Menu Icon

Debt Rattle November 13 2026

Nov 132026
 
 November 13, 2026  Posted by at 9:55 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  Add comments


Claude Monet Boulevard des Capucines 1873


• It Was A Coup (Amil Imani)
• Jensen Huang Had to Go. The Real Question Is: Cui Bono? (Stephen Green)
• Texas is not a Red State – It Never Was – Here’s Why (CTH)
• REMINDER: 14 Specific Outcomes to Anticipate (CTH)
• ‘Beauty’ of Ukraine War Is Paying Ukrainians To Kill Russians (Antiwar)
• Zelensky Mocks Trump In Danish Parliament Speech (RT)
• Zelensky Complains About Starshield “Disruptions” -Again (ZH)
• Zelensky’s Reported Rejection of Alleged Early 2023 Peace Deal (Korybko)
• Trump Wins Major Ruling in Defamation Lawsuit Against BBC (Turley)
• Democrats Are Already Drunk With Power (Matt Margolis)
• Ilhan Omar’s Days in Congress May Be Numbered as DOJ Closes In (Margolis)

 

 

 

 


“This is the 2020 election, exactly like it, repeating identical statistical anomalies designed to engineer an artificial realignment.”

“The demand is straightforward: audit these elections thoroughly, transparently, and immediately. “

• It Was A Coup (Amil Imani)

When an election produces outcomes that run completely counter to historical precedent, polling baselines, and raw mathematical probability, the dispute ceases to be a conventional political debate and transforms into an indictment of the process itself. The case asserting that this midterm was systematically subverted rests upon four primary pillars: statistical impossibility, software and algorithmic manipulation, unauthorized cyber penetration, and administrative chain-of-custody collapse.


The foundational argument against the legitimacy of the results begins with the numbers that show uniform swings across non-contiguous battlegrounds violating basic demographic distribution principles. The primary anomaly centers on contested battleground outcomes where one party captures 29 out of 30 coin-flip congressional races. In probability theory, independent coin-flip distributions do not resolve with a 96.7% success rate without external bias.

When thirty high-friction districts spanning diverse demographic regions — from rural working-class enclaves to high-density suburban corridors — all break in an identical direction by margins often hovering within single fractions of a percentage point, the outcome defies standard standard-deviation boundaries.

The macro-level numbers tell the same story: across the national House popular vote, turnout surged exclusively on one side, with Democrats picking up an estimated 13 to 15 million votes compared to 2022 while Republican totals remained largely static.

Even local races reflected institutional breakdown, such as in Texas House District 93, where an ineligible candidate facing felony questions remained on the ballot and was credited with a narrow victory under contested circumstances.

It is impossible to make Texas blue — just impossible. This is the 2020 election, exactly like it, repeating identical statistical anomalies designed to engineer an artificial realignment.

The technical case targets the digital layer of the voting apparatus: central tabulators, direct-recording electronic units, and optical scanners. The core vector highlighted is algorithmic poisoning — the insertion of modified code designed to alter vote tallies before results are compiled and transmitted.

Unlike crude, visible errors, algorithmic weighting operates beneath standard audit thresholds. The software applies a mathematical multiplier — often referred to as fractional voting — assigning decimal values to individual ballots (e.g., counting a vote as 0.85 for one candidate and 1.15 for the opposing candidate) while displaying whole numbers on public-facing dashboards.

This argument is compounded by software update procedures executed in the weeks leading up to Election Day. Jurisdictions that applied “emergency patches,” logic upgrades, or firmware updates circumvented standard public certification timelines. When hash values of operational software fail to match the pristine binaries certified by accredited testing laboratories, the integrity of the tabulator logic is irrevocably compromised.

Beyond internal algorithmic modification lies the vector of external cyber intrusion. Election networks rely on distributed infrastructure: electronic poll books, county consolidation servers, and third-party election management vendors.

The intrusion argument focuses on middle-tier transmissions — the point where localized precinct vote totals are converted into encrypted transfer files and sent across private modems or public networks to state election databases. Network packet captures and traffic latency spikes reported on election night demonstrate that air-gapped systems were bridged through external telemetry ports and remote access clients.

These telemetry profiles reproduce the distinct ‘drop and roll’ tabulation curves observed previously, where steady, predictable vote-intake lines were suddenly interrupted by asymmetric aggregate spikes that reversed established leads within minutes.

Once external access is achieved, man-in-the-middle attacks can intercept data pipelines to inject synthetic vote batches directly into county-level aggregate databases. These injected totals reflect immaculate digital signatures, making them appear authenticated by the system while bypassing direct paper-ballot verification at the precinct level.

The physical manifestation of the challenge addresses voter roll hygiene and ballot collection protocols. The volume of mail-in and drop-box ballots processed without continuous, unsevered chains of custody constitutes a fatal breach of legal statutory requirements.

The mechanism involves:
• Duplicate Registration Exploitation: State voter registration databases containing hundreds of thousands of unpurged inactive voters, deceased individuals, and change-of-address discrepancies provide the raw inventory for phantom ballots.
• Batch Injection: Unmonitored ballot drop boxes and late-night consolidation deliveries where physical custody logs lack dual-party signoffs, timestamped custody transfers, or secure transport seals.
• Automated Signature Bypass: Optical signature-verification engines set to lowered confidence thresholds, allowing mass acceptance of ballots that would fail standard human forensic comparison.

The steal is designed to make it nearly impossible for the public to access the evidence — a playbook proven in 2020. They have systematically deleted the records, and even when proof surfaces, the courts refuse to hear it. But none of that means conceding defeat.

When combined, these vectors do not describe isolated irregularities; they describe a synchronized architecture designed to bypass constitutional safeguards. By combining manipulated software logic with targeted database inflation and unverified paper intake, an election is steered from a democratic contest into an administrative seizure of power. Underneath the technical operation lies the political objective: Democratic socialists coordinating with Establishment figures to dismantle Trump and eliminate the MAGA movement entirely.

The systematic execution across key swing districts forms the complete operational blueprint for what is fundamentally characterized as a bloodless institutional coup. The demand is straightforward: audit these elections thoroughly, transparently, and immediately. If elections cannot be independently verified and guaranteed as legitimate, this one may well be the last.

Read more …

Did he have to go just becaue he had an affair? How prudish is America?

Or is something else going on? People have known about his affairs for years I hear.

• Jensen Huang Had to Go. The Real Question Is: Cui Bono? (Stephen Green)

Nvidia’s Jensen Huang resigned today as CEO and, in an unusual step, also gave up his position on the company’s board in the midst of a growing spy and sex scandal. So before we explore this story any further, let’s acknowledge that Huang had to go.


When you’re the chief executive of the world’s most important AI hardware company, and you’ve been (allegedly!) diddling the company’s vice president of healthcare and a purported Chinese intelligence asset, corporate harakiri is your only out. But that doesn’t mean that, now that Jensen is out, we shouldn’t ask: Cui bono?

Because while Jensen’s affairs were unbecoming and even dangerous, this is when things get truly interesting.For that, let’s first go to French AI CEO (yes, they have a few of those, but not at scale) Brivael Le Pogam, who last month made headlines for warning Americans against voting Democrat because “you don’t want to be France.”

“I’m not saying the [Huang] scandal is made up,” he posted to X on Thursday. “I’m saying: look at who is using it, and for what.” Le Pogam continued: “To understand, you have to ask one question. What does the power of what I call the globalists actually rest on? Not money. Not weapons. A monopoly: the monopoly on expertise.”

Now for a lengthier excerpt: The technocracy in Brussels and Washington, the big international institutions, the NGOs, the major newsrooms, the consulting firms: the whole system lives off an asymmetry. They know, you don’t. They read the 400-page reports, you don’t. They interpret the numbers, you live with the consequences. They write the rules, and you pay lawyers to understand them.

Hayek saw it: central power feeds on the pretense of a knowledge no one really has. For decades, that pretense was impossible to challenge. It took years of study, networks, resources.m, Now imagine superintelligence.

Any citizen can audit a budget in ten minutes. Read an EU directive and see every consequence. Check an official statistic. Tear apart a junk study. Draft a legal challenge. Build a company alone, without asking anyone for permission. The asymmetry disappears. And with it, the monopoly.

The blogosphere broke the news gatekeeper monopoly a quarter of a century ago and democratized the discovery and (most importantly) the distribution of information. Superintelligence promises to do the same for expertise — and none too soon, because our so-called experts aren’t so expert these days. They’ve mostly built regulatory moats around their power and income streams.

The coming revolution — provided we don’t snuff it out in a fit of self-destructive populism and Chinese influence — promises to destroy all kinds of monopolies on expertise. This is from an Instapundit item I posted earlier today:


Patients could be informed and empowered like never before, and a single doctor armed with AI could care for a seemingly impossible number of patients. And provide them with much more effective care, too. “If you don’t get your s**t together,” Ken Berry, M.D. added, “there will be one hourly-wage doctor supervising an LLM that’s treating a thousand patients, and a lot of doctors looking for work.”

And that’s just one profession — a guild, really — currently surrounded by impenetrably high walls. Despite warnings from Le Pogam and so many others, we’re about to have a Democrat-controlled Congress hellbent on throttling innovation via a moratorium on data center construction. And here’s Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley jumping on the populist bandwagon: Hawley backs nationwide data center moratorium.

The worst part is that I don’t even have reason to believe Hawley is on China’s payroll. In Europe, the EU elites succeeded, if that’s the word, in nearly snuffing out innovation long before AI came around. The result is a stunning collapse in economic growth.

Previously, I’ve written about Britain’s stagnation. If the U.K. were a state, 30 years ago it would have ranked the sixth or seventh richest. Today, the U.K. would be the poorest, in 51st place behind Mississippi. But even Germany, long Europe’s economic powerhouse, suffered the same fate. Back in ’96, when Germany was still paying the costs of reunification, it would have been among the top three or four US states.

Today? Somewhere around 48th or 50th. That’s what happens when would-be innovators have to go hat-in-hand to busybody regulators for permission to do anything. And besides, the European Permanent Sub-commissioner for Saying No is usually away at their beach villa.

In most ways, China remains in second place, developing the most explosively innovative technology ever. It’s at this moment that CCP-funded “activists,” nanny-state regulators, populist agitators, and threatened experts are all pushing in the same direction.

AI is a dangerous tiger, but one we have no choice but to ride — unless we’re happy becoming the Britain to China’s Mississippi. If that.

Cui bono?

Read more …

“The correct prism to determine “Red” or “Blue” is not to look at surface ideology (conservative of socialist), but rather to look at what creates the wealth of the powerful people..”

• Texas is not a Red State – It Never Was – Here’s Why (CTH)

Back in 2020 I said that Georgia and Texas are not Red States. The election is highlighting something that people are not accurately absorbing. This outline might help.


When we traditionally think about Red states or Blue states we think about Red being republican, conservative or nationalist, and we think of Blue as being democrat, progressive or socialist. However, that is not the accurate prism, and it never was.

What determines the political ideology of the state is the financial livelihood of the power centers, powerful people that control the political outcomes. The key words there are “financial livelihoods.” It is the money within the power center that determines the ideology.

The political ideology of Illinois, Minnesota and New York directly comes from how the power interests gain their affluence. What is the driving element of the money within the state that funds the powerful people, and how is that money made? Those are the questions that determine the politics – Red or Blue it matters not. The critical question is where does the wealth of the powerful come from?

When an outside influence starts to challenge the wealth of the powerful, it is the retention of that finance that determines the political outlook. Let me give you examples. For the powerful interests in California, New York, Illinois and recently -more specifically and visibly- Minnesota, you will notice the power brokers money is made from corruption of government finance.

Take away the access of powerful interests to federal government money, eliminate corruption and you are hitting directly at the center of power.mEnforce lawfulness, target corruption and take away the ability to gain wealth from theft of government money and the powerful political interests who control political power lose wealth.

The entire system is based on wealthy people engaged in fraud and corruption to remain wealthy. That dynamic applies to California, Illinois, New York and Minnesota. However, the same dynamic, albeit under a different auspice, applies to Texas.

Texas industry, and more specifically the billionaires who live in Texas, control the industry and control the political power centers, rely on illegal aliens to achieve their wealth status. Start addressing the illegal immigration issue and you start threatening the wealth that underpins the powerful people who control political outcomes.

Because Texas billionaires rely on the industry of illegal aliens, enforcing immigration laws is against their interests. Deporting illegal aliens becomes a threat to the Texas wealth system in the same way that stopping fraud is a threat to the wealth system in NY, IL, CA and MN.

The fastest way to expose a political ruse is to target the wealth of the powerful interests behind it. If enforcing lawful behavior targets that wealth system, the powerful interests will change perspectives and decry the enforcement of lawful behavior. That’s the truth at the core of every state political construct.

Why was/is Florida somewhat immune in 2026? Well, because the wealth of the powerful people in Florida politics is tied to the U.S. stock market. Positive gains in banking, finance, Big Tech and asset management expanded wealth portfolios. The FL power interests are older people, with deep and significant financial holdings. They are no longer dependent on govt fraud, stealing govt money, or industrial use of illegal alien labor at a rate that creates risk.

If you want to turn Florida blue, collapse the stock market and destroy the portfolios of the wealthy people who control political perspectives in Florida. The FL power interests don’t steal money, but they benefit from govt bailouts of failed financial enterprises. The wealth of that set of power interests is not connected the same way.

TX and GA are directly reliant on illegal alien activity for their affluence. Target immigration and get political opposition. CA, MN, IL and NY are directly reliant on govt fraud for their affluence. Target fraud and get political opposition.

The correct prism to determine “Red” or “Blue” is not to look at surface ideology (conservative of socialist), but rather to look at what creates the wealth of the powerful people who control politics and thereby control the ideology.


That’s where you will quickly determine the freedom continuum doesn’t balance on political perspectives, it balances on the fulcrum of money. If you touch or move the money you tilt the balance of power.

Read more …

Recap.

• REMINDER: 14 Specific Outcomes to Anticipate (CTH)

As the events unfold, CTH is referencing this prior list of easily predictable outcomes from the midterm election. So far, #1, #2, #3, #6, #8, #13 and #14 have been highlighted by media, and those events are currently unfolding.


(1) Gasoline prices, specifically diesel fuel prices, will drop fast; election objective fulfilled.

(2) For a few months datacenter expansion and approvals will be paused. Datacenters will restart after the federal regulatory sub-agency is created and a series of ‘indulgency fees’ determined. [Similar to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)]. Those impact fees will be very lucrative.

(3) Congress will quickly act on pre-written legislation to slow AI and introduce government regulation; likely a new regulatory agency will be created and taxes assessed on AI investment under the justification of AI economic impact. AI investment fees and federal datacenter impact fees will be distributed to fungible DNC/DSA aligned NGOs (foreign and domestic) to replace missing USAID funds. Congress will skim funds as normal (indulgences).

(4) Starlink will be nationalized. The Ukraine vulnerability cannot be allowed again. Elon Musk will have to accept a new regulatory agency as created responsible for space oversight reportable to congress. This way congress will control the specific mechanisms of Starlink on behalf of allied international stakeholders who do not have their own space program or capability. More indulgency fees outlined for access, more congressional bribes, payoffs and skimming.

(5) More lucrative SpaceX impact fees will be demanded, same intents as above. An additional layer of federal oversight and regulatory agency if Musk balks at payments. All your space are belong to us, not private industry. Connected govt regulatory bureaucracy office, ie. monitors, assigned to SpaceX HQ – launch approval layer. Grind Musk down, minimize exceptionalism again. c(6) Tech Bros and Silicon Valley will immediately switch support from Trump to Democrats. No-brainer. Done by December.

(7) ICE will be defunded. CBP will be severely curtailed. Congress will pass some form of amnesty legislation, no border restrictions (North or South). Comprehensive immigration reform with familial lineage approvals for additional imports.

(8) Congressional restrictions on executive branch tariff authority. U.S. Chamber of Commerce will write it from K-Street.

(9) U.S. NATO Stabilization Act and European Strategic Defense spending bill likely for 2027.

(10) Cryptocurrency regulation and creation of U.S. digital currency standard. [Elizabeth Warren]

(11) Surveillance state will expand. Digital identity bill will be part of the Online Privacy Act. When you set out to maximize power, the #1 priority is to control the ability of that power to be challenged. The need for control is a reaction to fear.

(12) Russia will be more aggressive toward Ukraine with Trumpian limitations removed. Putin’s pragmatic expectations of U.S. influence now evident. Russia will also align more with Africa, China and Saudi interests.

(13) China will speed up investments into Canada.

(14) The professionally republican will promote DeSantis again.

Read more …

“Sen. Ruben Gallego said in an earlier post that he ‘hates the fucking Russians’ “

• ‘Beauty’ of Ukraine War Is Paying Ukrainians To Kill Russians (Antiwar)

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) said on Monday that the “beauty” of the nearly five-year-old Russia-Ukraine war is the fact that the US is “paying Ukrainians to kill Russians.” Gallego, who joined the Senate last after serving in the House for about 10 years, made the comment on X, where he insisted that Ukraine could win the war if its forces killed enough Russians.


“But Ukraine can win. Thats why I back them. It’s a Russian talking point that Ukraine can’t win, cause Russia big blah,blah. If Ukraine kills enough Russians they will quit,” Gellego, an Iraq war veteran, wrote. A user replied, telling the Senator to join the Ukrainian foreign legion, to which he replied, “No, that’s the beauty of this; we can pay the Ukrainians to kill the Russians.”

In another post a few days earlier, Gallego called for Elon Musk to testify before Congress about Ukraine’s recent Starlink restrictions. A user asked if he was pushing the Ukraine war for “financial gain,” and Gallego replied, “No just hate the fuckin Russians.” The idea that the US is benefiting from the Ukraine war since Russians are being killed without US troops dying has been a common argument of supporters of the proxy war over the years, a talking point that shows disregard for the Ukrainian lives being lost.

The late Sen. Lindsey Graham said at the start of the conflict that as long as the US provides “Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person.” He later described the war as a “great deal for America” because it was hurting Russia and no US troops have been killed.

Gallego’s comments highlight strong support for the proxy war among Democrats, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has recently said he may get more support after the Democratic victory in the US midterm elections. Russia-Ukraine peace talks are ongoing in Abu Dhabi, but so far there has been no sign of a breakthrough.

Read more …

He is told to do this. Who tells him?

• Zelensky Mocks Trump In Danish Parliament Speech (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has mocked US President Donald Trump’s ambitions to acquire Greenland, suggesting that the American leader would benefit from becoming “more Danish.” Zelensky made the comments in an address to the Danish parliament on Wednesday, attended by a key backer, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.


Describing Denmark as a country “we can always count on,” Zelensky said he wished Ukraine had such a neighbor before taking a swipe at Trump’s longstanding interest in acquiring Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory.

“When someone in the United States wanted to have Greenland, they were not even aware that what they really wanted was not the land but to become a little bit more Danish,” Zelensky said, without mentioning Trump by name. “And who knows, maybe that was exactly what they needed,” he added.

Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of acquiring Greenland since returning to the White House last year, even threatening to annex the territory by force if necessary. He has argued that the Arctic island is vital to US national security and that its vast rare-earth mineral deposits could provide Washington with access to strategically important resources.

His remarks strained relations within NATO, provoked outrage in Copenhagen and prompted European members of the bloc to rally behind Denmark. The dispute was eventually settled under an agreement announced by the US, Denmark, and Greenland in September. Trump claimed at the time that the deal would give Washington “permanent control” over the territory’s security.

Denmark has taken a hawkish stance on Russia and has emerged as a major supplier of military aid to Kiev since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. It joined Western coalitions that provided US-made F-16 fighter jets and German-made Leopard 1 tanks. Copenhagen also donated its entire fleet of 19 Caesar self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine.

Frederiksen was among those who supported Ukraine’s long-range strikes on Russia and urged other Western nations to provide Ukraine with missiles suitable for the task. She also criticized Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store for their phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, adding that she was “very skeptical about this Norwegian-Finnish initiative” and accusing the two leaders of breaking ranks with the rest of the EU.

Copenhagen has also backed plans to produce rocket fuel on its territory for Fire Point, a Ukrainian arms manufacturer personally promoted by Zelensky. The company was allowed to bypass more than 20 environmental and planning regulations under a law reserved for significant military projects. Last month, the Danish government approved a 750 million kroner ($110 million) state-backed loan guarantee for Fire Point’s Danish subsidiary.

Fire Point has been linked to Timur Mindich, a longtime business associate of Zelensky often described as the Ukrainian leader’s “wallet.” Mindich fled Ukraine after being implicated in a major embezzlement scheme at the center of one of the country’s biggest corruption scandals.

Denmark was also embroiled in a separate Ukraine-related controversy last week, when it emerged that Copenhagen had paid roughly $10 million in taxpayer funds to a questionable company contracted to supply artillery ammunition to Kiev. Frederiksen subsequently pledged to recover the money.

Read more …

Starshield means Washington, not Musk.

• Zelensky Complains About Starshield “Disruptions” -Again (ZH)

The Ukrainians are back to complaining about “significant disruptions” to Starshield, the military version of Elon Musk’s Starlink, which provides satellite internet connectivity for consumer and commercial use.


“Unfortunately, our units have been recording significant disruptions to Starshield’s operations over the territory of Ukraine for several days now – along the entire front line and in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wrote on X earlier today.

Zelensky said that units on the front lines had reported several days of disruptions and in Russian-occupied territory. He also noted that operating speed limits in excess of 100 mph were preventing interception drones from reaching the speeds needed to engage Russian jet-powered one-way attack drones.

And this is key. Zelensky claimed, “These are not random errors but systematic speed restrictions,” adding, “For us, this primarily means a significant complication in intercepting Russian jet-powered drones.”

Last month, Ukraine first sounded the alarm over speed restrictions on Starshield, which has been critical to battlefield communications.

There has been a lot of controversy over whether Musk or someone in the Trump administration ordered the speed restrictions. While the Trump administration presses for peace, Ukraine has defiantly continued attacking Russian refineries, with strikes leading up to the midterm election contributing to a global diesel crisis. The restrictions could suggest an effort by the administration to rein in Kyiv.

Earlier, US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner arrived in Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, following two days of trilateral negotiations in Abu Dhabi.”The reality is, is there’s no trust right now between the sides. And that’s to be expected after a conflict like this,” Kushner said after the meeting.

After meeting Putin, the US envoys will travel to Dublin for talks with Zelensky. Trump has stated that he plans to hold a historic trilateral meeting with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Shenzhen, China, next week.

Read more …

“Trump Is More Serious Than Ever About Cutting Deals With Putin”

• Zelensky’s Reported Rejection of Alleged Early 2023 Peace Deal (Korybko)

Zelensky’s fateful decision was responsible for killing an unthinkable number of Ukrainians over the intervening nearly four years, and if Trump is serious with his claims of wanting to stop the killing, then he can cut Ukraine off to force Zelensky into peace and therefore save the country from him.


Ukrainian lawmaker Alexey Goncharenko, who was recently placed on Myrotvorets’ de facto “kill list” for floating a detailed peace proposal, confirmed the Financial Times’ report last month alleging that Zelensky rejected a peace deal with Russia in early 2023. According to him, the terms would have essentially mirrored those of spring 2022’s peace talks that were sabotaged at the time by the UK (and Poland), which is very generous if true since it would have entailed significant compromises by Putin:

“Russia withdraws its troops from most of the four oblasts it had just declared ‘annexed.’; The new line of demarcation runs roughly along the line as of February 24, 2022: Crimea and the part of Donbas that Russia controlled before the full-scale invasion; Ukraine recognizes Russian control over Crimea; Ukraine grants Russia an unobstructed land corridor to Crimea; The ceasefire regime is guaranteed by NATO countries that provide protection for Ukraine; Russia begins negotiations with the US on its own security guarantees.”

Leaving aside the veracity of this hitherto undisclosed peace deal that Goncharenko presented himself as having corroborated, the importance rests less in whether all the details are true and more in the fact that Zelensky is now faced with much worse terms nearly four years later after rejecting those putative ones. The timing of these claims by the Financial Times and one of his country’s own lawmakers, neither of which friendly to Russia by any measure, couldn’t have been worse for Zelensky.

“Trump Is More Serious Than Ever About Cutting Deals With Putin”, part of the reason being that he wants to tap into “The Five Most Promising Russian-US Economic Opportunities”, to which end he and Elon Musk are suspected of having throttled Starshield and Starlink respectively to pressure Zelensky. Given the indispensability of these satellite communication systems to Ukraine’s war effort, the message sent was that they could let the frontlines collapse if he doesn’t soon agree to a peace deal with Putin.

The grand trade-off could include freezing the frontlines in exchange for a US-brokered energy deal between Russia, the EU, and Ukraine as the quid pro quo for the Kremlin allowing the deployment of European peacekeepers to Ukraine without the US’ Article 5 protection. Other issues like the size of Ukraine’s post-war armed forces and the rights of its Russian minority would be discussed later. Putin might already be onboard, but Zelensky certainly isn’t, ergo why Trump has had to pressure him.

Zelensky fatefully decided to keep fighting in spring 2022 at the cost of an unknown number of Ukrainian lives that’s nevertheless estimated to be significant, but instead of accepting basically the same terms a year later, he thought that he’d get better ones after that summer’s counteroffensive. It ultimately failed, after which he probably could have returned to the aforesaid terms, but he then decided to keep fighting indefinitely despite the military-strategic dynamics having resolutely shifted against Ukraine since then.

So many Ukrainians have died because Zelensky remains deluded with dreams of inflicting a strategic defeat upon Russia, thus resulting in a sunk-cost fallacy that combined with the conflict’s profitability to indefinitely perpetuate it at an unthinkable cost to his country. If Trump has the political will, then he can cut Ukraine off to force Zelensky into peace and therefore save the country from him, otherwise this will remain a forever war that’ll kill countless more Ukrainians. It’s up to Trump whether that’ll happen.

Read more …

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

“Those two lines actually were stated fifty-five minutes apart.”

• Trump Wins Major Ruling in Defamation Lawsuit Against BBC (Turley)

President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC for defamation just received a green light from a federal judge to go forward to trial. Judge Jeffrey Kuntz (S.D. Fla.) ruled in Trump v. BBC that the media outlet must stand trial for splicing together lines from Trump’s January 6th speech to make it seem more violence-inducing before the riot at the Capitol. Judge Kuntz, however, rejected a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The biggest challenge for the court may be whether it can seat jurors who can overcome the case’s underlying political elements.


Judge Kuntz, a Trump nominee, notes prior cases brought by the President that federal courts dismissed as not actionable. See Trump v. CNN (S.D. Fla. 2023), aff’d (11th Cir. 2025); Trump v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2026). As a torts professor, I was critical of some past filings by the President that pursued overbroad or flawed defamation claims.

BBC was different. It involved an act that is anathema to ethical journalists — cutting lines from different parts of a tape and then joining them as if they were stated together. Even BBC’s own journalists admitted that what they did in the segment violated the most basic ethical standards taught in journalism schools.

The case stems from a documentary denounced as a BBC “hit piece” that aired just a week before the 2024 election, on October 28, 2024. Titled “Trump: A Second Chance,” BBC showed a twelve-second segment from Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech:

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Those two lines actually were stated fifty-five minutes apart. Moreover, Trump also expressly told his followers to go to the Hill “peacefully” to let their voices be heard — words routinely edited out by many in the media and, most notoriously, by the Democratic J6 Committee,

However, the BBC effectively created a new statement by splicing together two lines. What was actually said was very different from what aired. First, Trump declared:

Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Fifty-five minutes later, Trump stated: “[B]ut I said ‘Something’s wrong here, Something’s really wrong, can’t have happened.’ And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. Notably, less than a minute later, Trump told his supporters to remain peaceful: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard[.]”

Judge Jeffrey Kuntz found that the BBC not only recognized its violation of journalistic ethics but actively sought to guarantee that the misleading segment would be heard before the election in states such as Florida.

This decision is notable because Trump must meet a higher standard under Supreme Court precedent. Under New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court crafted the actual malice standard that required public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. That standard was later extended to public figures.

The court found sufficient evidence of actual malice at BBC: “For purposes of the defamation test, ill-will is different from actual malice. An intention to portray a public figure in a negative light, even when motivated by ill-will or evil intent, is not sufficient to show actual malice unless the publisher intended to inflict harm through knowing or reckless falsehood. However, ill-will or motive, when combined with other evidence, may be taken into account for actual malice….

Here, Trump alleges that BBC has a history of unfair or improper coverage toward him. In addition to the Documentary itself, Trump highlights the Prescott Memorandum, a 2022 BBC Newsnight episode, and the “2024 BBC News Shooting Hoax.” As an important reminder, the state of mind required for actual malice must be “brought home” to the person in the BBC’s organization responsible for the publication of the Documentary. This principle is relevant as it relates to the 2022 Newsnight episode and the 2024 “Shooting Hoax.”

Again, Trump has not alleged that either of these incidents involved the creator(s) of the Documentary. That said, these incidents are not merely portrayal in a negative light, but examples of BBC playing fast and loose with the factual accuracy of their media content. With respect to the Newsnight episode, the BBC seemingly did not care about the falsity of the portrayal until the later Documentary became an issue. Such examples can be said to be probative of BBC’s state of mind as it pertains to recklessness in light of BBC’s non-action toward false statements about Trump.

Thus, Trump paints a picture that demonstrates the BBC has a record of allowing the publication of false statements in their portrayal of Trump. BBC asks the Court to put on blinders and treat the Panorama team as if they were blocked off from the rest of the organization, ignorant of everything else going on at BBC. At this procedural stage [i.e., a motion to dismiss, where plaintiff must merely plausibly allege facts that could lead to liability, rather than proving them -EV], the Court simply cannot ignore the circumstantial evidence presented. To do so would make it extremely difficult to ever prove a defendant’s subjective state of mind in any defamation case….

Trump alleged that BBC’s editing of the speech was an “intentional and malicious effort to falsely and deceptively portray President Trump as having called for violence.” In support, Trump alleges that it “would have been impossible for BBC’s journalists and producers to splice together two distinct parts of the [s]peech from nearly fifty-five minutes apart unless they were acting intentionally.” On its face, the editing may independently establish the plausibility of actual malice. BBC tries to frame this editing as ordinary editing done to condense a seventy-minute-long speech into twelve seconds. But the Court is not persuaded.

Editing is often required. However, given the time disparity between the two statements, the distance itself tends toward a plausible inference that BBC knew or should have known that the segment they were creating would not and could not have been a truthful statement. This was not trimming around the edges but creating something different than what was stated in the speech. BBC also had the entire speech available to them for nearly three years by the time of the Documentary.”

Judge Kuntz adds an interesting twist to the record. The BBC Chairman previously issued an apology: “The way the speech was edited in the documentary gave a misleading impression of what you said. The editing unintentionally created the impression of a single continuous section of your speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech. This gave the mistaken impression that you had made a direct call for violent action. That was an editorial error and it should not have happened.”

However, the court notes that “BBC now appears to disagree with the apology issued by the Chairman: “BBC’s Chairman admitted that the documentary gave a misleading and mistaken impression that Trump made a direct call for violent action. Strangely enough, BBC strays from that position in the Motion to Dismiss, referring to statements made by January 6 defendants as evidence that the speech may be interpreted as a call to violent action. But BBC’s own Chairman acknowledged the editing was misleading in his letter to Trump….”The court also notes:

“BBC then argues that allegations that BBC omitted portions of Trump’s speech are also insufficient to establish actual malice. Alterations of quotes that “materially alter” the meaning of Trump’s statements could support a finding of actual malice…. BBC did not just alter the quote but created a new quote by splicing two statements together and passing them off as a single continuous sentence. To the extent that there was no material alteration to the meaning of Trump’s speech, that simply cannot be the case. The Chairman’s letter makes it very clear that BBC acknowledges there was a material change of meaning when they edited the speech to create a single continuous segment that did not exist.

BBC then argues that the apology “militates against a finding of actual malice.” … Today, retractions can be issued near instantaneously for online publications thanks to the internet. The Court acknowledges that media entities, like The Washington Post, or BBC, are not perfect, and make mistakes. However, it cannot be said that a retraction the next day is in the same ballpark as a retraction over a year later, and only after being threatened with legal action. The temporal distance here makes the retraction a weak indicator as to BBC’s state of mind at the time of publication.

Further weakening BBC’s argument, BBC was aware that such editing created a false impression as early as 2022. Former Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, in relation to the 2022 Newsnight episode, stated on-air: “Your video actually spliced together the presentation.… [Y]our video makes it look like those two things came together.” As BBC’s own Clive Coleman stated “[t]he first lesson … you’re taught as a broadcast journalist is that you do not joint two bits of footage together from different times in a way that will make the audience think that it is one piece of footage.” Considering these facts, BBC’s ultimate retraction in 2025 reads less like a readiness to retract, and more like a reluctance to retract.”

While the Court acknowledges that some of the evidence from decisions made after the segment aired might not directly bear on the state of mind at the time of publication, it finds that “Trump’s allegations regarding BBC’s departure from journalistic standards are more than enough to plausibly alleged more than mere negligence.” The key question is whether Trump is allowed a trial to prove such allegations:

“Of course, all of this does not prove BBC acted with actual malice. But it does make it plausible. And Trump need only allege facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference that the BBC edited and published the Documentary ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’ Trump has done so here…”

It is a comprehensive and informative opinion. While I have criticized some past lawsuits, I believe the court is right to set this case for trial.

Read more …

“.. and They Don’t Even Have It Yet..”

• Democrats Are Already Drunk With Power (Matt Margolis)

When House Republicans killed an impeachment push against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) answered by promising a flood of investigations into Trump administration officials once her party takes over Congress in January.


Democrats won both the House and Senate in last week’s midterms. So that means, come January, they’ll wield all the power in Congress, and every investigative tool that comes with it. Ocasio-Cortez already knows how she wants to use it all. CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju asked AOC whether Democrats would go after Hegseth again in the new Congress, given that the previous effort had collapsed.

“There are so many criminals in this administration, it’s hard to figure out who should be, you know, the order of operations,” Ocasio-Cortez told Raju. “There are going to be many, many, many investigations. I imagine many subpoenas, and we have to follow wherever the evidence takes us.” That’s pretty much a way of saying she has no idea because they’ve not found a single crime. She has already decided these people are criminals. The investigations exist to fill in the details later.

Republicans can see where this is heading. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the incoming House minority leader, told Sean Hannity on Fox News that Democrats will come after Cabinet officials and even private citizens tied to the administration, and he accused them of turning investigations into weapons against their political opponents.

“It’ll be every committee. There’ll be a third impeachment. They can’t help themselves,” Jordan said.

Let’s be honest, here. Jordan’s prediction hardly requires a crystal ball. Democrats are going to weaponize the government however they can against Trump, and try to implement every possible power grab. In fact, Ocasio-Cortez has pushed to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices, and Hakeem Jeffries, expected to become the next speaker, has called for sweeping changes to the judiciary. Of course, wanting something and getting it are two different things.

Court-packing would run straight into the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, which Democrats don’t have, and a near-certain presidential veto. The Court has had nine justices since 1869, and Biden nearly tried it. Upon taking office, he formed a Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court to study the issue, which really meant that he wanted the commission to green-light the idea and give him and Democrats in Congress cover to expand the Court and give Biden as many as four seats to fill with radical leftists. But, in an amusing twist, the commission opposed expanding the Court, acknowledging that it would be seen as a partisan power grab that “could lead to a continuous cycle of future expansions.”

But I digress. Removing a justice would not be any easier. The House can impeach with a simple majority, but conviction in the Senate takes a two-thirds vote, and Democrats can’t reach that without significant Republican help. No sitting justice has ever been removed. The House impeached exactly one, Samuel Chase, in 1804, and the Senate acquitted him in 1805. So unless Democrats want to impeach Ketanji Brown Jackson for being a total moron, any move against the Court is a wasted effort designed to please their base.

Democrats are already so drunk with power, and yet we’re still a couple of months away from them even having it. They haven’t sworn in a single new member, and they’re already sorting their enemies into a lineup and promising the evidence will catch up. That’s a scary thought, because once they do have that power, it’s going to get worse.

Read more …

Bye!

• Ilhan Omar’s Days in Congress May Be Numbered as DOJ Closes In (Margolis)

When Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) handily won reelection on November 3, she used her victory speech to wax defiant at the Trump administration over the federal immigration fraud investigation hanging over her head, which, I guess, she figured had failed to do what it was supposed to.


“When they decided that they were going to come for me, they thought that they were going to find someone who was going to cower,” Omar said. “They thought they were going to find a community that was going to live in fear. They thought that if you attacked me and you silenced me, that my community wouldn’t show up and vote.”

No one actually expected that. Omar’s deep-blue district was never in play, and nobody in Washington thought a federal probe would cost her the seat. But she shouldn’t be celebrating right now.

Here’s the thing: a reelection win doesn’t mean much if you aren’t legally eligible to keep the job. On Wednesday, Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) appeared on Newsmax, where host Rob Finnerty asked whether he would hold a vote to exclude Omar if she faces an indictment before January. “I don’t think we’re going to need to,” Emmer said. “I think Ilhan Omar, she’s a dishonest, anti-American individual who has lied about her age for years.”

Omar was born in Somalia, fled the Somali civil war with her family, and arrived in the U.S. in 1995 at about 12. She said she acquired U.S. citizenship about five years later through her father’s naturalization. As my PJ Media colleague Robert Spencer reported last month, her staff asked for her birth year to be changed from 1981 to 1982 in May 2019 (in the records). That prompted questions as to whether she was actually under 18 when her father naturalized in 2000. If she were under 18, she would have been eligible to derive citizenship from him. But if she wasn’t (and that now seems the more likely scenario), she wouldn’t have been.

“She lied because you get naturalized as a citizen with your natural parent when they are naturalized, if you are under the age of 18. Well, she was not under the age of 18,” Emmer said.

Emmer argued that the citizenship question offers a cleaner route than any criminal case. “She would have to reapply to be a citizen — it’s an administrative procedure. She shouldn’t be in Congress,” he told Finnerty.

Any indictment, according to Emmer, is a separate matter that “will go through in court.”

“Once it’s established that she was over the age of 18 when she claimed to be a minor, she’s no longer a citizen of the United States. And when she’s no longer a citizen, she’s not entitled to serve in Congress,” he added.

Pressed on who would confirm her actual birth date, Emmer said, “I think the Department of Justice is finalizing that.” He noted that “there are four different things that are being looked at, and that is one of them.”


The age question is only one piece of this.

DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Fox News last month that the probe is “a large case that we have presented to the DOJ,” with the Justice Department taking the lead. Investigators are examining Omar’s 2009 marriage to Ahmed Elmi, a British citizen, including whether it was part of an immigration fraud scheme, whether Elmi is actually her brother, and whether she lied on federal forms to gain citizenship. Her House financial disclosures are under the microscope, too.

On October 12, Homeland Security Investigations agents searched Omar’s Washington, D.C., home and hauled out boxes of material. The New York Post reported that her certified 2009 Hennepin County marriage license shows her surname struck out, replaced with “Elmi,” and then switched back to “Omar.” That’s an awfully messy paper trail for someone who insists there’s nothing to see.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Home › Forums › Debt Rattle November 13 2026

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • November 13, 2026 at 9:55 am #255604
    Raúl Ilargi Meijer
    Keymaster

    Claude Monet Boulevard des Capucines 1873 • It Was A Coup (Amil Imani) • Jensen Huang Had to Go. The Real Question Is: Cui Bono? (Stephen Green) • Tex
    [See the full post at: Debt Rattle November 13 2026]

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.