The Automatic Earth

Pablo Picasso Bull – Plate IV 1945

For sure https://t.co/7LMtK5gYCB

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 6, 2026

BREAKING 🚨 President Trump just posted a video of him on Oprah Winfrey’s show in 1988

HE WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING 🔥

pic.twitter.com/B6qo2h8LLd

— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) February 6, 2026

🚨 President Trump: "Nancy Pelosi has a little problem because her husband sold Visa stock one day before it was announced Visa is being sued by the Department of Justice."pic.twitter.com/miwEZ96uHT

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) February 5, 2026

It’s hard to turm around even just one department in four years. Most people in it will just stay.

• Pam Bondi’s DOJ Is Sabotaging The Trump Coalition (Velleco)

In November 2024, the American people decisively elected President Trump to a second term in office. After four intolerable years of controlled national demolition under the Biden autopen, the newly elected 47th President was poised to keep his promises and fulfill his mandate. President Trump had the opportunity to stop the federal government’s leftward push, steer the government back in the right direction, and make significant and lasting progress in that new direction. That third point is the most critical. Indeed, without permanent change, President Trump’s historic election – and this nation’s generational opportunity to course-correct – will turn out to have been nothing more than a momentary pause in America’s long-term decline.

Yet inexplicably, the Trump Administration has failed to take even basic steps to effect permanent change. For example, the Administration often has taken the easy path of using temporary Executive Orders rather than insisting on permanent legislation. Of course, Executive Orders are temporary, and can be undone by any future President with the stroke of a pen.m The same dynamic exists in the world of litigation, where Pam Bondi’s DOJ has chosen the temporary fix over the permanent solution. In addition to having repeatedly bungled implementation of President Trump’s agenda, Bondi’s DOJ has deliberately avoided letting cases reach final judgment.

For example, DOJ has repeatedly attempted to moot litigation involving Biden-era policies, even after a judge seems on the verge of striking down those bad policies through a precedent-setting decision. Yet all this tactic does is ensure that a future Democrat administration will be able to put these Biden policies right back into effect. But why would the Bondi DOJ work so hard to prevent lasting victories in court for Trump Coalition interests? Indeed, with DOJ friends like that, who needs enemies? If the Bondi DOJ’s hostility to the groups that made up the Trump Coalition in 2024 continues, it will seriously damage any chance of success in the 2026 midterms. This article will examine the Bondi DOJ’s infuriating pattern of obstruction, sabotage, and outright friendly fire against the Trump Coalition and ask one simple question: Why?

DOJ’s Failure to Implement the President’s Mandate

But first, let’s examine what DOJ could have done in service of the American people during this past year. As it turns out, DOJ has a number of legal tools available that it inexplicably has declined to use.nnConsider the role litigation plays in shaping domestic policy. A court order can bind the government to a certain legal interpretation or specific course of conduct, and generally will survive a change in administrations. Thus, if the federal government is a party to a lawsuit, a court order against it can codify policy – good or bad.

So what happens when a new administration inherits an ongoing lawsuit that was originally brought by its political allies against the prior administration? Well, in the past, DOJ often has simply settled cases, either privately or via court-enforceable consent judgment. Perhaps to no one’s surprise, this tactic has been a favorite of Democrat administrations. The Biden DOJ’s handling of a prior Trump-era lawsuit illustrates the point.

When Biden took office in 2021, his DOJ inherited a pending ACLU-led lawsuit against the first Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration enforcement policy. Rather than litigate the case any further, the Biden DOJ settled with its friends at the ACLU, barring the federal government “from reenacting the zero-tolerance policy” until 2031, and agreeing to pay the ACLU some $6 million in attorneys’ fees to boot. In addition to settling cases, DOJ also can (and has) let its friends’ lawsuits play out. For example, if a judge appears poised to rule in favor of an outcome the administration wants, DOJ can simply wait for that ruling. Then, not only will the federal government be bound by that ruling, but also it will generate favorable legal precedent for use in future cases.

“The need for control is a reaction to fear…”

• Why is the Deep State Targeting DNI Tulsi Gabbard with Such Ferocity? (CTH)

Each day more and more people are starting to realize/notice there are elements of the United States intelligence apparatus that are targeting Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The need for control is a reaction to fear, and Tulsi Gabbard has the DC Intelligence Community very worried. What you will read below is something that was written back in 2024 about the potential for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), if President Trump were to win the election. Subsequently, he did win; and while we are not saying this is the exact ODNI script that is being followed, we are certainly not disputing that either.

Read the roadmap below –Written in 2024– compare it to current events and decide for yourself if this is something that rings a bell and may explain the IC apoplexy. The ODNI was created as an outcome of the 9-11 Commission recommendations. In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.

Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01. DHS came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed. When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.

Here is the weird part. The ODNI was formed in 2004, with the intent for the office to be the pivot point of a national security radar. The DNI was intended to provide information to domestic agencies about foreign terror networks that would prevent something like 9-11 from happening again. However, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has never, not for one day, operated on this intent. This is why they are such a critical position from my perspective.

The office was new, not established yet as a functioning silo, when Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived in 2009. They quickly dispatched an idiot, James Clapper, into the operation so they could weaponize around the offices’ fulcrum point. Prior to the DNI office existing, the CIA radar would sweep externally and then report to the Office of the President. The DNI was intended to take external radar sweep (CIA) and make it a full 360° circle, adding a sweep inside the USA that would be handled by the Dept of Homeland Security.

“…very rarely—if ever—have justices of our nation’s highest Court been present at an event at which attendees have amplified such far-left rhetoric…”

• Anti-ICE Applause: Jackson’s Disqualifying Moment (David Manney)

One thing we should never see is judges high-fiving criminals at parties; they enforce the law, not celebrate those who mock it. Neutrality demands distance from chaos, especially when robes hang in the closet. Attending events that trash law enforcement turns impartiality into a punchline. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) urged Chief Justice John Roberts to investigate Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Blackburn pointed to Jackson’s attendance at the Grammy Awards on Jan. 29 in Los Angeles.

“While it is by no means unheard of or unusual for a Supreme Court justice to attend a public function, very rarely—if ever—have justices of our nation’s highest Court been present at an event at which attendees have amplified such far-left rhetoric,” Blackburn wrote in a letter to Roberts. Blackburn, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for an investigation into whether Jackson’s actions violate the high court’s Code of Conduct and would require her to recuse herself from certain cases.”

During speeches filled with anti-ICE rhetoric, Jackson clapped along with attendees who also wore “ICE Out” pins, while speakers shouted “F— ICE” and “No one is illegal on stolen land.”Jackson attended the Grammys, nominated for narrating the audiobook of her memoir, Lovely One. She lost to Patti LuPone, but stayed for the show. Blackburn argued that Jackson’s presence at an event that amplified far-left rhetoric violates the Supreme Court Code of Conduct, which requires justices to avoid actions that undermine public confidence in impartiality. Highlighting potential recusal issues, Blackburn said Jackson should step aside from immigration cases, such as those involving birthright citizenship or ICE operations.

Applauding calls to abolish ICE suggests bias against enforcement, unlike the baseless attacks on Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Jackson’s actions raise genuine concerns about impartiality. She swore an oath to uphold the law, yet cheered rhetoric that trashes border security. Jackson enjoys theater and music, but Supreme Court justices hold a unique position; ordinary people freely applaud, while justices represent the law’s integrity. Showing up at an anti-ICE rally mocks that duty; she forgot her job requires neutrality, not nods to celebrities cursing federal agents. That’s the choice that disqualifies her from any future ICE-related litigation, where recusal protects justices from perceived favoritism.

Coinciding with Trump’s deportation pushes in Minneapolis, activists at the Grammys pushed out anti-ICE messages, turning the event into a protest. Jackson’s applause aligns her with that crowd. Blackburn contrasted it with Democratic demands for conservative justices’ recusal. If Jackson ignores the code, it erodes trust in the court.

Chief Justice Roberts needs to act to maintain standards.

Supreme Court justices hold a position unlike any other: they interpret and uphold the Constitution, not openly cheer for defiance. Ordinary people can clap at concerts without consequence, but when a justice claps and nods along to chants that demonize federal law enforcement, the robe’s weight should demand justice. Jackson’s choice to attend and applaud that night traded judicial restraint for celebrity applause. Impartiality isn’t optional: it’s the job. When any justice forgets that, the court itself loses credibility, one careless clap at a time.

“They hate it ‘cause it creates something they can’t compete with: oversight…”

• Gutfeld Destroys the Democrats’ Voter ID Double Standard (Matt Margolis)

Greg Gutfeld did what Greg Gutfeld does best on his late-night show this week: he grabbed a Democrat talking point, shook it until the hypocrisy fell out, and then held it up for everyone to see. The target was Democrats’ favorite attack line against voter ID laws, and specifically the SAVE Act, which they have hysterically branded as “Jim Crow 2.0.” Gutfeld opened by zeroing in on the left’s most glaring contradiction. “You got to hand it to the Democrats,” he said. “On one hand, they think a child can handle the decision to lop off their genitals, but then on the other, they think black people can’t get a photo ID.”

Dems' Voter ID Double Standard pic.twitter.com/2aCMAjiwkq

— Gutfeld! (@Gutfeldfox) February 5, 2026

To make his point, Gutfeld played a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer having a meltdown over the legislation. “The SAVE Act is an abomination,” Schumer declared. “It’s Jim Crow 2.0 across the country.” Schumer went on to vow, “We are going to do everything we can to stop it.” From there, Gutfeld dismantled the comparison itself. “To them, showing an ID to vote is no different than forcing people to drink from separate water fountains,” he said. The absurdity becomes obvious when placed next to everyday life. “Meanwhile, you need an ID to buy Sudafed, rent a U-Haul, and date Bill Belichick.”

The problem, as it always is, is that facts refuse to cooperate with the Democrats’ narrative. Gutfeld pointed out what that voter ID enjoys broad support across racial and partisan lines, then played a clip of CNN data analyst Harry Enten reporting how “85% of white people favor it, 82% of Latino, 76% of black Americans favor it,” concluding that “the bottom line is this: voter ID is not controversial in this country.” Hearing CNN concede reality, according to Gutfeld, was “like Dracula admitting he owns a tanning bed.” When “Nicki Minaj, your grandma, and CNN’s Pee-wee Herman agree on something,” Gutfeld added, “that’s eating crow.”

Gutfeld argued the real reason Democrats oppose the SAVE Act has nothing to do with race. “They hate it ‘cause it creates something they can’t compete with: oversight,” he said. He compared voter ID to putting a lock on a door. Law-abiding people welcome it. Those trying to break in suddenly complain that locks “divide people.” That, Gutfeld said, explains the left’s fixation on accusing others of racism. He described it as “the soft racism of lowered expectations,” a mindset that assumes minorities cannot meet the same basic standards everyone else meets without complaint.

The contradiction gets worse when Democrats lecture Americans about trusting elections. “The same people who tell you borders are fake, gender is a choice, and crime is a social construct,” Gutfeld said, “suddenly insist elections should be taken on faith.” He closed by boiling the issue down to its core. “The SAVE Act isn’t about stopping people from voting,” Gutfeld said. “It’s about stopping people from cheating.” In other words, sanity. And when Democrats label sanity as racism, the problem sits with them, not the voters they keep pretending cannot handle an ID.

…. sopshiticated …

• Jeffrey Epstein’s Putin Hustle (Helmer)

In Jeffrey Epstein’s decade between 2009 and 2019 he tried ever so hard to meet the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. That’s to say, between Epstein’s release from prison on his Florida state conviction and sentence for procuring a minor for prostitution and for soliciting a prostitute, and then his re-arrest and imprisonment in New York on federal charges of sex trafficking of minors, he asked his staff, friends, business associates, US Government retirees, ex-government officials from Norway, Israel, UAE, and Japan, and Russia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin (died in February 2017), to procure an invitation for him to meet Putin,

They succeeded in getting Epstein invitations to business promotions in Sochi, Vladivostok, and St. Petersburg, at which crowd meetings with Putin were promised. But Epstein refused. On May 13, 2013, he claimed in an email to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak that Putin “had asked that I meet him the same time as his economic conference. I told him no. If he wants to meet he will need to set aside real time and privacy. Let’s see what happens.”

Nothing ever did. Epstein’s scheme was simple. He targeted one connection to make another connection he believed the first already had to the Kremlin in order to then trade the appearance of the Kremlin connection for Epstein to others willing to pay Epstein introducing, consulting or finder’s fees if the appearance of Putin’s agreement could be fabricated into money. Epstein also needed to prove that his criminal conviction and jail time counted for nothing in international politics, investment banking, high society. Like washing money, this was reputation laundering.

“You can explain to Putin,” Epstein told Thorbjorn Jagland, a former Norwegian prime minister and Council of Europe politician, “that there should be a sopshiticated [sic] Russian version of bitcoin, It would be the most advanced financial instrument available on a global basis”.

This was amusingly familiar to a Russian, especially one who knew enough English to appreciate the double meaning of Epstein’s misspelling; more importantly, it exposes the naïve superiority complex he was demonstrating to Russians whose experience in laundering, transferring, and crypto-hiding amounted to multiple billions to trillions of dollars more than Epstein had ever handled. As a money launderer, Russians understood Epstein was never clever enough himself and employed no organization to work for him.

Jagland did nothing with the email. Jagland could do nothing for himself except exaggerate the group session he had at the Kremlin in December 2016 when the Kremlin published an 8-line speech Putin gave. Two years later, in December 2018, there were even more officials with Jagland at the table and Putin’s communiqué was three lines shorter. Jagland’s refusal to withdraw support for European sanctions of Russia on Crimea and for prejudicial judgements of the European Court of Justice against Russia left him in a tupik – that’s Russian for dead end. That’s where Jagland’s “connection” with Putin ended too.

Its remaining value to Jagland was to trade it to Epstein in return for an evening’s accommodation and entertainment at his Paris house. “Is it same prosedure [sic] as last time that I can stay with you,” Jagland asked Epstein. “I promise not make noice [sic] or ruin you.” In both directions, Jagland’s and Epstein’s, this operation was a hustle. Jagland got what he didn’t pay for; Epstein got nothing.

Will the people protest when X gets banned?

• Spain’s Far-Left Government Threatens To “Limit And Likely BAN” X (MN)

Spain’s Minister of Youth and Children, Sira Rego, has declared that the far-left government under Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez intends to “limit and likely ban” the use of X across the entire country, marking yet another assault on free speech by European regimes desperate to control narratives.nThis revelation, captured in a video statement by Rego, underscores a broader pattern of censorship under the guise of protecting minors, even as platforms like Snapchat remain untouched despite their documented role in child grooming scandals.

In the clip, Rego states: “La ministra Sira Rego afirma que el siguiente paso del Gobierno será “limitar y seguramente prohibir” el uso de X a todos los españoles.” Translated, this means the minister affirms that the next step of the Government will be to “limit and surely prohibit” the use of X to all Spaniards. While the statement appears sweeping, recent reports clarify that Spain is pushing for a nationwide ban on social media access for those under 16, requiring platforms to enforce strict age verification. Prime Minister Sánchez emphasized that platforms must implement “effective age verification systems—not just checkboxes, but real barriers that work.”

This move aligns with similar initiatives in other European nations, but the focus on X raises questions about selective targeting, especially given Elon Musk’s vocal opposition to censorship. The timing couldn’t be more suspicious, as Sánchez’s regime faces a firestorm over its massively unpopular amnesty for up to 500,000 illegal migrants, a policy slammed as a voter importation scheme that incentivizes further border chaos from North Africa. On X, criticism has exploded with users accusing Sánchez of corruption—his inner circle mired in bribery scandals involving public contracts and even his family under probe—while branding the amnesty treasonous for prioritizing foreign arrivals over Spanish citizens, fueling demands for accountability that the government seems eager to silence through platform restrictions.

Spain’s announcement follows a wave of regulatory aggression against X. Just days ago, French authorities raided X’s Paris offices as part of an expanding probe into alleged offenses, including the spread of child sexual abuse material, deepfakes, and antisemitic content. The raid, conducted by the Paris prosecutor’s cybercrime unit with Europol’s assistance, led to a summons for Elon Musk and former X CEO Linda Yaccarino to face questioning. Prosecutors are examining X’s algorithms, data practices, and compliance with French law, amid accusations of unlawful data extraction and complicity in possessing illegal material. Musk dismissed the action as a “political attack,” while X called it an “abusive act” in a statement.

On the EU level, the European Commission has intensified its scrutiny. In January 2026, the Commission launched a formal investigation into Grok, X’s AI tool, over risks of generating manipulated sexually explicit images, including those involving children. This builds on a €120 million fine imposed on X in December 2025 for violations under the Digital Services Act (DSA), including deceptive blue checkmarks and insufficient researcher data access.

The Commission has ordered X to preserve all Grok-related documents until the end of 2026, signaling deep doubts about the platform’s compliance. A spokesperson noted: “This is saying to a platform, keep your internal documents, don’t get rid of them, because we have doubts about your compliance … and we need to be able to have access to them if we request it explicitly.” These actions echo the UK’s threats to ban X entirely, as detailed in our previous coverage. As we highlighted, Keir Starmer’s Labour government has weaponized the Online Safety Act to target X over Grok’s image generation, ignoring similar capabilities in tools like ChatGPT or Gemini.

And as exposed, the UK’s “protect the children” rhetoric falls flat when Snapchat accounts for nearly half of online child sexual crimes, while X sits at just 1-2%. The pattern is clear: from London to Madrid to Brussels, globalist forces are coordinating to dismantle X, the one platform where community notes and unfiltered discourse routinely dismantle official narratives. Musk’s resistance, including his jab at Sánchez as “dirty Sanchez,” highlights the stakes in this battle for digital freedom. As these regimes tighten their grip, platforms like X stand as critical bulwarks against authoritarian overreach. Banning access won’t silence truth—it will only amplify the pushback from those committed to free expression.

“The weaponized IC elements, of which Warner is a key participant, need to get Tulsi Gabbard removed from her position.”

• Mark Warner Finds Out DNI Tulsi Gabbard Has Puerto Rico Voting Machines (CTH)

This is funny, not because the narrative is so obvious, but because the well-used script is so transparent. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), a misnomer if there is one, Vice Chairman Mark Warner, finds out that Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had previously (May ’25) retrieved voting machines from Puerto Rico for analytical review. Of course, he needs immediate camera time to clutch his pearls, but it gets better.

For those who walk the deep weeds, you will remember when the Warner operation in 2017 needed to promote the intel script about the first discussion of the Christopher Steele “dossier”, they enlisted CNN’s Manu Raju, Jim Scuitto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein. That ‘breaking news’ was the original trigger for the Daily Beast to then publish the “dossier.” Senator Mark Warner then came in for the close with the leak of the Carter Page FISA. That was the script in 2017. We watched it in real time.

So, now Mark Warner finds out Tulsi Gabbard is on the trail of the intelligence manipulation of election machines. In this video below, Mark Warner appears for an entirely scripted segment with… wait for it… Manu Raju. How do you know this was pre-scripted for TV? Because: (a) that’s what they do, and (b) Raju is the only one who asks questions – while Warner doesn’t even look at him because he knows the narrative in advance. Seriously, watch it. It’s funny:

[A completely unrelated side note: Notice how the U.K, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have refused to join the Board of Peace? You know what they all have in common…. 5-eyes.]

“(REUTERS) – WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) – A team working for President Donald Trump’s spy chief, Tulsi Gabbard, last spring led an investigation into Puerto Rico’s voting machines, said Gabbard’s office and three sources familiar with the previously unreported events. The sources said the goal was to work with the FBI to investigate claims that Venezuela had hacked voting machines in Puerto Rico, but added the probe did not produce any clear evidence of Venezuelan interference in the U.S. territory’s elections. Reuters first reported the investigation.

Gabbard’s office, in a statement to Reuters, confirmed the May investigation but denied a link to Venezuela, saying its focus was on vulnerabilities in the island’s electronic voting systems. Her team took an unspecified number of Puerto Rico’s voting machines and additional copies of data from the machines as part of its investigation, a spokesperson for Gabbard’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence said. Her office said the taking of voting machines and data was “standard practice in forensics analysis.” Noting similar voting infrastructure elsewhere in the United States, it added: “ODNI found extremely concerning cyber security and operational deployment practices that pose a significant risk to U.S. elections.”

Jorge Rivera Rueda, head of Puerto Rico’s State Elections Commission, said he could not comment on any ongoing investigations. He added in a statement, “the Commission will fully cooperate with any investigative process conducted by the appropriate authorities, whether at the state or federal level.” Venezuela’s government did not respond to a request for comment. ODNI said some security gaps in voting machines used in Puerto Rico stemmed from their use of vulnerable cellular technology and that software flaws existed that could give hackers access deep into vital electoral systems. (more)”

Warner is super nervous. DNI Tulsi Gabbard is off the range of control. The next play is obvious. Warner et al will attempt to put DNI Gabbard into a position where an answer to a Senate question will need some kind of classified response. The weaponized IC elements, of which Warner is a key participant, need to get Tulsi Gabbard removed from her position.

“Subversion works by importing an inverted moral frame and getting the target population to install it as its own conscience.” — Yuri Bezmenov’s Ghost on X

• Blood in the Water (James Howard Kunstler)

Even in the deep-frozen fastness of midwinter, events and tensions surge, and America awaits . . . Bad Bunny! You perceive that there is some message in the genderfluid Puerto Rican songster’s upcoming Superbowl halftime gig, but what is the message? A 180-degree counterpoint to the earnest bashing and mashing of giants on the field? The official annunciation of Reconquesta? A thumb in the eye of President Donald Trump and the white supremacist horse he rode in on?

This bread and circuses routine is looking pretty played out. The bread, of course, is pizza, the Soylent Green of these seeming end-times, underwriting the nation’s romance with morbid obesity (and perhaps with degenerate sex). The circuses — last week’s Grammy Awards, the Winter Olympics tonight, Sunday’s looming Superbowl — give off an odor of utter cultural exhaustion. What will it finally take for Western Civ, and its avatar, the USA, to stop embarrassing itself before God and history, and find better things to do?

You have been following the Epstein papers, no doubt. The sordidness grows like a yeast infection in the body politic, and yet to date hardly one prosecutable crime? What gives with that? Last week’s release of the final super-batch of Epstein papers brought on a harvest of reputations, at least. The docs revealed Microsoft zillionaire Bill Gates conniving with the late (possibly) Jeffrey Epstein to turn pandemics and vaccines into a profitable enterprise, with a spate of email discussions years before Covid got sprung on the world.

Then, it just happened that Mr. Gates sponsored the Event 201 pandemic exercise in October 2019 (with Johns Hopkins and the World Economic Forum), around the same time that the first outbreaks of Covid-19 occurred in Wuhan China with the World Military Games, a sort of Olympics for soldiers. Many athletes from various countries (including the U.S., France, Germany, and others) fell ill with a respiratory infection.

Naturally, you wonder how long, exactly, was the Covid prank in the works and among whom? If Mr. Gates was involved with Johns Hopkins planning Event 201, wouldn’t you suppose he was also in contact with US NIAID, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s agency, and with Dr. Fauci himself? Dr. Fauci had a special talent for augmenting taxpayer funding of his activities with money from outside government, and Bill Gates certainly had a lot of it, plus an obsessive drive equal to Dr. Fauci’s for messing around with viruses. And 2019 was exactly the time that scientists at the Wuhan Virology Institute happened to be experimenting with corona viruses associated with bats. Whoops.

It happens that Rep. James Comer (R-KY), chair of the House Oversight Committee now looking into the Epstein matter, indicated this week that he was interested in calling Bill Gates to testify about his activities with Jeffrey Epstein. Wouldn’t it be nice to hear from Bill about his adventures in virology? Bill Gates is not a doctor or an accredited medical researcher, by the way. Virology is his hobby.

As a sort of tail on the donkey, an email written by Jeffrey Epstein in 2013 surfaced this week stating that Bill Gates said he caught a sexually transmitted disease from Russian girls and sought help from Epstein getting antibiotics to secretly dose his then-wife Melinda with. It blew up the Internet, but do you detect a whiff of a cockamamie story (no pun intended)? Bill Gates surely had the resources to virtually buy a doctor and have him prescribe whatever Mr. Gates wanted. In any case, Bill Gates’s long-running consort with Jeffrey Epstein has apparently sunk his reputation as a medical philanthropist, so expect him to look for another hobby as he skulks off into the gloaming of ignominy.

He’s a winner, she’s a loser. But don’t let her hear it.

• The Triumphant Return of the Clinton PR Machine (Pinsker)

It was such an absurdly over-the-top PR move, I was half-convinced the inimitable Dick Morris had wormed his way back into the fold: Hilary Clinton demanded her Epstein testimony be done before the public! That’s right: The same Hillary Clinton who refused to speak on the record about Jeffrey Epstein’s close, intimate ties to the Clinton family — dodging subpoenas and stonewalling inquiries — is now positioning herself as the paragon of openness, candor, and full transparency. She doesn’t just WANT to testify in public — she DEMANDS it!

https://x.com/HillaryClinton/status/2019394858767798349 So disregard any allegations of Epstein-related sexual impropriety, cover-ups, or financial wrongdoings. It’s all obviously the handiwork of a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” And, curses and drat, this right-wing conspiracy now includes Axios, a member-in-good-standing of the mainstream media. And horses: “Scoop: Epstein Files Include ‘Hung Like a Horse’ Message to Clinton Email” Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell once sent a message to an email address associated with former President Clinton that complimented the size of the recipient’s genitals, according to a Trump administration official familiar with the email released in the latest batch of Epstein files. […]

Included in Friday’s Epstein files dump is an email from Maxwell — dated “Sat, 01 Jan 4501,” with the recipient name fully redacted in the public files. But the recipient was an email address with the initials “WJC” that is associated with Clinton, according to the person familiar with the unredacted documents.”Sorry to hear that the Belzburg stuff is bad … I could not help myself — there was one juicy little tit bit I did let out — The one about what a supper stud you are and how I have a crush on you and how you are hung like a horse and — well you get the picture. Hope you don’t mind,” Maxwell wrote.

But perhaps this wasn’t Dick Morris playing, ahem, footsie once again with the Clintons. Say whatever you want about Bill and Hillary, but they fully understand the political PR game. We’re talking about an ex-president who never once received over 50% of the popular vote and was repeatedly humiliated by scandals, stains, and “bimbo eruptions,” yet left office with a 66% approval rating — higher than any other president over the last 70 years. bThat’s because Bill Clinton was one of the most spectacularly gifted politicians in American history.

Among his tactics: Use your enemies as a foil (cough, Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr, cough); Triangulate whenever your opponents’ platform is more popular than your own; Aggressively leverage institutional power — media, legal, political, pop-culture, and PR — to overwhelm the opposition.

It worked wonderfully in the 1990s. By triangulating with the GOP on financial issues, he coopted a key cog of their platform — and because Newt Gingrich/Ken Starr were (obviously) so scary, dangerous, and extreme, liberal voters stayed loyally in his pocket. Meanwhile, he certainly wasn’t shy about leveraging every inch of institutional power against his enemies. (That’s one of the reasons why he was impeached: Clinton used the power of the executive branch to undermine the judicial branch, depriving Paula Jones, an alleged victim of workplace sexual harassment, of a fair trial.)

But more than anything else, he won. Over and over again! Hillary Clinton lacks her hubby’s charisma, political instincts, and God-given likeability. She’s also a two-time loser for president: A newcomer named Barack Obama crushed her dreams in 2008, and her 2016 loss to Donald Trump stuck a fork in her career as a Democratic frontrunner. Of all the X posts that aged like milk, this one’s gotta be at the top of the list:

Happy birthday to this future president. pic.twitter.com/JT3HiBjYdj

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 26, 2016

Be nice to Cuba. Be a friend. They’re neighbors. And Castro’s gone after 75 years of antagonism.

• US Blockade Threatens ‘Humanitarian Collapse’ In Cuba – UN Chief (RT)

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned that the US-imposed energy blockade could cause a humanitarian collapse in Cuba. The Cuban authorities have been preparing to roll out rationing plans to address worsening fuel shortages after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose tariffs on goods from countries shipping oil to the island. Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel said the blockade has caused blackouts and disrupted schools, hospitals, and public transportation. At a briefing on Thursday, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Guterres is “extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Cuba, which will worsen, if not collapse, if its oil needs go unmet.”

According to Dujarric, Guterres stated that the UN General Assembly “has consistently called for an end to the embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba.” The US has maintained a trade embargo against Cuba since 1960. In December 2025, the US Navy and Coast Guard began seizing tankers in the Caribbean for allegedly violating sanctions. Trump accused Cuba of supporting terrorist groups and described Havana’s ties with Russia, China, and Iran as a threat to US national security.

On Thursday, the US announced it would deliver an additional $6 million in aid to Cuba, largely for the island’s eastern regions hit last year by Hurricane Melissa. Jeremy Lewin, a senior State Department official responsible for humanitarian assistance, accused the Cuban government of hoarding resources and denied that food shortages were linked to the ban on oil shipments. In an address on Thursday, Diaz-Canel rejected claims that Cuba supports terrorism or poses a threat to the US. He said the government is ready for dialogue with Washington, but only on the basis of equality and respect for Cuba’s sovereignty.

Look on a map where Cuba is. You can’t get closer to the states. Of course China backs it. Free food.

• China Backs Cuba During Tensions With US (RT)

China has voiced support for Cuba’s sovereignty after the US labeled the island’s socialist government a security threat. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with his Cuban counterpart, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, in Beijing on Thursday. “China firmly supports Cuba in safeguarding its national sovereignty and security, opposes unwarranted interference by external forces, and rejects any attempt to deprive the Cuban people of their rights to survival and development,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said after the meeting. Lin added that China is ready to support Cuba “to the best of its ability.”

Parrilla wrote on X that the sides “affirmed the special and strategic nature of the historical ties between the two socialist countries.” Last week, US President Donald Trump declared a national emergency in relations with Cuba, accusing the island of aligning itself with “hostile countries, transnational terrorist groups, and malign actors.” He said Cuba’s military cooperation and contacts with Russia, China, Iran, as well as Palestinian armed groups Hamas and Hezbollah, “directly threaten” US national security “The United States has zero tolerance for the depredations of the communist Cuban regime,” Trump’s executive order said.

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel rejected the allegations. “Cuba is not a terrorist country. Cuba is also not a threat to the security of the United States. We do not protect terrorists,” he said on Thursday. Díaz-Canel said Cuba is ready for dialogue with the US “without pressure and without preconditions, and on the basis of equality and respect.”Last month, the US abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro during a commando raid on his compound in Caracas. Maduro denied drug-trafficking and weapons charges when he was brought before a New York court. Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio have also made threats toward the left-wing governments of Colombia and Nicaragua. Trump hosted Colombian President Gustavo Petro at the White House this week, with both leaders describing the meeting as cordial.

“”Let’s get this out of the way: He is embarrassingly handsome, his hair seasoned with silver, at ease with his own eminence as he delivers his final State of the State address….“

• Taking a Ride on Newsom’s “Train to Nowhere” (Turley)

In the dystopian novel 1984, George Orwell wrote, “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” The true meaning of that line was never more clear than watching the truly bizarre photo op of California governor Gavin Newsom heralding the success of the greatest boondoggle in history: his high-speed train to nowhere. Without laying a single yard of track after burning $12 billion, Newsom showed a diesel freight train on a conventional track to create the appearance of a working railroad. I have been writing about this boondoggle for years. Newsom promised years ago that the project would be transformative. It was, but not as he promised.

Voters approved a $9.95 billion bond issue in 2008 after absurdly low estimates of the projected cost. Influential figures and companies stood to make a fortune, and the key was to secure a “buy-in” worth billions, so that it would become increasingly difficult to abandon the project as overruns and delays sent costs soaring. Now the official estimate of future ridership has dropped by 25% , and it demands billions more to complete a project delayed by decades. Remember that this entire project was meant to create a rail line of only 171 miles. It is projected to exceed $128 billion and could ultimately cost a billion dollars per mile. There are still uncompleted environmental assessments and challenging rail lines through the mountains.

There is still no train and not a yard of track almost 20 years later. The inspector general, Benjamin Belnap, issued a scathing report on the first phase of the still uncompleted project. That is only the stretch from Merced to Bakersfield which was supposed to be completed by 2033. Belnap wrote: “With a smaller remaining schedule envelope and the potential for significant uncertainty and risk during subsequent phases of the project, staying within the 2033 schedule envelope is unlikely. In fact, uncertainty about some parts of the project has increased as the authority has recently made decisions that deviated from the procurement and funding strategies that were part of its plans for staying on schedule.”

Rather than deliver on the promise of high-speed rail from Los Angeles to San Francisco, the Merced-Bakersfield line would now cost $35.3 billion, exceeding the 2008 projection for a complete system. Merced and Bakersfield have a combined population of roughly 500,000. That works out to roughly $22,000 per person, based on state ridership estimates. However, Newsom still wants to be president even as citizens are fleeing his state in record numbers. The “train to nowhere” is a problem. Even the New York Times is writing editorials on whether Newsom will be the next mistake of the Democratic Party. Newsom’s response is to arrange for gushing columns like Maya Singer’s embarrassing piece in Vogue:

“Let’s get this out of the way: He is embarrassingly handsome, his hair seasoned with silver, at ease with his own eminence as he delivers his final State of the State address… Newsom’s lanky frame was folded onto a sofa a bit too low-slung for him. This made him lean back—away from me. Or it could be that his body language had nothing to do with ergonomics and is a function of Newsom’s quality of being at once gregarious and aloof.” It is the type of teenybopper heartthrob coverage that Newsom is counting on from the media. It is not the billions burned on a non-existent railway but his glorious hair and “eminence.”

“Ayatollah Khamenei warned that any US military action would expand into a regional war.”

• The Tehran Times Interviews John Helmer (Helmer)_

As tensions persist between Iran and the United States amid intensified military signaling and renewed talk of negotiations, critical questions remain about Washington’s real strategy and the risk of a broader regional conflict. In this context, Tehran Times spoke with John Helmer, a veteran journalist and geopolitical analyst based in Moscow, to examine the shifting balance of power and the prospects for de-escalation.

Q: In his February 1 statement, Ayatollah Khamenei warned that any US military action would expand into a regional war. How does this reflect the interconnected military and political dynamics of today’s Middle East?

You understand—and I hope your audience understands—that I am a Russia correspondent. I have spent 30 years in Russia, so I am speaking from a Russian point of view. I think it is valuable for your audience to understand that perspective. I understood the February 1 statement as expressing something obvious, but with implications that are less obvious. It is very clear that Iran’s security is being threatened from the region. The US negotiator, Steven Witkoff, has been shuttling from Miami—where he was on Saturday speaking with the Russian business representative Kirill Dmitriev—to Israel, and then to Abu Dhabi for discussions on the military terms of a settlement to the Ukraine war with Russian negotiators. These include an admiral in charge of Russian military intelligence and a general.

On February 3 Witkoff met in Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Gen Eyal Zamir, IDF chief, and David Barnea, head of Mossad. To the extent that I understand Ayatollah Khamenei’s statement, he is saying that Iran is facing the prospect of war from Israel, from the United States, and from those Arab states that host military bases from which attacks on Iran have been launched in the past and could be launched again. The regional dimension is that Iran is being threatened simultaneously and in coordination by Israel, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, to name a few.

That is the first point. Therefore, Ayatollah Khamenei is saying that if Iran faces such a coordinated attack from these territories and states, its defensive response must be directed against each of them. That makes it a regional war. The consequence is an interesting one. Is Ayatollah Khamenei saying that Iran wishes to negotiate with all of its enemies at the table at the same time? In other words, why Witkoff alone? Why not an Israeli representative, given that Witkoff appears to be shuttling between Israel and negotiations with Iran? Why not a Saudi representative? Why not an Emirati representative, or any other state—including Iraq—on whose territory an attack on Iran could be launched or threatened?

If this is a regional war, then all regional representatives should attend and be part of the negotiating process. This position is not new at all. Ayatollah Khamenei is restating what has long been the Russian position, as articulated years ago by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: that the only viable form of security for the Persian Gulf states must be comprehensive. It cannot be partial. It must involve all states pledging mutual security with one another—without exception.

Q: President Trump says Iran is open to nuclear talks, yet the US is also increasing its naval presence in the region. How do you interpret this mix of diplomacy and military pressure? What does it tell us about Washington’s real strategy? That is a complicated question. Let me answer it this way. In the first place, President Trump aims for all strategy to be about winning, not losing. Winning, from Trump’s point of view, has been a combination of force, coercion, and extortion—both in the trade arena through tariffs, penalty tariffs, and secondary tariffs against states such as China and India.

So the idea of a mix of diplomacy and pressure does not quite describe it accurately. All of Trump’s moves are a form of pressure. There is no real credibility to the diplomacy. Diplomacy, in this case, is the talking at the table, but the gun at the table is economic warfare and sanctions warfare. This is not a combination of diplomacy and military pressure. It is a single combination of different types of pressure—extortion. It is negotiating at the point of a gun. President Trump’s view is that he must win.

Maxine's Meltdown: The Chaotic Clash with Scott Bessent pic.twitter.com/LFrfPOTY5l

— Gutfeld! (@Gutfeldfox) February 6, 2026

🕵️⚔️🇺🇦‼️ Hackers breached the database of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and revealed the actual losses among Ukrainians

‼️Since the beginning of the Special Military Operation, 1,721,000 Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel have been killed or gone missing. 118.5…

— dana (@dana916) February 5, 2026

The United States and Israel are facing a much different battle in Iran at this juncture.

Enormous amounts of weaponry, munitions and missiles have been delivered over the last few weeks by the Chinese.

The Russians have been on the ground and have been working to help with… pic.twitter.com/yj1vPwSi3A

— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) February 6, 2026

The facts I learned that made me stop fearing climate change.

1. Deaths from natural disasters are down 95%.
2. 10x more people die from cold than from heat.
3. Global greening has increased.
4. Growers add up to 1,500 ppm of CO2 to their greenhouses.
5. Extreme weather has… pic.twitter.com/nj7NugPTA6

— Lucy Biggers (@LLBiggers) February 4, 2026