot of progress, and I don’t want to say too much because I think they’re doing a really good job back in Doha,” Witkoff, a real estate investor, said at a press conference with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Witkoff said he was “really hopeful that by the inaugural, we’ll have some good things to announce on behalf of the president.” When asked what has been impeding a deal, Witkoff declined to answer.
“I believe we’ve been on the verge of [a deal]. I don’t want to discuss what’s delayed it — no point to be negative in any way,” he said. Standing alongside Witkoff, Trump repeated his threat that there would be “all hell to pay” if Hamas doesn’t start releasing hostages by his inauguration on January 20. “If those hostages aren’t back — if they’re not back by the time I get into office — all hell will break out in the Middle East and it will not be good for Hamas and it will not be good, frankly, for anyone. All hell will break out. I don’t have to say anymore, but that’s what it is and they should have been back a long time ago,” Trump said. The president-elect has vowed to be a staunch supporter of Israel, as he was in his first term, and said on Monday that he was the “best friend that Israel ever had.”
According to media reports, Hamas has released a list of 34 hostages it is willing to release as part of the first phase of a ceasefire deal in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners. The Times of Israel reported that a potential deal that’s on the table would only involve a six to seven-week temporary ceasefire. Relatives of Israelis still held in Gaza are calling for the government to pursue a comprehensive deal that releases all the hostages and brings an end to the conflict. During previous rounds of negotiations, Netanyahu sabotaged the chances of a deal by constantly declaring that he wouldn’t agree to a permanent truce and adding new demands.
When news broke over the weekend that President Biden just approved an $8 billion deal for shipping weapons to Israel, a nameless official vowed that “we will continue to provide the capabilities necessary for Israel’s defense.” Following the reports last month from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch concluding that Israeli actions in Gaza are genocide, Biden’s decision was a new low for his presidency. It’s logical to focus on Biden as an individual. His choices to keep sending huge quantities of weaponry to Israel have been pivotal and calamitous. But the presidential genocide and the active acquiescence of the vast majority of Congress are matched by the dominant media and overall politics of the United States.
Forty days after the Gaza war began, Anne Boyer announced her resignation as poetry editor of the New York Times Magazine. More than a year later, her statement illuminates why the moral credibility of so many liberal institutions has collapsed in the wake of Gaza’s destruction. While Boyer denounced “the Israeli state’s U.S.-backed war against the people of Gaza,” she emphatically chose to disassociate herself from the nation’s leading liberal news organization: “I can’t write about poetry amidst the ‘reasonable’ tones of those who aim to acclimatize us to this unreasonable suffering. No more ghoulish euphemisms. No more verbally sanitized hellscapes. No more warmongering lies.” The acclimatizing process soon became routine. It was most crucially abetted by President Biden and his loyalists, who were especially motivated to pretend that he wasn’t really doing what he was really doing.
For mainline journalists, the process required the willing suspension of belief in a consistent standard of language and humanity. When Boyer acutely grasped the dire significance of its Gaza coverage, she withdrew from “the newspaper of record.” Content analysis of the war’s first six weeks found that coverage by the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times had a steeply dehumanizing slant toward Palestinians. The three papers “disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict” and “used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians,” a study by The Intercept showed. “The term ‘slaughter’ was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and ‘massacre’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. ‘Horrific’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.”
After a year of the Gaza war, Arab-American historian Rashid Khalidi said: “My objection to organs of opinion like the New York Times is that they see absolutely everything from an Israeli perspective. ‘How does it affect Israel, how do the Israelis see it?’ Israel is at the center of their worldview, and that’s true of our elites generally, all over the West. The Israelis have very shrewdly, by preventing direct reportage from Gaza, further enabled that Israelocentric perspective.” Khalidi summed up: “The mainstream media is as blind as it ever was, as willing to shill for any monstrous Israeli lie, to act as stenographers for power, repeating what is said in Washington.”
President Joe Biden in a Jan. 5 interview confirmed that he is considering whether to issue preemptive pardons. White House officials have said that Biden plans to issue additional pardons and commutations before his term ends. Preemptive pardons would differ from those Biden has already issued and those issued by other presidents in their final days in office. They would protect people from prosecution for charges that have not yet been brought, reports Zachary Stieber at The Epoch Times. “Some of your supporters have encouraged you to issue preemptive pardons to people like Liz Cheney and Anthony Fauci … will you do that?” USA TODAY’s Susan Page asked Biden during the interview. The individuals suggested have drawn criticism from President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to take office again on Jan. 20.
Biden referenced a meeting with Trump at the White House in November 2024. “I tried to make it clear that there was no need, and it was counterintuitive for his interest to go back and try to settle scores,” Biden said, recounting the conversation they had. Trump did not respond directly to that advice, according to the president. “He didn’t. But he didn’t say, ‘No, I’m going to…’ You know. He didn’t reinforce it. He just basically listened,” Biden said. “So you haven’t decided yet. You’re still assessing this issue?” Page asked. “No, I haven’t,” Biden responded. “A little bit of it depends on who he puts in what positions,” Biden said. The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment. Inquiries sent to the employers of Cheney and Fauci were not returned.
Biden in late 2024 pardoned his son, Hunter Biden, whom a jury convicted of federal gun charges and who pleaded guilty to intentionally failing to pay taxes. Biden later pardoned another 39 people and commuted the sentences of some 1,500 others, including 37 death row prisoners. One individual floated as a possible preemptive pardon candidate is Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state. Clinton, who mishandled confidential emails and whose campaign funded opposition research against Trump, was included in a list compiled by Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee for FBI director. The list, Patel has said, are participants in the so-called deep state.
Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, has said that he does not think Biden should preemptively pardon his wife. “I hope he won’t do that,” he said during a recent television appearance on Dec. 11. A Clinton Foundation spokesperson did not return a request for comment. Biden this month awarded Cheney, who was mentioned during the interview, a Presidential Citizens Medal for her work as vice chair of a House panel that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol. Biden said Cheney and other former officials who received the medal in the ceremony had “dedicated their careers to serving our democracy” and “served in difficult times with honor, decency and ensure our democracy delivers.”
US President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming special envoy has said he hopes to mediate a resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict within 100 days, starting on Inauguration Day on January 20. “I know I’m on the clock,” retired US Army lieutenant general Keith Kellogg told Fox News on Wednesday. “I would like to set a goal on a personal level, on a professional level. I would say let’s set it at 100 days and move your way back.” Kellogg stressed that Trump remains committed to restarting negotiations between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to find a settlement to the fighting, which has claimed “enormous” casualties on both sides. “He’s not trying to give something to Putin or to the Russians. He’s actually trying to save Ukraine and save their sovereignty. And he’s going to make sure that it’s equitable and that it’s fair,” Kellogg said.
He argued that “the biggest mistake President [Joe] Biden made is the fact that he’s never engaged in any conversations with Putin.” “He hasn’t talked to him in over two years,” Kellogg said, adding that Trump “does talk to adversaries and allies alike.” Trump has repeatedly vowed to quickly mediate a successful peace deal, but offered little specifics. According to media reports, his team is considering freezing the conflict along the current front line. Negotiations between Moscow and Kiev broke down in spring 2022, with both sides accusing each other of making unrealistic demands. Putin stated that for any settlement to work, Ukraine must abandon its plans to join NATO and renounce its claims on Crimea and four other former Ukrainian territories that have joined Russia.
Victor Davis Hanson said on Monday that he thinks the FBI is “afraid” of the incoming Trump administration over the possibility that their shady dealings will be ‘re-examined.’ Speaking with Fox News on Monday about new evidence released of a suspect in the DC pipe bomb case, the Hoover Institution Senior Fellow told host Laura Ingraham; “I think they’re afraid the narrative changed over the four years, and they were afraid to release any information during the election. Now they feel that there’s a new administration and there might be some exposure or culpability. They’re afraid that if they were Donald Trump and they had suffered what they did to him, they would be very frightened the way they think,” adding “So they think Donald Trump is going to re-examine a lot of this.”
A new video published by the FBI’s DC Field Office shows a suspect appearing to plant a bomb near the Democratic National Committee. Hanson went on to call out what he said were the FBI’s “lies,” highlighting the neglect to immediately release Lt. Michael Byrd’s identity after fatally shooting Ashli Babbitt during the Jan. 6 riot. The senior fellow additionally cited the number of charges brought against attendees of the Jan. 6 attack compared to those not charged during the 2020 Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots. -Daily Caller. “A lot of the things they said, Laura, were abject lies,” Hanson continued. “There were not four officers killed. There were not 10 people killed. There was only one violent death, we think, and that was a Trump supporter, Ashli Babbitt. Then there was no need to hide Officer Byrd’s identity. Anytime an officer lethally shoots an unarmed person in this country, they’re identified. For some reason, they wanted to suppress that.”
“They wanted to suppress the FBI video. They wanted to suppress the information about Lynn [sic] Cheney, maybe witness tampering, that’s alleged,” Hanson continued. “They wanted to suppress some of the erosion of the evidence. They didn’t tell us how many people were charged. It ended up [with] 1,500 felony charges. It was [an] almost 75% conviction rate. That never happens. Compare that with the 14,000 people that were arrested in 2020. Almost 90% of them were never charged or indicted. They were released. So there was a lot of things that they want to suppress.”
Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar this week was hit by a “community note” flagging a common false statement made about January 6th and how multiple officers were killed that day. Democratic leaders routinely refer to multiple deaths of officers when the only person to die on January 6th was Ashli Babbitt, a killing of an unarmed protester that remains controversial after a whitewashing by the Capitol Police. Klobuchar, who has been a vocal supporter of censorship to quell “disinformation” on social media, repeated the false narrative and declared that “Police officers were injured and killed.” Klobuchar joined other Democrats in repeating the claim in her post on X: “Four years ago, the electoral vote certification was interrupted by a violent mob. Police officers were injured and killed. Our democracy hung in the balance. I knew we had to do our duty and complete the count – and in the early hours of January 7th, we did.”
That posting quickly led to a “Community Note” by X that said, “No officers were killed.” Immediately after the riot, Democrats started to repeat this claim, particularly concerning the later death of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. The New York Times helped spread the false claim that he died as a result of being hit with a fire extinguisher. In reality, Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes the day after the riot. As the note states, “The medical examiner found Sicknick died of natural causes which means ‘a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.’ Four other officers committed suicide days to months later.” While repeating this claim, Democrats also downplay the riot around the White House in the previous summer, including some like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md), who has bizarrely insisted that the protests were “peaceful.”
While many today still claim that the protests were “entirely peaceful” and there was no “attack on the White House,” that claim is demonstrably false. It is only plausible if one looks at the level of violence at the start of the clearing operation as opposed to the prior 48 hours. There was, in fact, an exceptionally high number of officers injured during the protests. In addition to a reported 150 officers injured (including at least 49 Park Police officers around the White House), protesters caused extensive property damage including the torching of a historic structure and the attempted arson of St. John’s. The threat was so great that Trump had to be moved into the bunker because the Secret Service feared a breach of security around the White House.
Of course, January 6th was bad enough—it does not need embellishment. Many of us immediately condemned it at the time as a desecration of our traditions and values. It was a disgraceful riot that interrupted the constitutionally mandated transition of power. However, the repeated use of this false claim is a disservice to the public and a misuse of this national tragedy. This repetition is referred to by psychologists as creating the “illusion of truth.” If repeated enough times, the lie becomes the truth, and those who object are then attacked as “deniers” or “insurrectionist sympathizers.” On “misinformation,” Klobuchar has pushed social media companies to “take this crap off.” She has sponsored legislation to support censorship, particularly when it comes to the pandemic and COVID-19. She has stressed “how lethal misinformation can be and it is our responsibility to take action.” In this case, the lethality was the misinformation.
Donald Trump petitioned the US Supreme Court to postpone his sentencing in the Stormy Daniels/hush money case, scheduled for Friday, Jan. 10. This move comes after a New York appeals courts rejected his requests for a delay, including a recent denial from the state’s appeals court, the Epoch Times reported. This move comes after New York courts rejected his requests for a delay, including a recent denial from the state’s appeals court. Trump’s legal team filed an emergency request with the nation’s highest court on Wednesday, arguing that proceeding with the sentencing could cause “grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government,” according to The Associated Press.
The Supreme Court requested a response from New York prosecutors by Thursday. The case, presided over by New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, resulted in Trump’s conviction in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Merchan has indicated that he does not intend to impose jail time, fines, or probation at the sentencing, and in fact the only reason for the sentencing is so CNN/MSNBC can officially claim that Trump is a convicted felon.
Donald Trump is set to make history on January 20, becoming the 47th president of the United States. After winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote, he enters this term with a stronger mandate than his first. Yet as sure as the sun rises, Democrats are gearing up for their favorite pastime: impeaching Trump. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has already signaled as much. During an interview on CNN, Dana Bash pressed him on balancing governance with his previous focus on investigations into Trump’s conduct, and Schiff vowed to “push back” against Trump for any perceived “abuse of power.” Schiff responded hesitantly, initially stumbling over his words. “Well, I — look, I think we hope for the best. We keep a focus on trying to get positive, affirmative things done for the country,” he said.
However, he quickly pivoted, adding, “But a lot will depend on how he chooses to govern. If he violates the law, if he violates the Constitution, if he abuses his office, we will vigorously push back, fight back, stand up to him, as we had to do during his first term in office.” Schiff added, “My priority is to try to get things done for my California constituents.” Still, he noted that his constituents also “expect me to stand up to him when he attacks the Constitution or their freedom.” Despite claiming to focus on policy, Schiff’s rhetoric suggests that he is really gearing up for another round of battles with Trump, just as he did during Trump’s first term. This is the same man who lied about having seen evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. So obviously, the issue isn’t whether Trump violates the law; it’s whether Democrats can frame him for some violation of the law.
Remember, before Trump even stepped into the Oval Office, left-wing activists and their media allies were already speculating about his removal. Politico broached the topic of impeachment in April 2016, months before he won the presidency. Articles like “The Case for Donald Trump’s Impeachability” popped up before he was even sworn in. Vanity Fair explicitly reported on Dec. 15, 2016, that Democrats were “paving the way” to impeach him. The Washington Post didn’t even wait a full hour after Trump’s first inauguration, declaring less than 20 minutes into his presidency that the impeachment campaign had begun. For Democrats, impeachment has never been about legitimate concerns. Their motives have always been political: to stop Trump and appease their donor base. Despite their best efforts — including two failed impeachment attempts and numerous legal maneuvers to prevent him from being able to return to office — Trump’s support has endured, and his momentum has grown.
Their relentless attacks on him have only fatigued the public, including many on the left. You would think they’d try a new tactic for a change. For Democrats, simply holding the office of president seems to qualify as an “abuse of power” in Trump’s case. Unlike his first term, however, this time Trump has a Republican-controlled Senate to act as a firewall against such antics, ensuring that his agenda can proceed with fewer roadblocks. Trump’s victory isn’t just a win for his supporters; it’s a repudiation of the Left’s years-long campaign of lawfare and political gamesmanship. With the country increasingly weary of futile anti-Trump hysteria, Democrats might find that their impeachment rhetoric falls flat this time around. But don’t expect that to stop them — they’ve been plotting this for years, and they’re not about to stop now.
NATO countries should start spending 5% of their GDP on defense, US President-elect Donald Trump said on Tuesday. European members of the US-led military bloc, he told a press conference, continue to spend “only a tiny fraction” of what Washington spends on defense, even though they are more affected by the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev. “It should be 5%, not 2%,” Trump told journalists at his Florida estate, referring to the spending threshold set by the bloc for its members. Some countries in the organization “have taken advantage of us,” the US president-elect said, repeating the statements he made during his first presidential term, when he pushed fellow NATO states to spend more on defense, arguing that the US would not protect them in case of a foreign aggression otherwise.
On Tuesday, Trump also spoke about a disparity in defense spending between various member countries. According to him, Washington was spending “billions and billions of dollars more … than Europe.” The president-elect then argued that the economy of the European NATO members combined is of a “similar size” to that of the US, adding that “they can all afford” an increase in defense spending. The US-led bloc simply “can’t do it at [a 2% threshold],” the president-elect said, without going into details about his reasoning behind that statement. He even warned that European NATO member states are currently “in a dangerous territory” and also claimed his previous insistence on fellow members’ defense-spend increases “saved” the bloc. According to a NATO report into defense spending published last June, none of the bloc’s members, including the US itself, currently spends 5% of their GDP on defense.
Poland was the NATO member with the largest relative level of defense spending, having allocated over 4% of its GDP to this concern. The US occupied third place in relative terms, behind Poland and Estonia, with just under 3.5% of its GDP spent on defense. As many as 15 members of the bloc, including Canada, Italy and France, continued to fall behind the organization’s 2% spending threshold as of June 2024, according to its own data. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has also spoken about bloc members’ need to increase this allocation in their budgets. “It is true that we spend more on defense now than we did a decade ago,” he said last month in Brussels, adding that the bloc nonetheless spends less on defense then during the Cold War, when “Europeans spent far more than 3% of their GDP” on it.
Asked about what new threshold he would consider sufficient, Rutte said “you have to go to at least 4%,” adding that “even with 4% you can’t defend yourselves, because then you would not have the latest technologies implemented… in your armies.” Trump’s latest reiterations come as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz sharply criticized a proposal by his Economy Minister Robert Habeck to drastically increase the nation’s defense budget. According to Scholz, the proposed increase would only end up as additional burden for the German taxpayers.
Just days after the new members of the United States Senate were sworn into office, Democrats in the upper chamber have already taken steps to delay the confirmation hearings of one major nominee for President-elect Donald Trump’s second Cabinet. As reported by Axios, Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.), who serves as the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is delaying Republican efforts to hold confirmation hearings as early as next week for former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (R-Hawaii), President-elect Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Warner’s excuse for the delay is that the committee has allegedly not yet received certain materials from Gabbard, including her FBI background check, ethics disclosure, and her pre-hearing questionnaire. The background check, as per committee rules, must be submitted at least one week before the hearing is to take place.
However, Gabbard had in fact completed her background check last week. Furthermore, her confirmation could be much smoother than most due to her already possessing a security clearance. She also already submitted her pre-hearing questionnaire, but will submit a second one by Thursday due to Warner’s demands. As for the ethics report, logistical issues have prevented the timely delivery of such information due to the Washington D.C. area being struck by a heavy snowstorm on Monday, which has caused similar delays for other nominees. Despite Warner’s efforts to block the hearing, Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) reaffirmed that the Senate “intends to hold these hearings before Inauguration Day,” according to a spokesman. “The Intelligence Committee, the nominees, and the transition are diligently working toward that goal.”
“After the terrorist attacks on New Year’s Eve and New Years Day, it’s sad to see Sen. Warner and Democrats playing politics with Americans’ safety and our national security,” said Alexa Henning, a spokeswoman for the Trump-Vance transition. Gabbard has generally been considered one of President-elect Trump’s most controversial nominees. Originally a Democrat who rose to the rank of vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Gabbard came to be at odds with her own party over its deliberate suppression of the presidential campaigns of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2016 and 2020. She left the House to run for President herself in 2020, then left the Democratic Party and switched to Independent. She became a vocal supporter of President Trump’s comeback bid in 2024, and switched her party affiliation to Republican shortly after his victory in November.
Fetterman
BREAKING: Senator John Fetterman announces he will vote YES on several of Trump’s cabinet picks.
This includes Marco Rubio, Elise Stefanik, Sean Duffy, Brooke Rollins, and potentially nominees like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.
“DOJ lawyers said in the new filing that whether Smith was unconstitutionally appointed is irrelevant because the issue at hand is how Garland handles Smith’s report..”
You mean the report that the Constitution says shouldn’t have existed?
Attorney General Merrick Garland plans to release only the volume of special counsel Jack Smith’s report dealing with Donald Trump’s plans to subvert the transfer of power after his loss in the 2020 election, holding back on sharing the Mar-a-Lago report while the president-elect’s two co-defendants still face trial. Garland’s decision all but assures the public will never see Smith’s report reviewing Trump’s mishandling of classified records at his Palm Beach, Fla., resort. However, the filing says the top members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees will be able to review the Mar-a-Lago report at the Department of Justice (DOJ)… so don’t be surprised when the leaks start.
As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, DOJ officials said in a court filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit that AG Garland intends to release part one of the report, which deals with Trump, “in furtherance of the public interest in informing a co-equal branch and the public regarding this significant matter.” Smith has already transmitted the report to Garland, officials said. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Tuesday had ordered the department not to release the report until the 11th Circuit reviewed a motion by Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, Trump’s co-defendants in a federal case. While prosecutors dropped charges against Trump following his November 2024 election win, they are still pursuing Nauta, a former Trump aide, and De Oliveira, a manager at Trump’s resort in Florida.
Nauta and De Oliveira say Smith should be fired and that his report should not be released to the public, given he was found by Cannon to be unconstitutionally appointed. DOJ lawyers said in the new filing that whether Smith was unconstitutionally appointed is irrelevant because the issue at hand is how Garland handles Smith’s report. They also argued that Nauta and De Oliveira have no interest in part one, and do not have standing to block the publication of that part. “There is also no valid basis for this Court to pretermit the Attorney General’s discretion with respect to Volume One,” they wrote. Officials said that while part two of the report will not be made available to the public, a redacted version will be available for certain lawmakers to view in camera as long as the lawmakers agree not to publicly release any of the report’s contents.
Just two days before McCabe opened the May 2017 probe, the FBI, via Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, renewed contact with dossier author Christopher Steele despite having terminated him as a source back in November 2016. As RCI’s Paul Sperry has previously reported, this sudden outreach to Steele right before the opening of a new Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation indicated that the FBI was seeking to re-engage the Clinton-funded British operative to help it build a case against the president for espionage and obstruction of justice. At the time, the FBI was still relying on Steele’s fabrications for its surveillance warrants against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. The following month, the FBI filed the last of its four FISA court warrants based on Steele’s material. The Justice Department has since invalidated two of those warrants on the grounds that they were based on “material misstatements.”
The FBI re-enlisted Steele despite possessing information that thoroughly discredited him. Five months before it newly sought Steele’s help to investigate the sitting president, the FBI interviewed Igor Danchenko, whom Steele had used as his dossier’s key “sub-source.” In that January 2017 meeting, Danchenko told FBI agents that corroboration for the dossier’s claims was “zero”; that he had “no idea” where claims sourced to him came from; and that the Russia-Trump rumors he passed along to Steele came from alcohol-fueled “word of mouth and hearsay.” The FBI had also been unable to corroborate any of Steele’s incendiary claims.
A previously disclosed document also shows that former CIA Director John Brennan – who insistently advanced the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory – informed then-president Barack Obama in July 2016 that the Clinton campaign was planning to tie Trump to Russia in order to distract attention from the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. By that point, the Clinton campaign was already paying for the fabricated reports produced by Steele, who made contact with the FBI as early as July 5.
Although the newly declassified document attempts to suggest that the FBI had actionable intelligence to suspect Trump of being a Russian agent, McCabe’s subsequent comments indicate that there was no such evidence on offer. Instead, McCabe has said his counterintelligence probe of Trump was primarily motivated by the president’s firing of Comey. In a February 2019 interview with CBS News, McCabe explained his thinking as follows: “[T]he idea is, if the president committed obstruction of justice, fired the director of the of the FBI to negatively impact or to shut down our investigation of Russia’s malign activity and possibly in support of his campaign, as a counter intelligence investigator you have to ask yourself, ‘Why would a president of the United States do that?’ So all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of Russia.”
McCabe therefore had no evidence that Trump had a “connection” to Russia, and in fact could only “wonder” if there was one. Yet because Trump had fired Comey, whose FBI was already investigating Trump’s campaign for Russia ties and relying on the Clinton-funded Steele dossier in the process, McCabe decided that he had grounds to order an espionage investigation of the commander in chief. With the official predicate for that May 2017 investigation still redacted by the FBI, McCabe’s public statements offer the only insider window into why it was opened. In all of the investigations related to alleged Russian interference to date, the Justice Department has pointedly avoided the question.
Despite inheriting McCabe’s probe – and debunking claims of a Trump-Russia conspiracy related to the 2016 election – Special Counsel Mueller made no mention of the Trump as Russian agent theory in his final report of March 2019. Without informing the public, the FBI closed down the Trump counterintelligence investigation the following month. The case’s closing Electronic Communication, which has previously been declassified in redacted form, states that the McCabe probe “was transferred to FBI personnel assisting” the Mueller team, and entailed the use of “a variety of investigative techniques.” An inquiry led by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz of the FBI’s conduct during Crossfire Hurricane also ignored McCabe’s decision to investigate Trump as an agent of Russia.
And in a footnote in his final report of May 2023, John Durham – the Special Counsel appointed to launch a sweeping review of the Russia investigation – claimed that McCabe’s May 2017 probe was outside of his purview. By contrast, when it comes to Crossfire Hurricane, Durham’s report concluded that the FBI did not have a legitimate basis to launch that investigation, repeatedly ignored exculpatory evidence, and buried warnings that Clinton’s campaign was trying to frame Trump as a Russian conspirator. While the original Trump-Russia investigation has been discredited, the public remains in the dark about why the FBI launched a follow-up counterintelligence probe that targeted Trump while he was newly in the White House – and what ends it took to pursue it.
,_oil_on_canvas,_114.6_x_128.9_cm,_Philadelphia_Museum_of_Art.jpg)
,_oil_on_canvas,_114_x_146.5_cm,_Philadelphia_Museum_of_Art.jpg)
