Atlantic Archives - The Automatic Earth

Elon Musk just named the single variable that will decide the next hundred years.

It is not compute. It is not capital. It is not the chip.

Musk: “Nothing will make you happier than having kids. We’ve evolved to have that, as all creatures have.”

The consensus says this… pic.twitter.com/7cfuSFLDoa
— Dustin (@r0ck3t23) April 22, 2026

This collective suicide of humanity needs to turn around! https://t.co/dUigYCpSXW
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 21, 2026

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2046747498576765157?s=20 https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/2046596691374010460?s=20

The DOJ removed the prosecutor who said there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Brennan.

Replaced her with DiGenova — a lawyer who spent years publicly accusing Brennan of manufacturing the Russia investigation before being hired to prosecute him.

The case moved to Fort Pierce,… pic.twitter.com/bgobX2QJt1
— Jake (@JakeCan72) April 21, 2026

Elon Musk: Optimus 3 is almost done. Entering the final stage.
Most advanced robot on
Earth. Nothing else compares.
Production starts this summer. Classic S-curve ramp.
High volume near year. Optimus 4 next.
New robot. Every year.
That's the goal. pic.twitter.com/ikHtMapbBz
— Eva McMillan ♥️ (@EvasTeslaSPlaid) April 21, 2026

“50,000 extremist clerics and IRGC members are holding 90 million people as hostages ..”

• Trump Extends Ceasefire with Iran Pending Internal Regime Discussions (CTH)

The issue inside Iran is essentially: 50,000 extremist clerics and IRGC members are holding 90 million people as hostages to a fanatical religious regime. Hopefully the economic oil embargo will eventually begin to fray this Gordian Knot.

In the last two weeks, President Trump has forcefully and publicly been pushing back against the aggressive posture of Israel. While the Arab partners in the region are aligned with Trump on the issue of “extremism” and radicalism, thereby supporting the confrontation with Iranian religious extremists – those same regional partners also consider Israeli conduct in Gaza and Lebanon as religious “extremism.”
STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP:
“Based on the fact that the Government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so and, upon the request of Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, of Pakistan, we have been asked to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal. I have therefore directed our Military to continue the Blockade and, in all other respects, remain ready and able, and will therefore extend the Ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded, one way or the other.” ~ President DONALD J. TRUMP
The totality of the intelligence chatter must be overwhelming.

Only now do we find out who’s in charge there. That in itself is a negotiating tactic.

• Trump Extends Iran Ceasefire and Forces Tehran to Make the Next Move (Manney)

President Donald Trump extended the ceasefire with Iran as the original two-week truce neared its end. He made the decision after a request from Pakistani officials while he waits for a unified proposal from Tehran. U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday he is extending the ceasefire with Iran at Pakistan’s request while awaiting a “unified proposal” from Tehran, even as the U.S. military maintains its blockade of Iranian ports. The move comes as the White House put on hold Vice President JD Vance’s planned trip to Pakistan for a second round of truce talks with Iran, which has balked at further discussions. The extension keeps negotiations alive and avoids further loss of life on both sides.

Trump made clear that the United States will maintain its blockade of Iranian ports, stating that the military remains ready to act if Iran rejects a fair agreement. The extension doesn’t signal weakness; it reflects a deliberate choice to keep pressure in place while giving negotiations time to produce results. Trump explained that the pause allows a path toward a lasting resolution without immediate resolution. Iranian leaders rejected earlier ceasefire terms and demanded permanent guarantees. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi leads that response and continues to push for concessions that favor Tehran. Iran has also warned of a swift reaction to any new U.S. action. Trump declined to rush into additional conflict, using the extension to force Iran to decide between continued resistance and meaningful negotiation.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz addressed Iran’s claim that it controls the Strait of Hormuz, rejecting that position and stating that no country holds exclusive authority over that waterway. Waltz said, “Well, you saw real confusion on the Iranian’s part. I think that shows the discord within their ranks after devastating attacks on their leadership. The foreign minister says it’s open, the IRGC says that it’s closed. Regardless, it’s the U.S. Navy and President Trump as the commander in chief that decides what ultimately comes in and comes out, and I think the bigger picture here is that the Iranian regime cannot hold the entire world’s economy hostage.
They cannot mete out collective punishment because of a dispute over its nuclear program. It’s something that will not stand. It’s something in the United Nations that record 135 countries joined us and joined our gulf Arab allies in condemning including Iran’s attacks on ports, airport, roads, bridges, hotels, you name it. Even civilian neighborhoods with their drones and with their missiles. So Iran is increasingly isolated diplomatically. It’s struggling economically with its currency and foreign currency reserves tanking and at the end of the day they do not have the cards and they’re coming back to the table for a deal.”
He added, “The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway unlike what the Iranians are trying to claim. They moved the goalpost and they’re claiming it is a waterway of theirs which is a violation of international law. Ultimately it’s the U.S. navy and President Trump that decides what comes in and what comes out.”

Support for iGRC is not very broad.

• IRGC Leader Takes Control of Iran’s Military As US Tensions Rise (Fox)

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the elite branch of the Iranian armed forces, has blocked President Masoud Pezeshkian’s presidential appointments and erected what sources described as a security cordon around Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, a report published Tuesday by Iran International said. The IRGC effectively has assumed control over key state functions, the report claimed. “It was always a matter of when, not if, the IRGC was going to step forward even more than it has in the last three decades,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital.

Pezeshkian has reached a “complete political deadlock” as tensions between his administration and the military leadership deepen, according to the report. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the elite branch of the Iranian Armed Forces, has blocked President Masoud Pezeshkian’s presidential appointments, a new report says. (John Lamparski/Getty Images) The reported shift could have major consequences far beyond Iran. Analysts say a more powerful IRGC likely would mean a more confrontational Iran, less willing to compromise in talks with Washington and more inclined to continue military escalation across the region.
With U.S.-Iran negotiations already faltering and uncertainty growing over whether Tehran will even send negotiators to the next round of talks, the rise of the Revolutionary Guard raises fresh doubts about who actually is making decisions in Iran and whether any civilian official can still speak for the regime. “But it’s a mistake to assume this is some sort of coup,” Ben Taleblu said. “This has been the process in Iran for years now, as the regime has chosen conflict over cooperation and emboldened its security forces at every juncture.”
Pezeshkian’s recent effort to appoint a new intelligence minister collapsed after direct pressure from IRGC commander Ahmad Vahidi, sources told Iran International, arguing that all proposed candidates, including former Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, were rejected. Vahidi reportedly insisted that under wartime conditions, all critical and sensitive positions must be chosen and managed directly by the Revolutionary Guard until further notice.
“By any standard, Vahidi is considered a radical even within the regime’s hardline elite, and his rise is a warning that Tehran’s war machine now calls the shots,” Lisa Daftari, foreign policy analyst and journalist, told Fox News Digital. Under Iran’s system, the president traditionally nominates an intelligence minister only after securing approval from the supreme leader. But with the condition and whereabouts of Mojtaba Khamenei unclear in recent weeks, the IRGC appears to be increasingly acting without civilian oversight.

I want what he’s smoking.

• President Trump Didn’t Just Win. He Revived the Warrior Poet (David Manney)

A warrior poet fights with courage and speaks with lasting truth, an idea that stretches back through history. Warriors defend their people with strength, while poets shape words that move hearts and clarify purpose. When those traits come together, action and vision reinforce each other. King David embodied that union by defeating Goliath in battle and later wrote the Psalms that still guide millions. Samurai in feudal Japan trained with the sword and composed haiku that reflected discipline and honor. Medieval knights followed codes of chivalry while studying philosophy and faith. History shows that strength and expression can live in the same man.

President Donald Trump reflects that tradition in a modern setting as he fights for American workers and national security with a direct approach. He imposed tariffs to rebalance trade and bring leverage back to the United States.nHe authorized strikes when threats emerged in key waterways, pushed military readiness, and demanded clear outcomes from allies and adversaries, and he doesn’t step back when pressure builds. That posture mirrors the role of a warrior who protects what belongs to his people.
Trump also communicates with clarity that reaches beyond policy language, using short, direct phrases that people remember and repeat. “Make America Great Again” became a national message that carries emotion and direction. His rallies draw large crowds and create a shared sense of purpose. His speeches simplify complex issues without losing focus, a style that connects with people who want leaders to speak in terms they can understand. It echoes the role of a poet who turns ideas into language that lasts.
Trump’s tone has been criticized as blunt, but critics miss the function behind it. Warrior poets never softened every edge. King David wrote about conflict and victory in the same breath. Samurai poets described the cost of battle alongside moments of reflection. Trump addresses border security, trade imbalance, and national defense in terms that leave no ambiguity. He states the problem and moves forward toward action, a pattern that aligns with leaders who combine force with message.
The United States benefits when leadership blends resolve with vision. Trump has faced elections, investigations, and constant opposition while remaining focused on policy goals and public messaging at the same time. Trump’s administration reduced taxes, expanded domestic production, and reinforced border enforcement as he engaged foreign adversaries from a position of strength and pursued agreements that shifted regional dynamics.
Alongside those actions, he offered a consistent message about national pride and shared identity, a balance that reflects the core of the warrior poet idea.Opponents challenge his methods and dismiss his language, overlooking how that language reaches people who feel unheard. His speeches energize audiences and translate policy into a clear direction, speaking to workers, families, and communities that want protection and opportunity. That connection resembles the historical role of leaders who defended their people and gave voice to their experience.
Americans recognize the combination. Trump leads with determination and communicates with impact, protecting national interests and framing that effort in words that stay with the public. King David secured his nation and wrote songs that endured. Trump secures American priorities and delivers a message that resonates across the country. The warrior poet tradition continues through that blend of action and expression.

Love Larry, but he’s wrong here. Trump does not fear the International Criminal Court.

• Trump Spooked Over Iran War Crimes – Larry Klayman (USAW)

Renowned Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch USA, weighs in on a variety of legal subjects. Top on the list is Iran cancels peace talks in Pakistan, and then President Trump “unilaterally extends ceasefire” until Iran can “come up with a unified proposal.” Trump says the Iran government is “seriously fractured.” What happened to Trump’s threat of bombing power plants and bridges if the talks broke down? The last time talks failed, Iran put women and children around power plants and on bridges. Would a country that reportedly murdered more than 40,000 of its own citizens a few months ago do that again?

Klayman says, “First of all, I have a lot of experience with Iran. I have represented many families who have had their sons tortured and killed by the Iranian regime. I have represented Gold Star families of special ops (military) that died in a helicopter crash in the Tangi Valley (Afghanistan) that was caused by the Taliban because of bounties on their heads by Iran. . .. President Trump has lost his credibility because he has said time and again, if you don’t do X, I’ll do Y. It looks like he’s getting down on his knees and begging for peace. The reason he’s doing that is he’s worried he’s going to cost the Republicans the Mid-term elections. . .. He should have bit the bullet and taken out the regime. You can’t leave them there. . .. The President now looks weak. He had victory in his grasp, and now he’s getting down on his knees, and I am really sad about that.”
There is another thing that Klayman says might be holding President Trump back. Klayman says, “The threat of war crimes at the International Criminal Court (ICC) scared Trump. It’s not a war crime when you have to bomb something that has a dual use as in military and civilian. We did it in World War II, and others have done it elsewhere. . .. It’s not a war crime, but I think the President is spooked, and that’s the bottom line. . .. Pinochet (President of Chile from 1973 to 1990) was indicted and convicted by the ICC. If he had not died, they would have arrested him. Netanyahu (PM Israel) can’t travel to Europe or any place the ICC has jurisdiction. He will be arrested. If Trump was to go to Europe and he was indicted and convicted (for war crimes), they would arrest him.”
Klayman adds, “What I am saying here is tough love. If you really care about somebody, you tell them the truth. You don’t pussyfoot around. If the President is going to get himself out of this and if there is any chance of him winning the Mid-terms and keeping control of Congress and stop him from being subjected to all this lawfare, which will be vicious, then he needs to end this war quickly on our terms with unconditional surrender like Winston Churchill, not Neville Chamberlain. . .. I love the President, don’t get me wrong. I am trying to get him to do the right thing for his own good.”
Klayman also weighs in on the fight over voter fraud and the Department of Justice suing 29 states to get access to the voter rolls. The DOJ wants to enforce voter integrity. With the states complying and not fighting the DOJ, they found 350,000 dead people still on the voter rolls. Klayman says, “The American people have a right to know about the fraud that goes on, and it’s not just dead people, it’s illegal aliens. . .. this is a very serous matter. This will end up in the Supreme Court. The question is will this go up soon enough to help in the Mid-term elections in November?”

It’s not hard to do a better job than Jay Powell.

• Trump’s “Sock Puppet” (Philip Marey)

The confirmation hearing of Fed Chair nominee Kevin Warsh by the Senate Banking Committee was a very partisan affair. In his prepared remarks, Warsh stressed that monetary policy independence is essential, but he does not believe that the operational independence of monetary policy is particularly threatened when elected officials state their views on interest rates. Warsh thinks the Fed must stay in its lane and avoid straying into fiscal and social policies. Warsh was walking a tightrope between convincing the Senate Banking Committee that he is going to be an independent Fed Chair and staying loyal to President Trump.

Meanwhile, there was as much interest in Warsh’s personal balance sheet as in the Fed’s balance sheet. Obviously, there were several questions about Fed independence and whether Warsh had promised President Trump to cut rates in order to get the nomination. Of course, he denied. Warsh repeatedly said that interest rates rather than the balance sheet should be the dominant tool of monetary policy. He did not have a specific target for the balance sheet in mind, and eased fears of a rapid change. Warsh wants a robust reform of the inflation framework and improve the data to assess the underlying inflation trend.
First Democratic senator Warren called nominee Warsh president Trump’s sock puppet. Then Republican senator Kennedy tried to settle the issue by asking: “Mr Warsh, are you going to be the president’s human sock puppet?” “Absolutely not,” said Warsh. This was clearly a very partisan confirmation hearing for Kevin Warsh and near the end of the 2.5 hour session one of the more empathetic senators asked him why he would want this job. This was a big change from 20 years ago when Warsh was confirmed as Fed Governor with bipartisan support. Warren gave him a couple of litmus tests of his independence by asking whether Trump lost the election of 2021 and if Warsh could name one aspect of Trump’s policies that he disagreed with. Warsh gave evasive answers and the tone for the hearing was set. Warsh was walking a tightrope between convincing the Senate Banking Committee that he is going to be an independent Fed Chair and staying loyal to President Trump.
Meanwhile, there was as much interest in Warsh’s personal balance sheet as in the Fed’s balance sheet. Warsh said he had made an agreement with relevant authorities to divest his assets before sworn in (or within 90 days of his confirmation), but that answer did not seem satisfactory to several (Democratic) senators. Ironically, Senator Tillis (Rep) – who wants to hold up the confirmation until the case against Powell is dropped – had to come to the rescue by stressing that Warsh was not out of compliance.
Warsh wants the Fed to stay in its lane
Warsh did not read the full text of his prepared remarks that were published a day before the hearing, as Chairman Scott tried to keep the meeting on schedule. In his speech, he stressed that monetary policy independence is essential, but he does not believe that the operational independence of monetary policy is particularly threatened when elected officials – presidents, senators, or member of the House – state their views on interest rates. He said that Fed independence is largely up to the Fed. He highlighted three important implications.
First, Congress has tasked the Fed with price stability and that means that low inflation is the Fed’s plot armor (against criticism). Second, Fed independence is at its peak in the operational conduct of monetary policy, but that does not mean that the central bank has the same degree of independence in other areas, such as regulation and supervision. Third, the Fed must stay in its lane and avoid straying into fiscal and social policies. In response to the opening question by Chairman Tim Scott (Rep), Warsh said that he wanted a new inflation framework, that he preferred the interest rate tool over the balance sheet tool, and that he wanted a new communications approach. For a more detailed discussion of the nominee’s ideas, we refer to The Warsh Regime
Rates and independence
Obviously, there were several questions about Fed independence and whether Warsh had promised President Trump to cut rates in order to get the nomination. When Senator Reed (Dem) asked him about Fed independence, Warsh said that presidents (in general, not just Trump) want lower rates, but that independence is up to the Fed. In an answer to Senator Kennedy (Rep), Warsh said that the president never asked him to pre-commit on any interest rate decision. It got really heated when Senator Gallego asked Warsh whether it was his sworn testimony that the President had not asked him to commit to cutting rates. When Warsh confirmed, Gallego (Dem) concluded that either Warsh or Trump was lying, referring to an article in the Wall Street Journal on December 12. In response, Warsh said that these reporters needed better sources and that he took independence very seriously: “the President never asked me and I would never do so.”

“You’re gonna find out, as they say in the South, right quick about why they need him out..”

• Bongino’s Ominous Warning About the Kash Patel Smear (Margolis)

Something is coming. That’s the message Dan Bongino delivered to his audience this week, and if you’ve been paying attention, the pieces are already falling into place. As PJ Media previously reported, The Atlantic dropped a lengthy smear job against FBI Director Kash Patel last week, painting him as an erratic, hard-drinking paranoid who allegedly “panicked” and “freaked out” after a routine computer login glitch — convinced, supposedly, that he’d been fired. According to the story, the access issue turned out to be a technical error that was quickly resolved.

Patel’s attorney sent a letter to the magazine before publication, warning that the allegations it planned to run were false and that printing them would trigger a defamation lawsuit. The Atlantic ran the piece anyway. Now Patel is suing for $250 million, calling it a “sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece” designed to “destroy Director Patel’s reputation and drive him from office.” And right on cue, the left-wing machinery started moving the moment the Atlantic piece went live.
Democrats started calling for investigations, and left-wing groups went all in, too. Democracy Forward — a progressive lawfare outfit that spends its days litigating against DEI rollbacks, immigration enforcement, and abortion restrictions — fired off a 16-page FOIA request to the Justice Department. They want Patel’s calendars, schedules, text messages, communications with staff, and — get this — any records related to a request for “breaching equipment” allegedly made by his security detail. The Atlantic hit piece planted that allegation. Democracy Forward immediately took the bait.
But Bongino isn’t just calling it a mere hit piece. He’s saying there’s something much bigger going on here, and the reason why will become clear very soon.”The hit on Kash Patel, the bullshit hit by The Atlantic, which I addressed yesterday, is gonna make a lot more sense in the coming weeks and months,” Bongino explained. “I can’t give you a definitive timeline. I’m on the outside now. However, I can tell you what I know is going on because I started a lot of it.” He didn’t stop there.
“Look me in the eye, and I’m telling you, I promise this thing is gonna make a whole lot of sense. You’re gonna find out, as they say in the South, right quick about why they need him out, like, now. It’s got nothing to do with that story being even remotely true. Remember this. Bookmark it.” Make no mistake about it, he’s not speculating. He’s someone who knows something, and we should believe him. This is what the left does: they manufacture a narrative, find a publication to run with it, and then use it as the pretext for discovery-style records requests aimed at forcing Patel out.
Now, ask yourself why Democrats want to force him out so badly. The Atlantic published a lie. Democrats pounced on it immediately. The entire response feels bizarrely coordinated. Now, Bongino is telling you point-blank that the left is doing this for a reason. It’s panic. And we’ll all understand why soon.

“Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” Except that, you know, up until that moment, Oceania had been allied with Eastasia in a war against Eurasia. Things change.”

• A Crazy Lefty Lady Learns What Kamala and Hillary Said About Iran (Green)

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered,” George Orwell wrote in 1984. “Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” Except that, you know, up until that moment, Oceania had been allied with Eastasia in a war against Eurasia. Things change. So does the propaganda — so smoothly that you wonder if Orwell got his ideas for Big Brother from time-traveling modern-day Democrats. Case in point: The crazy lady in the video below.

If the U.S. hasn’t exactly always been at war with the Islamic Republic, the Islamic Republic has always been at war with the U.S. The regime was born in an act of war against us — storming sovereign U.S. territory and taking 52 hostages for 444 days. In the 47 years since, the regime has directly committed or financed countless acts of terrorism against the U.S. and our interests. During the Iraq War, it was largely Tehran that waged the IED campaign that killed and wounded so many of our troops. The Islamic Republic is responsible for the deaths of more than 1,200 Americans. And by its own boast to Trump administration negotiators, it was on the verge of having nearly a dozen nuclear bombs.
So after nearly five decades, 1,200 deaths, and a lot of tough talk from every American president since Ronald Reagan, President Donald Trump took action — action that would have been applauded by previous incarnations of Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and American lefties. In an epic (and justifiably expletive-filled) X rant, L.H. Grey noted that Reagan called out the Islamic Republic as “the epicenter of terrorism,” and that “Bush, Clinton, Bush II, Obama… all of them, without exception, treated the mullahs as a strategic cancer requiring sanctions, isolation, or the occasional kinetic reminder that [effing] with America has consequences.
“”Kamala Harris herself, as Vice President, stood in front of microphones and labeled Iran the United States’ greatest adversary.” The consensus against the Islamic Republic is both decades old and bipartisan — until the Bad Orange Man took the first meaningful action against it. Which brings us to the lefty activist in Monday’s delightful gotcha video.
https://twitter.com/LangmanVince/status/2046574522367696991?s=20
Watching the “nice lady” grasp at one straw after another… that’s exactly the schadenfreude I enjoy with my morning coffee. She isn’t the only one, of course. “Donald Trump is dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want,” is what Harris said at the start of Epic Fury, and then called it “a dangerous and unnecessary gamble.” This month, Harris escalated her criticism, claiming that Trump had been “pulled into” the war by Bibi Netanyahu and that Epic Fury was “a feeble attempt to distract from the Epstein files.”
The needs of the Party are subject to change, comrades. But Orwell’s deeper warning wasn’t that the Party could rewrite history at a moment’s notice — it was that the people would eagerly go along. “There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy… Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia!” And always had been.

USAID is long gone, and now the SPLC. No coincidence in sight. Both are (were) Democratic money dispensers.

• Southern Poverty Law Center Charged With Fraud Over Hate Ratings (JTN)

A federal grand jury in Alabama on Tuesday indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on 11 counts of wire and bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering, as the Justice Department accused the group that rose to fame during the 1960s Civil Rights movement of paying members of 21st century extremist groups to stoke hatred. “The SPLC is a nonprofit entity that purports to fight white supremacy and racial hatred by reporting on extremist groups and conducting research to inform law enforcement groups with the goal of dismantling these groups,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told a news conference attended by CBS News. “The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred.”

Blanche said the group was charged with six counts of wire fraud, four counts of bank fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. He said that the SPLC had paid at least $3 million to eight members of these extremist groups. Among the groups whose members received funds were the Ku Klux Klan, United Klans of America, Aryan Nations, and the Nationalist Socialist Party of American Nazis. The SPLC is a nonprofit that tracks white supremacist and other hate groups across the U.S., and has been a frequent target of President Donald Trump’s allies. It is best known for its work investigating the Ku Klux Klan.
The group has acknowledged using such informants to infiltrate extremist groups and gather intelligence on their operations, which it shared with local and federal law enforcement, according to the Associated Press. The Justice Department had no immediate comment, the wire service also said.Bryan Fair, CEO of the SPLC, said that the organization doesn’t know all the details, but the Trump administration has launched an investigation, which may lead to charges. Fair said the SPLC worked with informants during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, when violence against activists was running high. He said the SPLC will “vigorously defend” themselves.

As in: “yet another” Vital Propaganda Machine..

• Democrats Lose A Vital Propaganda Machine With The Fall Of The SPLC (ZH)

When creating a short list of nefarious NGOs that manipulate government policy and socially engineer public opinion, the Southern Poverty Law Center is usually near the top. The group has been fading in influence due to excessive exposure, with new and less visible left wing NGOs taking it’s place. However, it remains a key pillar of the Democratic Party’s propaganda machine and a poisonous cloud looming over grassroots conservative organization. News from the Trump FBI and DOJ indicates that this reign of political terror may finally be coming to an end. The Southern Poverty Law Center has been indicted on federal fraud charges that accuse it of illegally raising millions of dollars to pay informants in white supremacist and other extremist groups.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the SPLC used paid operatives within extremist circles to incite and intensify racial tensions, arguing the group fostered the very threats it claimed to fight. But why was an NGO allowed to operate like a covert federal agency for so long? These operations were essentially endorsed by the Democratic Party (as well as some Neo-Cons). One could say that the SPLC had two missions: First, to drum up hysteria among weak minded liberals and make them believe that there are malicious “hate groups” under every rock and behind every tree. Second, to make conservatives paranoid about informants when seeking to build political opposition movements.
Sadly, to this day, the SPLC was rather successful in achieving both goals. The NGO’s efforts to create a false model of “hate networks” (especially during the Obama years) was a primary impetus for the eventual rise of the woke activist movement from around 2012 onward. In other words, the insane cult obsessed with race and identity that plagues America today found its roots within the SPLC and their alliance with the Democratic Party. SPLC “informants” were a constant nuisance among conservative activist and protest groups as well as preparedness groups. Nothing these conservatives did was actually illegal, but, the SPLC had a knack for making it sound as if they were engaging in criminality.
Far too many right wingers were frightened into refusing to engage in basic meetings and public discussions, simply on the possibility that SPLC informants might be present. No such infiltration was used to target left wing extremist groups like Antifa, which have carried out numerous criminal attacks, riots, sabotage and acts of intimidation against their political opponents. But, times change and the truth cannot be suppressed forever. Conservative and nationalist movements grew exponentially, even if they still suck at organizing formally. And today, the SPLC is a widely known and rightfully despised entity.
The SPLC was specifically integral to the Obama and Biden Administrations, including a direct information sharing relationship with the DHS and FBI. The majority of anti-conservative policy papers published by the federal government during this time were crafted using SPLC propaganda. The 2009 DHS Rightwing Extremism Report, a unclassified assessment warning of potential “surges” in right-wing extremism, drew input extensively from SPLC info. The report targeted militia groups as potential homegrown terrorists and was partially withdrawn because of political backlash.
A separate 2009 state-level fusion center report – the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) “Modern Militia Movement” report – linked supposedly dangerous militia members to “3rd party political groups” and “supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.” The report flagged symbols like the Gadsden Flag, as well as anti-government, anti-new world order and anti-martial law discussion as potential indicators of homegrown terrorism. The SPLC was a key participant in the formation of the MIAC report.
SPLC President Richard Cohen served on Secretary Janet Napolitano’s CVE Working Group in 2010. Cohen and an SPLC colleague acted as subject-matter experts on right-wing extremism in the DHS Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group. Their purpose was to shift federal law enforcement focus almost entirely from Islamic-based terrorism over to right wing extremism.

Under Biden, the SPLC was highly active in shaping public narratives surrounding the J6 trials. SPLC staff provided training to DOJ prosecutors and SPLC leaders/staff visited the White House at least 11 times. President Biden personally met with SPLC representatives at least 6 times.
With the fall of the SPLC, the Democrats lose a vital tool in their social engineering arsenal. If the accusations turn out to be true and SPLC leaders are convicted, their activities should be considered as treason against the American people. Any and all NGOs participating in social engineering operations against the US populace must eventually be indicted and erased if the country is ever going to rebuild the public trust, but bringing down the SPLC is a good start.

Typical example: “She made $175,000 a year. That was Jan. 28, 2025. Today Amy Uccello and her husband, who also lost his job when U.S.A.I.D. funding for his nonprofit dried up, rely on food stamps ..”

• There Is Simply Too Much Schadenfreude in This New York Times Profile (Thorne)

I am 100% for sure going to hell for enjoying this New York Times article as much as I am. There but for the grace of God go I, I remind myself. But then, I would never have put myself in that position, devoting my professional life to making six figures off the taxpayer to work on “nice-to-haves” rather than creating actual, useful products that must survive in the marketplace. Anyhoo, the article that is bringing me so much guilty pleasure is entitled “A Year After U.S.A.I.D.’s Death, Fired Workers Find Few Jobs and Much Loss.” The subtitle tells the tale: “People have plowed through savings, cashed out retirement funds and moved in with relatives. Former U.S.A.I.D. workers estimate that less than half have found full-time work.”

Why, it’s almost as if no one would hire them to ply their trade, so they must force taxpayers to subsidize it. There follow over 2,000 words of dignified profiles of the victims of DOGE, punctuated by beautifully photographed portraiture of the stolid world-savers as they cope with the loss of their raison d’être. Sadly, this masterpiece of turned tables is behind a paywall, but fear not: I can provide some tasty quotes here (although the entire piece is almost worth subscribing to the NY Times for). As you read, perhaps you, like me, will recall the bad old days of the Obama regime, when this very variety of elitist Ivy League do-gooders swarmed the capital and NOVA to turn traditional energy workers out of their jobs.
“Learn to code,” they sneered at the coal miners and rig workers and their families whose lives they upended. To them, I say, Sucks when it’s you, don’t it? Let’s dive into the first profile: She was fired by email while on maternity leave, given 24 hours to clear out her desk and left with three days of health insurance and no severance pay. She had worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development or related groups for more than two decades. She made $175,000 a year. That was Jan. 28, 2025. Today Amy Uccello and her husband, who also lost his job when U.S.A.I.D. funding for his nonprofit dried up, rely on food stamps, Medicaid and a supplemental nutrition program for women and children that helps with their now 19-month-old daughter.
The mortgage on their home in Washington was until recently in forbearance, meaning they negotiated to pay less than they owed each month. But the bank has now cut them off and suggested they apply for a low-income mortgage program. “We don’t know if we’ll qualify,” Ms. Uccello said. She and her husband have applied for more than 100 jobs with no luck. Most of their friends don’t have jobs either. And, look, I feel awful when that happens to anyone. But this couple was raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars, much of it paid by Americans poorer than they, to go meddle in the lives of people in other parts of the world. And we all know how leftist USAID and related NGOs — “soft power” — worked in developing nations:
They only granted aid to countries that agreed to import the entire suite of first-world progressive virtues, such as abortion-on-demand, same-sex “marriage,” and forgoing effective, reliable fossil fuel in favor of “green” energy contraptions that came nowhere close to facilitating a modern lifestyle. These are the same people who denied effective mosquito control methods to poor nations, leaving tens of millions of black and brown babies to die of malaria, while raising their own precious child in the pinnacle of Western healthcare.
“When the Trump administration dismantled the sprawling global aid agency last year, it wiped out virtually an entire industry — international development — that had been based in Washington since U.S.A.I.D.’s creation in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy,” the Times reminds us. “Nearly all of the agency’s 16,000 employees were laid off. An estimated 280,000 contractors, partners and local hires worldwide lost their jobs as well.”
And, “Former U.S.A.I.D. workers who have done informal surveys estimate that less than half have found full-time work, with many making less than before. An estimated third are unemployed. Others are in part-time work.” That’s rough. I left my corporate life behind because I couldn’t betray my conscience and my faith, and pretend the man with whom I had worked for two years was suddenly a woman on Monday. I couldn’t stomach the corporate cop-bashing; I live in a law enforcement family. I didn’t want to spend my entire life under soul-crushing pressure to stifle myself. Did I take a pay cut and part-time work? You bet I did. So whatever, wokesters.
“The District of Columbia currently has the highest unemployment rate in the nation, at 6.7 percent, in large part because of major reductions in the federal work force, including U.S.A.I.D., and cuts to government grants and contracts,” the Times mourns. To this, I say, Thank you, President Trump! Countries whose governments grow too big and employ too large a percentage of the population tend to fail. The few former U.S.A.I.D. workers who have landed similar or better jobs don’t like to talk about it in front of unemployed friends.
“I feel guilty, honestly, that of all my colleagues who I know are still unemployed, I’m the one who found something,” said Sara Miner, 42, who was a senior adviser in the agency’s H.I.V.-AIDS office and previously ran health programs in Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Now she helps manage health and human service programs for Fairfax County, Va.
Jobs are also gone at the many nonprofits and partner agencies once funded by U.S.A.I.D. “Everyone I know is also up the creek, all my bosses, my mentors, the people you would normally go to, the people providing me references,” said Catherine Baker, 36, who, as a contractor, made $127,000 a year recruiting staff and helping to start up U.S.A.I.D. projects. Ms. Baker now volunteers as a manager for OneAid, which helps former U.S.A.I.D. workers, and works nine hours a week as a companion for two elderly women.
And yet, there are still enough of them in the NOVA area to vote the otherwise conservative state of Virginia into gerrymandered left-wing tyranny. (And for the record, I have plenty of friends who work as aides to the elderly. It is honorable and worthwhile work, and it can provide a decent living, too — maybe not what these taxpayer-funded fancy folk are used to, but not impoverishment, either.)

“.. Eastman is being punished for a different reason: He helped to develop Trump’s legal argument for blocking the election certification.”

If Eastman were a Democrat lawyer, he’d still have a job.

• The California Bar Bags a Trump Lawyer and Leaves Troubling Questions (Turley)

Last week, the California Supreme Court upheld the disbarment of John Eastman. It is a decision that will prevent Eastman from practicing law – the most serious punishment the California State Bar can deliver. Eastman is the former dean of the law school at Chapman University in California. He represented President Donald Trump in some of his election challenges in 2020. In 2020, I publicly disagreed with Eastman’s legal theory that Congress could block the certification of President Joe Biden. However, Eastman’s disbarment should be a concern for everyone who values the rule of law and free speech. After the election, various legal advisers told Trump that there wasn’t enough evidence of fraud to overturn the election –– as some of us in the media also said.

But Eastman and other lawyers believed there were still arguable grounds to challenge the certification. In the past, Democrats in Congress had moved to block the certification of Republican presidents, and Eastman believed that their playbook was legal, or at least defensible.nElection disputes are often difficult to resolve in court because time is quite limited. As the date for the 2020 certification approached, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and others made sensational claims about voting machines and other conspiracies that they later admitted were not supported by evidence.bThe courts uniformly rejected these challenges.
Eastman is being punished for a different reason: He helped to develop Trump’s legal argument for blocking the election certification. He admitted that there were few cases to cite as precedent, and acknowledged that he and the Trump legal team were advancing novel theories. But that is not unusual in controversial cases. Public interest attorneys often advance novel legal arguments, challenging existing precedent and the status quo. Even longstanding precedents, like Roe v. Wade, have been overturned after years of litigation.California State Bar officials failed to address the implications that disbarring Eastman would have on other cases in which new legal theories are tested.
The animus of the California State Bar was also evident in the original charges against Eastman. He was ultimately found guilty on 10 of 11 charges of egregious and deceitful conduct. The lower court’s decision placed great emphasis on Eastman’s public remarks on Jan. 6, 2021, at Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally. The court dismissed his claims that his speech was protected by the First Amendment. Democratic Party election lawyers have been punished by courts and accused of meritless or unsupported claims. However, bar associations in “blue” states have not moved to disbar them, and I would not support such an effort. Take Democrat attorney Marc Elias. He was a critical player in the infamous Steele dossier on “Russia collusion,” and helped push the false Alfa Bank conspiracy.
The animus of the California State Bar was also evident in the original charges against Eastman. He was ultimately found guilty on 10 of 11 charges of egregious and deceitful conduct. In Maryland, Elias’s team filed in support of an abusive gerrymandering of the election districts that a court found not only violated Maryland law, but also the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the map “subverts the will of those governed.” In 2024, the chief judge of the Western District of Wisconsin not only rejected but ridiculed the Elias Law Group for one of its challenges. Judge James Peterson (an Obama appointee) said that the argument “simply does not make any sense.”
Elias has been sanctioned in court. However, neither he nor associates were, of course, disbarred over prior challenges. The California Bar and the California Supreme Court insist that they are merely imposing minimal standards of conduct in disbarring Eastman. However, the record in this matter shows more distemper than deliberation on critical points. The California State Bar has created new problems, rather than clarifying standards. Even as someone who disagreed with John Eastman, I am not sure what the standard is for zealous advocacy by attorneys. While Eastman was giving bad advice, he was not committing a crime or, in my view, committing an offense that deserved disbarment.= There cannot be a different standard for different candidates, or different clients.

The Sun rounds up to 100% of energy in our solar system, even if Jupiter and all non-solar mass is burned https://t.co/TTTriaK703
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 22, 2026

SPLC funded a large number of false flag “right wing” organizations and events. Total scam. https://t.co/1IzH99Dlt2
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 21, 2026

Outrageous! SPLC executives who did this need to go to prison for a long time. https://t.co/dzVpS3M3ql
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 22, 2026

Wow, it's quite an achievement for Canada to have had even lower growth than Germany during the last decade.

Germany has done almost everything humanly possible to ruin its economy. How has Canada been able to beat that? pic.twitter.com/G8dm4D44xQ
— Michael A. Arouet (@MichaelAArouet) April 21, 2026

https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/2046588679611621449?s=20

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

Debt Rattle April 21 2026

Apr 212026

April 21, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:58 am Finance Tagged with: Atlantic, Horrmuz, jet fuel, Joe diGenova, Kash Patel, Maria Bartiromo, national sovereignty, PavelDurov, revanchism, Todd Blanche 43 Responses »

George Bellows The Lone Tenement 1909

• Iran Pushes Too Far in Hormuz, and the U.S. Pushes Back (David Manney)

• US Navy Fires At and Boards Iranian-flagged Cargo Ship (RT)

• Xi Urges Immediate Opening Of Hormuz Strait For First Time (ZH)

• From Leverage To Liability: Hormuz Is Now Iran’s Biggest Weakness (Lacalle)

• Things Get Interesting-er (James Howard Kunstler)

• Kash Patel: Arrests Due In 2016 Russia Probe: Never Going To Let This Go (JTN)

• Kash Patel Makes Promise: Arrests Are Coming Over 2020 Election (Margolis)

• Maria Bartiromo Questions FBI Director Kash Patel About Ongoing Issues (CTH)

• The Atlantic’s Kash Patel Hit Piece Is Backfiring – Badly (Brad Slager)

• DOJ Moves In Florida Signals Major Escalation In Russiagate Criminal Probe (ZH)

• AAG Todd Blanche Moves diGenova and DeLorenz to South Florida Group (CTH)

• 5 Stories Democrats Told During Trump’s 2019 Impeachment Have Crumbled (JTN)

• ‘Pandemic of Fascism’ Looming Over West – Moscow (RT)

• ‘Proud To Stand Alongside Elon Musk’ – Telegram’s Durov (RT)

• The EU Moves to Destroy the Last Vestiges of National Sovereignty (Turley)

• Europe Faces Summer Jet Fuel Crisis As Iran War Slashes Supply (Paraskova)

It takes forever because it’s so complex. and it’s the FBI probing the FBI. But they’re not sitting still. Not Trump either. https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/2045880028181721583?s=20 https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2045810958048846076?s=20 https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2045962900716884011?s=20 https://twitter.com/mcucolo57/status/2045962325866234117?s=20 https://twitter.com/TRUMP_ARMY_/status/2046175677360328853?s=20

✍️ There’s Been Three Great Scandals In The 21st Century pic.twitter.com/36JVxtpMzS
— MaggieWise ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@maggiewise111) April 19, 2026

https://twitter.com/robertdunlap947/status/2046186828462477568?s=20

“It’s a pattern that Iran has long perfected: probe, push, and see how far the other side tolerates their actions. That approach worked until it didn’t after Epic Fury ..”

• Iran Pushes Too Far in Hormuz, and the U.S. Pushes Back (David Manney)

President Donald Trump authorized a direct response after an Iranian-flagged vessel moved into a restricted pattern of activity in the Strait of Hormuz.U.S. Navy forces intercepted and disabled the vessel after it failed to comply with repeated warnings. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth supported the operation, and the U.S. Central Command coordinated the response, stopping the vessel before it could continue its course through one of the world’s most contentious shipping lanes.It was the first interception since the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports began last week. Iran’s joint military command called the armed boarding an act of piracy and a ceasefire violation, the state broadcaster said.

With the U.S.-Iran standoff over the strait sharpening and the ceasefire expiring by Wednesday, it was not clear where President Donald Trump ’s earlier announcement on new talks with Iran now stood. He had said U.S. negotiators would head to Pakistan on Monday. The ship drew attention after it moved in a way that raised immediate concern among U.S. naval observers. The USS Spruance, an Arleigh-Burke-class destroyer, closed distance, issued warnings, and took action when the ship didn’t comply. Iran didn’t waste time pushing back. Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani accused the United States of violating international law and warned of a response.
U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz pointed to Iran’s own behavior in the Straits of Hormuz, making clear that no single country controls that passage. Any attempt to treat it like private territory runs against established maritime law. That waterway accounts for the passage of roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil; it moves through that very narrow stretch between Iran and Oman. Until Operation Epic Fury, tankers passed through it daily, and as we’re finding out, disruptions send shockwaves through energy markets and shipping routes. The Strait of Hormuz isn’t some abstract geopolitical talking point; it’s a choke point that affects fuel prices, supply chains, and economic stability worldwide.
Iran has played games in that corridor before, where patrol boats crowded tankers, drones shadowed ships, and crews were pushed just far enough to test limits without crossing into open conflict. It’s a pattern that Iran has long perfected: probe, push, and see how far the other side tolerates their actions. That approach worked until it didn’t after Epic Fury. The U.S. response came fast and without hesitation: warnings went out, the ship didn’t adjust, and the U.S. Navy acted. That sequence shows a clear line that the United States isn’t guessing or reacting late; it’s setting expectations and enforcing them when challenged.
You’d figure that by now opponents of President Trump would’ve learned the lesson that he doesn’t leave room for misinterpretation when it comes to his America First belief, especially now in a region containing such an important strategic waterway. The United States has made it abundantly clear: the Strait of Hormuz stays open, traffic moves, and anybody trying to interfere finds out quickly where the boundary sits. That boundary claim goes even further than Iran’s routine posturing. Tehran doesn’t see the Strait of Hormuz as a neutral passage, arguing that the era of outside powers securing major waterways is over.
“Never.” That’s when a senior Iranian lawmaker says they’ll be ready to give up their control of the Strait of Hormuz. “It’s our inalienable right,” Ebrahim Azizi, a former commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), tells the BBC in Tehran. “Iran will decide the right of passage, including permissions for vessels to pass through the Strait.” And he says that’s about to become enshrined in law. “We are introducing a bill in parliament, based on article 110 of the constitution, which includes the environment, maritime safety and national security – and the armed forces will implement the law,” says this member of parliament who heads the Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy.
He said Iran and its allies now hold that responsibility. He didn’t leave much room for interpretation. In his view, control of key routes like Hormuz belongs to regional forces, not international agreements. Iran is left with a decision to make: either keep testing that boundary and risk more confrontation or pull back and avoid escalating a tense situation that already drew a firm response. Either way, the tone has shifted.The message isn’t confusing: The United States will protect critical routes and won’t sit back while Iran tries controlling them by pressure or intimidation.

“US Central Command (CENTCOM) has released a video showing a US warship firing at an Iranian-flagged cargo vessel that was later seized by US Marines.”

• US Navy Fires At and Boards Iranian-flagged Cargo Ship (RT)

US Central Command (CENTCOM) has released a video showing a US warship firing at an Iranian-flagged cargo vessel that was later seized by US Marines. According to CENTCOM, the guided-missile destroyer USS Spruance intercepted the M/V Touska in the Gulf of Oman as it attempted to breach the US naval blockade and reach the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas through the Strait of Hormuz. “After Touska’s crew failed to comply with repeated warnings over a six-hour period, Spruance directed the vessel to evacuate its engine room. Spruance disabled Touska’s propulsion by firing several rounds from the destroyer’s 5-inch Mk 45 gun into the engine room,” CENTCOM said, adding that a team from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit later boarded the vessel.

The Touska was traveling from a Chinese chemical-storage port and was laden with cargo, the Washington Post reports, citing tracking data. The port is often used for transporting chemicals, including sodium perchlorate, a key precursor for producing solid rocket fuel, it added, noting that it is unclear what cargo the Touska was carrying. Later, CENTCOM also released a video of US forces boarding the disabled ship from a helicopter. Iranian officials denounced the blockade as illegal under international law, saying it violates the terms of a two-week ceasefire set to expire on Wednesday.
The Iranian military has vowed to retaliate for the seizure of the vessel. Iran’s Tasnim news agency later reported that the Iranian military launched a drone at US ships. The US has not confirmed whether any of its vessels came under attack.

80% of Iran oil goes to China. Trump has weaponized that.

• Xi Urges Immediate Opening Of Hormuz Strait For First Time (ZH)

China’s President Xi Jinping on Monday demanded the uninterrupted passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz in a phone call with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, state news agency Xinhua reports. He urged the normalization of shipping traffic after about 50 days of disruption which obviously and significantly impacts Chinese oil imports. “Normal navigation through the Strait of Hormuz should be maintained, this is in the shared interests of regional countries and the international community,” Xi said, in the statement also carried by AFP. He called for an immediate, comprehensive ceasefire and insisted disputes be resolved through political and diplomatic means. He added that China will deepen strategic mutual trust with Saudi Arabia and expand practical cooperation.

South China Morning Post observes that it was “the first time the Chinese leader had called for the reopening of the strategically vital waterway, which has been repeatedly blockaded since US-Israeli strikes on Iran began on February 28.” China imported 5.86 million tons of crude oil from Saudi Arabia, down 10% from February, according to customs data released Monday. As for where things stand on the negotiations front, Iran hesitated over sending diplomats to Pakistan for a second round of peace talks after the US maintained a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and seized an Iranian vessel, after apparently firing on it, undermining prospects for a breakthrough to end the war. Initially it appeared to shut the door on second talks, however per Associated Press Monday morning:
Iranian authorities have expressed willingness to send a delegation for a second round of talks in Islamabad this week, two Pakistani officials said Monday. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media, said there is cautious optimism that delegations from both Iran and the United States could travel to Islamabad. The US side would reportedly once again be headed up by Vice President JD Vance – who during the first round cut out early after a serious impasse was reached on the nuclear issue.
The tumultuous weekend events followed Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi having posted on X on Friday that the Strait of Hormuz was “completely open”. By Sunday morning, Bloomberg ship tracking data had showed tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz was largely ground to a halt. Also, the prior 24 hours had seen multiple incidents of tankers making U-turns, and added to all this a senior Iranian official renewed threats to close the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.
According to a quick review of some other developments Monday morning and per emerging market data, China will import a record volume of US ethane this month as petrochemical producers switch feedstocks after the Middle East war disrupted critical supplies. Recall that by mid-March Trump was actually asking for China’s help to get the blocked Strait of Hormuz reopened…
And in the broader region, Singapore is securing additional liquefied natural gas from outside the Middle East as the conflict in Iran constrains regional supply, according to a government body. India authorized more Russian insurers to cover vessels calling at its ports and extended permits for others as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz disrupts energy shipments from the Persian Gulf. The International Energy Agency has meanwhile said that global power consumption rose 3% last year, driven in part by rapid demand growth from electric vehicles and data centers, according to the International Energy Agency.

“The world is very different from what the Iran regime thought. In 2025, U.S. crude oil production hit a new annual record of 13.6 million barrels per day, making the United States the world’s largest producer but also the biggest exporter..“

• From Leverage To Liability: Hormuz Is Now Iran’s Biggest Weakness (Lacalle)

For half a century, the Strait of Hormuz was Iran’s weapon. Today, it is its noose. The mathematics of energy have flipped, and with them the balance of coercive power in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s implicit deterrent was geographic, spanning from the tanker wars of the 1980s to the sanctions standoffs of the 2010s. Almost 20% of global seaborne oil, and a similar share of liquefied natural gas, passes through the Strait. The formula was simple: any military confrontation that threatened the Tehran regime risked a closure that would halt trade supplies, spike crude prices, bleed Western consumers, and, above all, inflict pain on the United States, who was the world’s largest oil importer.

The strait served as Tehran’s insurance policy and its most powerful bargaining tool. The threat was predicated on the regime’s belief that it could block everyone except its exports. The Iranian regime revealed its biggest weakness by constantly threatening to damage the global economy through a shutdown of the Strait. In reality, a total shutdown has the most severe impact on Iran. Almost 90 per cent of Iran’s crude exports, and about 80 per cent of its total exports, depend on the transit through Hormuz. Around 25 per cent of Iranian GDP and 60 per cent of government revenues depend completely on having the Strait open.
Before the war, Iran was exporting roughly 1.7 million barrels per day, receiving around $160 million in daily revenue from exports via the Strait. Thus, Trump’s full closure of the Strait costs Tehran hundreds of millions of dollars a day in losses, not accounting for the additional fiscal and currency consequences in a country already facing an economic disaster with 40–50% inflation. The complete dependence on the Strait of Hormuz also adds to another weakness: 95% of Iranian crude at sea is sold to a single buyer, China. Tehran is not selling into a diversified and open market. Its exports are sold to a monopsony that demands large discounts, between 10 and 11 dollars per barrel.
These weaknesses were visible long before the war. Capital flight reached $15 billion in the first half of 2025 alone; the rial collapsed against the dollar, and the government’s budget, which allocates 51 per cent of oil revenues to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, became even more dependent on a single export route it could not afford to close. When the war began, Iranian crude shipments collapsed by 94%. Then, the United States’ decision to block all Iran export vessels showed that Iran’s chokepoint had become self-choking. In the past 30 days, 80% of the essential volumes that moved through the Strait have been rerouted or offset by other oil producers, including US record exports.
The world is very different from what the Iran regime thought. In 2025, U.S. crude oil production hit a new annual record of 13.6 million barrels per day, making the United States the world’s largest producer but also the biggest exporter. The United States shipped 5.2 million barrels per day of crude and 7.2 million barrels per day of petroleum products in March 2026, both global records. For the first time, America exported more petroleum than it imported, by a net margin of almost 2.8 million barrels per day, according to the EIA. Total US liquids production now exceeds that of Saudi Arabia and Russia combined.
On the natural gas side, U.S. LNG exports reached well over 15 billion cubic feet per day, surpassing Qatar and Australia to make the United States the world’s largest liquefied natural gas exporter, while U.S. dry gas production exceeds the combined output of Russia, Iran, and China. Furthermore, the United States is also the world’s largest producer of nuclear electricity, at roughly 30 per cent of global generation, and a global leader in renewable energy.
When President Trump could say in April 2026 that the United States was “clearing the Strait as a favour to countries around the world, including China, Japan, Korea, and Germany,” the framing was an accurate description of who needs Hormuz open and who does not. Only 4% of the traffic through the Strait goes to the United States, according to SP Global. According to the International Energy Agency, throughput at Hormuz collapsed from its long-run average of about 20 million barrels per day to 3.8 million since the beginning of the war through the second week of April. Daily ship transits fell roughly 95 per cent. The Tehran regime, in a gesture more theatrical than realistic, attempted to levy a $2 million toll on each vessel crossing the strait, without understanding that the move showed desperation instead of leverage.
The US response has been the most important measure deployed against Iran in two decades of standoffs. Operation Economic Fury established a full naval blockade of Iranian ports. Iranian naval losses in the first 38 days of combat exceeded 150 vessels. The ceasefire framework under negotiation requires Iran to reopen Hormuz, but the US maintains control. Thus, negotiations revolve around Iranian dismantlement, not American concessions.
The lesson is not just that Iran miscalculated but that it massively underestimated its obvious weaknesses. The United States is not a hostage of the Gulf; it is the guarantee of its safe sea lanes. Europe is tied to U.S. LNG while keeping a substantial Russian dependence, which complicates its energy security and makes it vulnerable to fluctuations in supply and price from both sources. Asia’s largest economies, particularly China, are suffering the marginal cost of a Hormuz disruption, which has led to increased energy prices and supply chain uncertainties that further exacerbate their economic challenges. Iran’s economic nightmare has only started.
Three important factors must be considered. First, the traditional Hormuz risk premium in Brent, which refers to the additional cost added to oil prices due to geopolitical tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, is structurally smaller than in the 2010s because U.S. supply can absorb shocks that previously had no substitute. The Brent price is lower in real and nominal terms than in the 2008, 2018, or 2022 peaks. Second, the strength of American energy, including economics, export infrastructure, and LNG capacity, has become a key global geopolitical variable, influencing global energy prices and the strategic decisions of other nations.
Third, Iran’s economy has not only suffered damage; it has also been demolished, and its extremely weak fiscal position indicates that it cannot sustain the threat posture in Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz remains the world’s most important chokepoint. However, a chokepoint hurts whoever depends on it most, and Iran relies on it completely. The United States does not. The geopolitical advantage that Tehran once held has now become its greatest weakness, likely leading to the disappearance of the regime’s effective bargaining power.

“It is one thing for the people (of Iran) to be ruled by globally feared autocrats armed to the teeth, but quite another to be governed by humiliated, now impotent incompetents and buffoons.” —VDH

• Things Get Interesting-er (James Howard Kunstler)

Wednesday the US / Iran ceasefire expires. It has been an interesting two weeks. The US used it to negotiate an end to hostilities, resupply our ships in the Arabian Sea, do maintenance on our ships and warplanes, dismantle Iran’s banking conduits, and blockade Hormuz to shut down the regime’s remaining income flow. The Iranians used it to jump up and down and go woo-woo-woo. They also tried to dig out the entrances of their bombed caves and tunnels to unearth whatever’s left of their hidden missile launchers. Our satellites watched everything they did and mapped the coordinates.

Negotiations? So far, not fruitful, if termination of hostilities and surrender of Iran’s uranium is the goal. We’re not even sure the Iranians we’re negotiating with have any real authority to make a deal. Iran’s government at this point is a hash of conflicting factions: the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), which is a large Jihadi mafia that happens to own half of Iran’s economy and controls its advanced missile and drone weaponry; the regular Army (Artesh) which would theoretically defend against a ground invasion, but otherwise just stands by; and the civilian government represented by President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibef — none of whom seem to hold any real decision-making power.
America’s negotiators, led by Veep Vance along with Messrs. Witkoff and Kushner, will land back in Islamabad, Pakistan, today (Monday, April 20). Our deal is still on the table. It’s pretty straightforward: the aforementioned uranium plus a twenty-year halt of nuclear activities with no path toward a weapon; full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz; an end to Iranian support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis; phased-out sanctions and access to frozen assets; and cessation of hostilities.
Events over the weekend argue that Iran is not finished playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes. They tried to run the Hormuz blockade on Sunday with an incoming cargo ship, the Iranian-flagged M/V Touska. The USS destroyer Spruance, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, blew a hole clean through its engine room and then seized the vessel. Its cargo remains undisclosed for now.
Iran claims that it has closed the Strait of Hormuz. The US said it was already closed via the US blockade (we closed it harder). Iran can’t surreptitiously move any oil out to sell to China or run supplies into the country. Iran will lose about $500-million a day and China will lose the majority of its oil imports. China will jump up and down and go woo-woo-woo over that, while the IRGC will lose its last remaining income stream, meaning no pay for anyone. Let’s see if that prompts an attitude change.
If Iran can’t move its oil, it will soon reach the limit of its oil storage capacity, meaning it will have to shut down its oil wells. If that happens, the hydrology is such that water invasion of the underground strata will permanently damage the oil fields. Iran is between a rock and a squishy place.
That might be enough to force a deal in the hours ahead. President Trump has made it clear that the time for Iran jerking-around the US is over. So then, it’s back to Power Station and Bridge Day (blowing them up). That would be extremely unfortunate for the ordinary Iranian people. They are unarmed and helpless to resist the maniacs of the IRGC who would allow Power Station and Bridge Day to happen, who, in effect, don’t really care about the ordinary people of Iran.
However, the regular Iranian army, the Artesh, does have weapons (they are the army and armies are generally armed). Perhaps they will use them to put the insane jihadi IRGC out of business. After all, the Artesh’s mission is defense on-the-ground of the Iranian homeland, and just now the biggest threat to Iran is the IRGC. I guess we’ll have to wait on that and watch..

All the (well, 6) articles that follow can be put under the same topic: TDS.

While Trump is hardly mentioned in them.

“Maria Bartiromo asked Patel if the FBI has evidence of election fraud in 2020.”

FBI director says arrests are coming related to 2016 Russia probe: ‘Never going to let this go’

• Kash Patel: Arrests Due In 2016 Russia Probe: Never Going To Let This Go (JTN)

FBI Director Kash Patel said on Sunday that “arrests” are coming related to the Russia investigation of potential collusion between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign. “I am never going to let this go,” Patel said on “Mornings with Maria” on Fox News. “We’ve got all the evidence. I can announce on your show that we’ve got all the information we need. We’re working with our prosecutors at the Department of Justice under AG Todd Blanche, and we are going to be making arrests – and it’s coming and I promise, you, it’s coming soon,” he added.

Host Maria Bartiromo asked Patel if the FBI has evidence of election fraud in 2020. “So what we are doing is folding that into our entire conspiracy case,” Patel said. “But we have the information that backs President Trump’s claim (of the stolen election)…but I would say stay tuned this week. You might see a thing or two.” Patel also said he is going to sue The Atlantic on Monday.

He was addressing 2016, 2019 and 2020.

• Kash Patel Makes Promise: Arrests Are Coming Over 2020 Election (Margolis)

FBI Director Kash Patel dropped a bombshell Sunday morning that the legacy media will do everything to attack. Appearing on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, Patel announced that arrests are coming over the coordinated effort to rig the 2020 election. “We are going to be making arrests, and it’s coming, and I promise you, it’s coming soon,” Patel said. That’s not a vague promise from a bureaucrat hedging his bets. That’s the sitting FBI director going on record, on camera, with a direct commitment to the American people that we’re finally going to see some accountability over the shenanigans that took place during the 2020 elections.

Bartiromo, for her part, wasn’t interested in vague assurances. In fact, she set the stage by noting what any honest observer already knows — President Donald Trump has been saying the 2020 election was rigged since, well, 2020. She pressed Patel directly on what he had actually done about it over the past 14 months. His answer was unambiguous. Patel reminded viewers that he wasn’t new to this fight. Long before he ran the FBI, he was in the trenches on the House Intelligence Committee alongside Trey Gowdy, John Ratcliffe, and Devin Nunes, exposing the FISA abuses that targeted Trump’s first presidential campaign. The media came after him then, too — something he clearly wears as a badge of honor.
“That just shows you that when you’re over the target, you keep pummeling the target because the media’s gonna try and pummel you,” Patel said. He wasn’t done. Patel revealed that when he took over the FBI, what he found inside the building went beyond anything that had been publicly reported. Hidden rooms. Restricted and prohibited case files are buried deep in computer systems, deliberately placed where investigators wouldn’t find them. This is the kind of institutional concealment that doesn’t happen by accident. “I had to come in here and find rooms that they hid from the world,” he said. “I had to come in here and find access on our computer systems in restricted and prohibited case files that they purposely put in places for no one to see and find.”
Think about that for a moment. The FBI — the nation’s top law enforcement agency — had evidence stashed away in places designed to keep it from ever seeing daylight. But, sure, the 2020 election was entirely above board. Seriously, if that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about what the previous regime was up to, nothing will. Patel also confirmed that the FBI has already indicted former Director James Comey, and that the case is now working its way through the judicial process. But Sunday’s announcement made clear that Comey isn’t the end of the story — he may just be the beginning.
“I can announce on your show that we’ve got all the information we need,” Patel said. “We’re working with our prosecutors at Department of Justice and their Attorney General Todd Blanche.” He also offered some perspective on why this investigation has taken as long as it has. The corruption being dismantled wasn’t built overnight. “They built this disease temple over 20 and 30 years,” Patel said. Decades of entrenched rot don’t get cleaned up in a single news cycle. For years, conservatives have been told to wait—that accountability was just around the corner, that justice was coming. The promised reckoning never seemed to arrive. Patel is now staking his credibility on the claim that this time is different. He says arrests are coming. Faster, please. Faster.

What can I say? Watch. A decade of Trump abuse gets answers.

• Maria Bartiromo Questions FBI Director Kash Patel About Ongoing Issues (CTH)

FBI Director Kash Patel appears on Fox News Sunday to discuss ongoing FBI issues with Maria Bartiromo. Beginning with the issue of missing scientists, Kash Patel notes the FBI is “working with partners in various jurisdictions” to review each case and identify if something more nefarious is afoot. The questioning then shifts to an explosive accusation by The Atlantic about his drinking, partying and indulgences within his position. Patel notes he is going to sue the Atlantic for defamation. Maria Bartiromo also asks if Kash Patel has seen any evidence of the 2020 election fraud as outlined by President Trump for several years. Patel notes he cannot talk about ongoing investigations but hints that more information is likely to come out within the next few weeks.
.

From my personal perspective, Kash Patel does like the indulgences that come with the office. However, I think the accusations against him are likely spurred by disgruntled FBI agents and DOJ officials with an axe to grind. That said, it still doesn’t appear that Director Patel has his arms around the agency he leads, and it is not uncommon to find people within the Trump administration who are frustrated with ongoing dubious activity carried out by remnant FBI officials who are not being brought to heel.

And as Kash Patel is moving into action, his targets are calling their press partners.

• The Atlantic’s Kash Patel Hit Piece Is Backfiring – Badly (Brad Slager)

Official word has already come out today: A lawsuit has been filed against the media outlet The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick. FBI Director Kash Patel has now filed the suit, delivering on his promise made over this weekend that he would do so in response to a hitpiece article published by the outlet on Friday, April 17.

In the article, Fitzpatrick alleged that Patel is frequently intoxicated on the job, has a horrific job performance, and that this has led to a morale problem throughout the Bureau. There has been word that this story was somewhat circulating around D.C., but that no outlet was willing to risk running such speculation. The Atlantic, however, was more than willing to do so, and as I will show in moments, this is in line with the character of that outlet.
The talk over the weekend that this had been a passed-around story that few outlets would touch is hinted at by Fitzpatrick’s teaming up with Jonathan Lemire from MS NOW for the piece. They claim they based this reporting on speaking with some White House officials, and as Sarah explained, it is “according to the more than two dozen people I interviewed about Patel’s conduct.” Who these people are and what their positions entail for them to deliver empirical wisdom on these matters is a complete mystery, for, as we have become more than accustomed to, this is all relying on anonymous sourcing. This is just the beginning of the flaws in this hit piece. How is it you speak to 25 or more people, and not one of them has the stones to admit to their status?
Let us take a look at these people Fitzpatrick and Lemire relied upon for their reporting. Those White House contacts? A complete mystery, as they are nameless. So too are all of the officials at the FBI slamming Patel’s character. But more than these ciphers are cited. We are also hearing from former FBI figures, staffers from different agencies (hardly high-placed sourcing), as well as political operatives (about the least valid of the lot), lobbyists (excuse me, but what?!), and hospitality-service work. So…bartenders and waitresses are part of your sourcing?!
Meanwhile, it was more than Kash Patel objecting to this report. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shot down these claims and touted Patel’s accomplishments. Ben Williamson from the FBI official public affairs office, the assistant to that office, Erika Knight, Patel’s legal counsel, and the man who worked alongside Patel during his confirmation, Clint Brown, each disputed the claims made. The difference? All of those people are named because they were on the record, yet those people are all discounted because we see how Fitzpatrick and Lemire were on an agenda. Williamson alluded to the common practice we see from the press these days, which I describe in my Townhall media column as The Deadline Gambit.
This is the tactic of a full report on an individual being worked on for weeks, with multiple sources and deep background established, and then the main focus of the piece is given a brief window to “respond” to the report. Try to conjure the amount of time spent by Fitzpatrick to craft this report, from over two dozen sources, then look at Williamson saying they had just two hours to respond to all of that before publication. They sent off the letter to The Atlantic, warning of impending litigation if they went forward, and this appeared to at least generate some changes. At The Daily Beast, they felt they had another “gotcha” moment, revealing a lack of cerebral processing heft when they breathlessly reported:
“Kash Patel’s legal team has revealed more allegations were leveled against him than were published in a bombshell report by The Atlantic—and said what they were. That means that the letter, which came from a personal attorney for Patel rather than from the FBI’s own counsel, effectively put what it describes as false and defamatory statements into public circulation.”Allow me to help you folks out here. You see, after the lawyer contacted them with this letter, it is clear that Fitzpatrick, and/or her editors, pulled some items from the piece out of fear of further litigation. This was not a case of mistakenly exposing something; they were being transparent in showing the flawed reporting taking place.

The amusement is@S_Fitzpatrick postures like she did not receive pushback on her Patel hit-piece from the WhiteHouse: she printed Karoline Leavitt’s remarks.
Sarah was also given 100% denials from Patel, and his lawyer, despite just given a couple of hours to comment.
1/2
— Lie-Able Sources (@LieAbleSources) April 20, 2026

Sarah Fitzpatrick appeared with Jenn Psaki on Sunday, and she displayed a high level of false bravado when asked about her article and the lawsuit that was threatened at the time. It is unclear how she can say the White House did not refute things when, in her piece, she quotes Karoline Leavitt responding to her questions. And again, there were the complete blanket denials from Patel and his lawyer. But there is more amusement: As she holds up the reputation of The Atlantic, let’s remember what this outlet is all about. This is the same outlet whose managing editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, put out the slanderous stories of President Trump calling fallen soldiers “suckers and losers.”
Goldberg was also the one who claimed Trump insulted a fallen female Marine and reneged on paying for funeral expenses, as her family completely called the story a lie. Yep, just a sterling publication, that. Better still is how Fitzpatrick touts the mastery of their lawyers, as there is a small detail needed to be overlooked. It was just last September when that outlet settled a $1 million defamation case with a former writer. This was a rather clear case of guilt, as Ruth Shalit-Barrett asked for that very sum in her filing. So, for those rubbing their hands in glee over what may be exposed in discovery, this is not exactly a news outlet with a rock-solid reputation.

Joseph diGenova is 81 years old. He’s a longtime Trump legal advisor floating to the top.

• DOJ Moves In Florida Signals Major Escalation In Russiagate Criminal Probe (ZH)

The Department of Justice appears to be gaining fresh momentum in its criminal investigation into the 2016 Trump-Russia collusion narrative, with a significant overhaul of the team handling the case in southern Florida.

According to investigative journalist Julie Kelly’s reporting at Declassified.live, longtime Trump legal advisor Joe diGenova – a former U.S. Attorney and prominent commentator – will be sworn in Monday as counsel to the attorney general. He will assume leadership of the ongoing grand jury probe based in Fort Pierce, the district overseen by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. That same courthouse was the site of Cannon’s landmark July 2024 ruling dismissing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case against President Trump after she found Smith’s appointment unconstitutional. The grand jury has been active in Fort Pierce since January, Kelly reports.
DiGenova’s wife, Victoria Toensing, has also served as a key Trump legal counselor for years. In a notable earlier move, the Biden Justice Department seized Toensing’s cellphone in April 2021 during a separate inquiry tied to Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to examine the Biden family’s overseas dealings.
But wait, there’s more…
The addition of DiGenova isn’t the only retooling. Earlier this week, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche removed the career prosecutor previously in charge of the investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, who played a key role in concocting the Trump-Russia collusion scheme in 2016. According to CNN, assistant U.S. Attorney Maria Medetis Long was ousted “after she resisted pressure to quickly bring charges against the former CIA director and prominent critic of President Donald Trump.” Meditis Long notified lawyers representing several individuals who have received subpoenas or interview requests related to the investigation that she was off the case, the New York Times reported on Friday. -Declassified Live
Blanche has also sent one of his senior aides, Christopher-James DeLorenz – who clerked for Judge Cannon during the documents litigation – to the Fort Pierce team.
These changes come shortly after President Trump dismissed former Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier this month, citing dissatisfaction with the pace of the Russiagate accountability effort. In a pointed press conference days later, Blanche—whom Trump immediately named acting attorney general—made clear the department’s direction. “The president has said time and time again that he wants justice,” Blanche told reporters. “If you look at what happened to him, his family, his administration, the agents who protected him, people who just happened to walk by him on a given day, they got subjected to…massive investigations by this department.”
Blanche speaks from direct experience: he defended Trump in both the Florida documents case and the Manhattan hush-money prosecution brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Earlier this year the Justice Department did secure indictments against a small number of figures tied to the lawfare campaign, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Those cases were later dismissed, however, after a judge ruled that the appointment of the acting U.S. Attorney who filed them, Lindsey Halligan, was improper. That decision is now under appeal in the Fourth Circuit.
Still, many Trump supporters are demanding deeper accountability. While the initial charges brought some satisfaction, the expectation is for more significant action. A potential indictment of Brennan – who many view as a top target – now looks increasingly likely. He was recently subpoenaed in connection with his 2023 congressional testimony, in which he denied that the discredited Steele dossier influenced his 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment alleging Russian election interference on Trump’s behalf.
Brennan’s legal team has reacted with alarm. In a highly unusual letter sent last December to the chief judge of the 11th Circuit, his attorneys urged the court to block the probe from proceeding in Fort Pierce—viewed as a more conservative venue than Miami—and to bar Judge Cannon from any involvement. The letter claimed that Cannon’s prior rulings created the appearance of favoritism toward Trump and accused prosecutors of deliberately steering the case to her courtroom in line with what they called the president’s political retribution agenda.
If diGenova’s role expands beyond Brennan to encompass a wider “grand conspiracy” review – potentially covering everything from the roots of Russiagate through January 6, the Mar-a-Lago raid, and the conduct of the now-disqualified special counsel – additional high-profile targets could come into focus. Among them are individuals already the subject of criminal referrals sitting with the DOJ, including Thomas Windom (referred by House Judiciary Chairman James Jordan for alleged obstruction during congressional depositions) and January 6 committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson, accused of fabricating testimony about an incident in the presidential vehicle. This week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also referred two former officials—Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson and analyst Eric Ciaramella – for their roles in advancing the 2019 Ukraine-related impeachment allegations against Trump. Both men have documented connections to the original Russiagate players.
Even Jack Smith may not be fully in the clear. Recent reporting from CBS News indicates that Florida prosecutors are examining documents linked to Smith’s prior investigation of the president. Smith could additionally face scrutiny for allegedly continuing to hold himself out as special counsel in court filings long after Cannon disqualified him, raising questions of contempt and potential false statements to Congress.
As Julie Kelly observed in her Declassified.live piece, diGenova—still energetic and far from retirement age—may be exactly the experienced, no-nonsense figure needed to bring decisive momentum to the Florida investigation and deliver the accountability many have long awaited.

Sundance: “..diGenova sees the connective tissue -the actual characters- flowing from Spygate, through Russiagate, into the Mueller investigation, then into the impeachment effort and then into the Jack Smith operation. Seeing the big picture is the first step.”

• AAG Todd Blanche Moves diGenova and DeLorenz to South Florida Group (CTH)

A formal announcement is likely tomorrow; however, leading information now affirms Acting AG Todd Blanche is moving Joe DiGenova and Christopher-James DeLorenz into positions in South Florida to assist U.S. Attorney Jason Quiñones in ongoing investigation of the Donald Trump targeting. The venue puts any grand jury information in the court orbit of Judge Aileen Cannon. Before getting into the substance, the alignment here is critical to understand. Judge Cannon saw firsthand exactly what the Lawfare constructs consist of when she had the Jack Smith operation in her court during the Mar-a-Lago documents case. Judge Cannon knows the context of weaponized justice and saw the techniques through first-hand experience. This cannot be emphasized enough.

There are a lot of people who want to see some form of accountability finally delivered for the decade-long corrupt Lawfare operation that took place against Donald Trump before he took office (Spygate), during his administration (Russiagate, Mueller, Impeachment), after he left office took office (Jack Smith and Mar-a-Lago) and even through today (Judicial Intervention). Many of those voices have concerns about 81-year-old Joe diGenova, so let me address that first by pointing out how the issues that frame the criticism are also a valuable asset.
Joe diGenova has a very rare current perspective; he completely sees the timeline of Trump targeting for what it is. This is immensely valuable because not enough people understand the complex continuum enough to stand back and see the bigger picture. diGenova sees the bigger picture. diGenova can see the 2015/2016 FBI contractor political spying operation (Spygate) and how it connects to the later Fusion GPS/Clinton construct of Russiagate. More importantly, diGenova sees the connective tissue -the actual characters- flowing from Spygate, through Russiagate, into the Mueller investigation, then into the impeachment effort and then into the Jack Smith operation. Seeing the big picture is the first step.
Now, critics point out that diGenova is a creature of DC. Yes, that is true. However, that’s also an asset given that he understands just how difficult it is to navigate through all of these ridiculous DC interests. diGenova is also a character, boisterous perhaps intemperate and easy to Alinsky (isolate, ridicule, marginalize). So what? It doesn’t matter who is involved in this effort, they are going to be Alinsky’d by the Lawfare operatives on the other side.
Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing see the big picture and have a skillset to tell the story. They can assist brilliantly and direct the telling of the story by connecting the lead prosecutors to the background script of how everything unfolded over the past decade. If Quiñones is researching a “conspiracy” case, it is the primary job of the investigative researchers to connect each of the evidence dots to the larger conspiracy. Sounds perfect for diGenova.
diGenova can put the prior weaponization into a timeline and from that timeline extract the step-by-step evidence that proves it. This timeline of targeting and how it is all connected has been missing in every investigative review up to now. That’s the value of diGenova. This doesn’t mean diGenova is in the courtroom per se’, but rather he’s the one explaining the sequencing of witnesses for a grand jury and how the questioning of one might relate to the questioning of another. Christopher-James DeLorenz has the skillset of knowing Judge Aileen Cannon and the internal machinery of a modern Main Justice. Put them together and the lead prosecutor in Florida has a formidable team putting the details onto the table in front of him/her.
This could have been done in DC years ago by the House Select Subcommittee on Weaponization; however, they did not have the skillset nor the operational strength to push through the DC politics as a group. Former Representative Dan Bishop is a current U.S. Attorney in North Carolina, and he said it wasn’t fear that screwed up the subcommittee effort as it was republican political leadership stopping the subcommittee from aggressively investigating the whole matter, the big picture. There are rumors that Blanche has assigned diGenova because President Trump is frustrated with Main Justice on this issue. I don’t know if that is true, but jumping ju-ju-bones – could you blame Trump?

In full, they call this: “Trump’s 2019 Ukraine Impeachment”.

Something to think about. Remember Biden firing the prosecutor?

• 5 Stories Democrats Told During Trump’s 2019 Impeachment Have Crumbled (JTN)

Several Republicans, including the influential House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, are throwing their weight behind an effort to repudiate or expunge the 2019 House impeachment vote against President Donald Trump after years of belated bombshells eroded most of the scandalous narrative Democrats sold to America seven years ago.

The latest evidence to boomerang on the 2019 Democrat House impeachment managers came last week when Just the News successfully persuaded Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to release long-secret memos showing the intelligence community had raised red flags about the credibility and political motives of the CIA analyst who prompted the scandal with a tale that Trump had wrongly pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate the Biden family.
Exculpatory evidence withheld from the congressional proceedings in 2019 and 2020: Back in 2019, it was taboo to question anything about the CIA analyst or even to mention his name, now confirmed to be retired CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella. But it turns out Democrats like then-Rep. Adam Schiff as well as the intelligence community’s chief watchdog at the time, Michael Atkinson, withheld from the public some bombshell revelations, according to the memos that Gabbard released last Sunday. Those memos showed Atkinson’s investigators had flagged the CIA analyst for having “potential for bias,” noted he had provided false information in his initial complaint, had apologized for the falsehood and held animus toward conservatives inside Trump’s circles.
Gabbard blasted Atkinson’s work, suggesting the former watchdog had “weaponized the whistleblower process” and used his office to “manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump.” She referred both Atkinson and Ciaramella to the Justice Department for possible criminal investigation. The fact that such relevant information was kept from Trump’s defense team to use at the impeachment proceedings touched of a firestorm, with famed law professor Alan Dershowitz becoming the first to suggest it was evidence enough to warrant expunging the 2019 impeachment vote. Soon, many Republicans rallied around the idea, including Jordan, Rep. Claudia Tenney and Trump himself.
But the illusion of an untouchable, unimpeachable star “whistleblower” isn’t the only tenet of the Democrat impeachment narrative to crack. Here are four other major parts of the story that Democrats wove together seven years ago that have fallen apart.
The Biden firing of Ukraine’s chief prosecutor
The scandal began in March 2019 when this reporter uncovered evidence in a series of columns in The Hill newspaper that revealed then-Vice President Joe Biden withheld $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Kyiv to force the firing in late 2015 of Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who at the time just happened to be investigating Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian employer, the energy firm Burisma Holdings. Shortly after the story broke, Team Biden locked into an alternate story: Shokin wasn’t really investigating Burisma that much, and Joe Biden only took the action because career officials wanted Shokin out for his weak efforts to fight corruption and had recommended that the vice president withhold the loan guarantees.
State Department officials like George Kent backed up the narrative in their impeachment testimony, Kent, for instance, answered “he did” when he was asked during his impeachment testimony whether Joe Biden acted consistent with U.S. policy when he used the loan guarantee as leverage to force Shokin’s firing. That story held for three years until Just the News sued to win documents showing a far different tale. State Department officials, including Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, had actually praised Shokin’s work fighting corruption, even sending him a letter of congratulations. You can read that here.
And contrary to what Biden claimed, a task force of State, Treasury and Justice Department officials had decided in fall 2015 that Ukraine and specifically Shokin had made adequate progress on anti-corruption reforms and deserved a new $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee. “Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee,” reads an Oct. 1, 2015, memo summarizing the recommendation of the Interagency Policy Committee (IPC) – a task force created to advise the Obama White House on whether Ukraine was cleaning up its endemic corruption and deserved more Western foreign aid.

“Some countries have embraced historical revanchism by seeking to revisit the Soviet victory over Nazism, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said..”

“They think… the Soviet victory in WWII was accidental and inadmissible. They think that now is the time to rectify this accident, or a mistake, as they see it..”

Russia watches how the west supports the nazis in Kiev.

• ‘Pandemic of Fascism’ Looming Over West – Moscow (RT)

The West is being swept by a “pandemic of historical revanchism” as it seeks to erase the memory of World War II and rewrite the Soviet victory over Nazi ideology, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has warned. Zakharova made the remarks in an interview with TASS on Sunday on the occasion of Russia’s Day of Remembrance of the Victims of the Genocide of the Soviet People, which is being observed for the first time this year. The spokeswoman said that while for a time Russia was absolutely certain that WWII was “a sacred topic for the whole world,” many Western countries adopted a different approach.

“They think… the Soviet victory in WWII was accidental and inadmissible. They think that now is the time to rectify this accident, or a mistake, as they see it,” Zakharova stated. She noted that Moscow used to regard revanchism as “some kind of small germ that would sit in the corner and not go anywhere.” Zakharova, however, said that even “from a small germ can then grow a huge, terrifying pandemic of historical revanchism,” adding that a similar warning could be found in the landmark 1965 Soviet film ‘Ordinary Fascism’ by Mikhail Romm, which became a cautionary tale about the rise and fall of the Nazi ideology as well as of its numerous crimes.
Some Western countries, Zakharova said, do not accept the results of WWII and the rulings of the Nuremberg Tribunal. “No, they do not want to give up the idea of taking over the Ukrainian black soil, Russian oil and gas,” she said, adding that Western ambitions extend to seizing the resources of Central Asia and the South Caucasus. She also cited an escalating war against monuments to those who fought Nazism, but said the most dangerous sign of revanchism was that “they want a revenge which would allow them to prevail in remaking the world order and seizing resources around the globe.”
Moscow has for years sounded the alarm about resurgent Nazi ideology in Europe, citing in particular marches in Baltic states honoring Waffen SS veterans. It has also pointed to torchlit marches celebrating the birthday of Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera, whose Ukrainian Insurgent Army collaborated with Nazi Germany and killed tens of thousands of Jews and Poles during WWII. Moscow has said Ukraine’s denazification is one of the key goals of its military operation against the neighboring state.

“Being investigated in France is “the new Legion d’honneur,” the Russian entrepreneur has said..”

• ‘Proud To Stand Alongside Elon Musk’ – Telegram’s Durov (RT)

France is weaponizing criminal prosecution in an attempt to suppress free speech, Telegram founder Pavel Durov has said, as he backed X owner Elon Musk in the social media platform’s legal case in the country. Durov made the remarks on Sunday after the Wall Street Journal reported that the US Department of Justice had rejected a French request for assistance in investigating X’s alleged role in distributing sexual deepfakes and unlawful data extraction. The DOJ letter stated that the French probe sought “to use the criminal legal system in France to regulate a public square for the free expression of ideas” and “to entangle the United States in a politically charged criminal proceeding.”

Musk has denied any wrongdoing and dismissed the probe as a “political attack.” Durov rallied behind the X owner, arguing that under President Emmanuel Macron, “France is losing legitimacy as it weaponizes criminal investigations to suppress free speech and privacy.” He also disputed the independence of French prosecutors, saying they “are hired, fired, and promoted by the government.” He added that “the judicial police – who provide often misleading reports to investigative judges – are also controlled by the government.” ”Proud to stand alongside Elon Musk and others targeted by Macron’s campaign against digital rights. In Macron’s France, being investigated is the new Legion d’honneur.”
The French investigation into X was first launched in January 2025, following allegations that the platform’s content algorithm showed bias and could constitute foreign interference. The case has since expanded to include scrutiny of anti-Semitic content, Holocaust denial, and AI-generated child sexual abuse material. Paris prosecutors raided X’s French offices in February 2026, and recently summoned Musk for a “voluntary” interview.
Durov – a citizen of France, Russia, the UAE, and St. Kitts and Nevis – has himself clashed with the French judicial system. He was arrested at a Paris airport in August 2024 and indicted on 12 charges, including alleged complicity in distributing child exploitation material and drug trafficking, after French prosecutors cited Telegram’s near-total failure to respond to legal requests.Durov’s travel ban was fully lifted in November 2025, though the formal investigation continues. Durov has called the arrest and probe “legally and logically absurd” and said its “only outcome” had been “massive damage to France’s image as a free country.”

“If the American Republic is to survive another 250 years, it must preserve key rights that the EU has been systematically destroying in Europe ..”

• The EU Moves to Destroy the Last Vestiges of National Sovereignty (Turley)

The defeat of Viktor Orban in Hungary last weekend was celebrated by many who saw the former president as establishing single-party rule in his central European nation. The irony is that this claimed victory for democracy may fuel the establishment of a global governance system that is neither democratic nor accountable to citizens. The European Union was criticized by many for taking sides in the Hungarian election and for undermining Orban, who asserted national priorities in disputes with the EU. No sooner had Orban conceded defeat than a jubilant European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for the final coup de grace for national identity and sovereignty: the elimination of the ability of nations to stand against EU policies.

Orban was controversial for his ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his lack of support for Ukraine. He was also accused of authoritarianism and corruption. I shared in some of those criticisms. However, the unintended consequence of this election could be the removal of a single autocrat in favor of a global bureaucracy. Van der Leyen helped elect the pro-EU Peter Magyar in order to remove a barrier to the EU’s ultimate exercise of power. The EU had been squeezing Hungary over its defiance by holding back billions in funds. Magyar is expected to be the perfect suppliant, willing to fall into line with the EU agenda.
The EU Chief has reportedly already given Magyar a list of 27 demands he must meet before she will turn the spigot back on. She did not try to hide the agenda, announcing that the EU needed to “use the momentum now” to consolidate its power. With Hungary out of the way, Von der Leyen is calling for the EU to finally do away with the last vestige of national sovereignty: the veto exercised by its member states. Under the plan, member states would lose control of their policy and could be forced to adhere to the priorities and values of the EU majority. The EU Chief celebrated the new day of global governance in the making: “Moving to qualified majority voting in foreign policy is an important way to avoid systemic blockages, as we have seen in the past.”
In “Rage and the Republic,” I discuss the dangers posed to the American republic this century by the rise of global governance systems like the EU. The book explores how globalists planned to gradually get nations to yield their authority to the EU — destroying national identity and sovereignty in favor of an EU bureaucracy in Brussels.As the EU moves to kill off national sovereignty, EU commissioners are calling for a single European military command, completing a longstanding globalist goal. The 250th anniversary of our republic is occurring as we face an unprecedented EU threat. Our revolution was fought against a foreign empire.
It now faces an even greater threat from a global government asserting the right to compel American companies to censor Americans and comply with environmental, social and governance or ESG policies. At the same time, American figures such as Hillary Clinton are encouraging the EU to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights using the infamous Digital Services Act to restore speech controls to social media. Other Americans have testified before the EU, calling on it to fight the U.S. Banners are now flying in Europe declaring, “We are the Free World Now,” as the globalists attempt to supplant freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
If the American Republic is to survive another 250 years, it must preserve key rights that the EU has been systematically destroying in Europe — freedom of speech, division of powers and political accountability of decision-makers. That is why, I believe, the EU is inherently unstable and likely to ultimately collapse.

“.. 28 refineries – more than 25% of the number of refineries and 16% of refining capacity – have been either shut or transformed since 2009 ..”

• Europe Faces Summer Jet Fuel Crisis As Iran War Slashes Supply (Paraskova)

Europe faces an imminent jet fuel crisis as the Iran war and Hormuz disruption cut off key Middle Eastern supplies. Long-term refinery closures and rising import dependence have left Europe highly exposed, with limited alternatives and growing competition from Asia. Airlines are already cutting capacity and warning of higher fares, with potential flight cancellations looming as fuel shortages intensify. Accelerated refinery closures in the past decade and increased dependence on kerosene from the Middle East have exposed Europe’s energy supply vulnerability once again.

For years, European consumers have had to contend with last-minute strikes of ground personnel and cabin crew during peak summer travel. This year, strikes may be viewed as a minor nuisance compared to what’s coming within weeks—a jet fuel supply crisis that could ground flights and hike fares.The war in Iran has cut most of Europe’s imports of jet fuel, while local output has been falling for nearly two decades due to dozens of refineries closing permanently or being converted to biofuel production.
The war in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have severely constrained Europe’s jet fuel supply, while jet fuel prices have spiked to over $200 per barrel. The last imports from the Middle East on tankers that had passed Hormuz before the war began have arrived, and there is only one alternative to source jet fuel—from the United States. These supplies are not only insufficient to replace the loss of Middle Eastern jet fuel. Europe faces increasingly fierce competition from Asia for these cargoes as the crisis first hit Asia with crude supply from the Middle East collapsing, Asian refiners cutting refinery runs, and countries imposing fuel export restrictions to preserve domestic supply.
Back in 2009, nearly 100 refineries were operating in Europe. Of these, 28 refineries – more than 25% of the number of refineries and 16% of refining capacity – have been either shut or transformed since 2009, according to data from the European Fuel Manufacturers Association. As refineries were closing, due to declining fuel demand in Europe and emission-reduction policies, the European dependence on imported supply has grown. The hit to supply from the Middle East caught Europe off guard regarding the security of energy supply for the second time in just four years, after natural gas deliveries from Russia crashed in 2022. This time, the jet fuel crisis could be imminent, analysts and forecasters warn.
Last year, Europe imported about a third of the jet fuel it consumed, with 75% of imports coming from the Middle East, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has said. Its executive director, Fatih Birol, this week warned that Europe has “maybe six weeks or so” of remaining jet fuel supply. “If we are not able to open the Strait of Hormuz … I can tell you soon we will hear the news that some of the flights from city A to city B might be canceled as a result of lack of jet fuel,” Birol told Associated Press in an interview.
Northwest Europe is one of the regions most exposed to the jet fuel crisis, as imports have dropped from historical norms this month, and the import decline is set to accelerate in the coming weeks as more U.S. jet fuel cargoes would go to Asia instead of Europe, Ernest Censier, market analyst at Vortexa, said in an analysis on Thursday. The 15% drop in European jet fuel imports so far in April “reflects structural dependence on Middle Eastern supply: approximately half of NWE’s jet fuel imports typically transit through the Strait of Hormuz,” Censier said.
In addition, relatively short voyage times of about 21 days from Mina Abdulla in Kuwait to Rotterdam mean that supply disruptions are transmitted quickly into regional imports, the analyst added. The U.S. has emerged as the key source of substitution for lost Middle Eastern supply, but this is unlikely to be sustained as U.S. jet/kerosene exports are increasingly being redirected toward the Pacific Basin, reaching a seven-year high this month, and now accounting for over 30% of total U.S. jet fuel exports. “This reallocation reflects a broader shift in US product exports toward the Pacific Basin,” Vortexa’s Censier noted. This leaves Europe highly exposed to the turbulence in the jet fuel markets.

Larry Ellison just asked the one question no journalist on Earth can answer.

A Wall Street Journal writer told Ellison to his face that Elon Musk doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Ellison didn’t argue. Didn’t get emotional. He just asked a question.

Ellison: “This guy is landing… pic.twitter.com/tNSDQ9tb7h
— Dustin (@r0ck3t23) April 19, 2026

Jensen Huang just made the case for American empire. Said it plain. Didn’t flinch. Didn’t walk it back. And almost nobody caught what he actually admitted.

Jensen Huang: “The amount of compute in the United States is a hundred times more than anywhere else in the world.”

One… pic.twitter.com/bMcuIrzX4i
— Dustin (@r0ck3t23) April 20, 2026

Elon Musk just said something that should terrify people more than any doomsday prediction.

Not that AI will make humanity poor.

That it will make us endlessly rich.

Musk: “It wouldn’t be Universal Basic Income, it would be Universal High Income.”

The entire AI debate has… pic.twitter.com/05AjXEzMGf
— Dustin (@r0ck3t23) April 19, 2026

Elon Musk vient de franchir les 800 milliards de dollars de fortune personnelle.

Les journalistes européens ont fait ce qu'ils font toujours : chercher le scandale, l'inégalité, la provocation politique.
Personne n'a posé la question qui compte vraiment.

Pourquoi ce mec est-il… pic.twitter.com/lXw7iPw2PC
— Jon De Lorraine (@jon_delorraine) April 19, 2026

https://twitter.com/crsanchezx/status/2045930121391985025?s=20

As a 41 year old real estate developer, Donald Trump was speaking up about how America was getting ripped off by the rest of the world.

It’s crazy to hear him talk about everything he is currently fixing almost 40 years ago!

He has been talking about how to make America great… pic.twitter.com/PML3bK2MnU
— SHADOW INTEL (@shadowintel2) April 19, 2026

Fun fact.

In its final stage, BYD new factory in Zhengzhou will cover 50 square miles, which is larger than San Francisco's surface at 46.9 square miles.

Watch its sheer size.pic.twitter.com/7wAIewEwPE
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) April 20, 2026

The CIA CLASSIFIED a 1950s study showing anti-parasitics disrupt cancer growth—and kept it BURIED for over HALF A CENTURY.

Millions of cancer victims have paid the price as this vital line of research was set back DECADES. https://t.co/mqHBHyN2NP pic.twitter.com/GFAf6LVNds
— Nicolas Hulscher, MPH (@NicHulscher) April 19, 2026

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

Debt Rattle April 20 2026

Apr 202026

April 20, 2026 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:18 am Finance Tagged with: Atlantic, Butler, Candace Owens, Hormuz, Iran, JD Vance, MAGA, MTG, Tucker Carlson, Turkey, Zakharova 42 Responses »

Edgar Degas Les repasseuses (women ironing) 1884

• Trump’s Cryptic ‘The End Is Near’ Post Sends Internet Into A Frenzy (MN)

• Trump Warns Iran: ‘No More Mr. Nice Guy’ (Margolis)

• Turkey Could Be ‘Next Iran’ For Israel: US Envoy Scrambles To Calm Tensions (MEE)

• Netanyahu Left ‘Personally Stunned’ By Trump Rhetoric On Lebanon Strikes (ZH)

• Will This Atlantic Hit Piece Be the Final Straw? (Margolis)

• The Enigma of JD Vance (Alan Joseph Bauer)

• Will Spain’s Supreme Court Block Mass Legalization Of Migrants? (RMX)

• Will Ukraine Forcibly Conscript Women To Fight On The Frontline? (RMX)

• Chief Justice Roberts Faces Two Strikes After New Leak Rocks the Court (Turley)

• West Still Wants To Seize Ukrainian Black Soil, Russian Oil – Zakharova (TASS)

• Circling the Drain Phase of Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens Gimmick (Pinsker)

• Marjorie Taylor Greene Amplifies Viral Doubts About Butler (ZH)

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2045684789802336442?s=20

WOW

CIA + 51 spies CAUGHT plotting a COUP in 2020…

Brennan e-mails: “Add your name…we’re burying Hunter’s Laptop to save the vegetable Biden.”

Gina Haspel signed off. Deep State literally rigged the election on camera.

THIS IS TREASON WITH RECEIPTS… pic.twitter.com/DEPmBK6WOJ
— Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) April 18, 2026

https://twitter.com/JudyMaxB/status/2045542891616194898?s=20

Obama and his entire administration including Hillary Clinton were caught red-handed in a coup to overthrow President Trump and the United States government itself.

Why did they do this? To maintain power and control, continue their taxpayer fed money laundering and trafficking… pic.twitter.com/GmnteKT78n
— The SCIF (@TheSCIF) April 19, 2026

https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/2045628818602459221?s=20 https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2045552110100758533?s=20

Trump plays the West like a fiddle.

But Iran is going for what they know best: the long game. That’s not Trump.

• Trump’s Cryptic ‘The End Is Near’ Post Sends Internet Into A Frenzy (MN)

In a development that quickly fueled online speculation, President Trump posted a video of Frank Sinatra performing his signature hit “My Way” on social media with no accompanying text or explanation. The move came just hours after he convened a high-level meeting in the White House Situation Room to discuss the ongoing standoff with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. The post featured the classic track whose lyrics speak of independence and resolve. While Trump has long used the song at rallies, inaugurals, and even as Air Force One departed at the end of his first term, its sudden appearance amid rising tensions drew immediate attention.

Trump posted a video of Frank Sinatra performing “My Way”.

“And now, the end is near / And so I face the final curtain…
⁰Regrets, I’ve had a few / But then again, too few to mention…
⁰I did it my way.” pic.twitter.com/9y4aPnloZj
— Clash Report (@clashreport) April 19, 2026

this one is far Worst than his end of the whole civilization threat. Donald Trump is becoming so erratic and unstable. pic.twitter.com/thlIdCaf8K
— Mars Jupiter (@sen_ven49488) April 19, 2026

This latest social media activity follows fresh statements from Trump on Truth Social addressing direct accusations of Iranian ceasefire violations. In the post, shared widely on X by accounts including RedWave Press, Trump laid out his position clearly:
“Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz — A Total Violation of our Ceasefire Agreement! Many of them were aimed at a French Ship, and a Freighter from the United Kingdom. That wasn’t nice, was it? My Representatives are going to Islamabad, Pakistan — They will be there tomorrow evening, for Negotiations. Iran recently announced that they were closing the Strait, which is strange, because our BLOCKADE has already closed it. They’re helping us without knowing, and they are the ones that lose with the closed passage, $500 Million Dollars a day! The United States loses nothing.”
He added, “In fact, many Ships are headed, right now, to the U.S., Texas, Louisiana, and Alaska, to load up, compliments of the IRGC, always wanting to be ‘the tough guy!’ We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY! They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END!”

MOMENTS AGO: President Trump on Truth Social: “Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz — A Total Violation of our Ceasefire Agreement! Many of them were aimed at a French Ship, and a Freighter from the United Kingdom. That wasn’t nice, was it? My… pic.twitter.com/8s0ytsYCHE
— RedWave Press (@RedWavePress) April 19, 2026

After a U.S.-brokered 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon took effect, Iran initially announced the Strait of Hormuz was open to commercial vessels for the truce period. Oil prices dropped on the news. But the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) quickly reversed course, citing the continued U.S. blockade of Iranian ports and ships. Iranian officials, including Parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, warned that without concessions the strait would remain closed.
Trump has maintained that the American blockade will stay in place until Tehran reaches a broader agreement that includes commitments on its nuclear program. He has described conversations with Iranian counterparts as productive but stressed that the U.S. position will not shift without concrete steps from the other side. No new direct talks are currently scheduled.
Saturday’s Situation Room session included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. According to Axios reporting, the focus was on assessing ceasefire compliance and preparing for possible next steps in negotiations. No immediate policy changes were announced afterward.
This episode echoes dynamics we previously covered, when major outlets claimed Trump was preparing to “nuke” Iran ahead of a deadline tied to the same Strait of Hormuz standoff. The White House pushed back firmly at the time, clarifying that any potential action would be conventional strikes on infrastructure rather than nuclear weapons. Media speculation ran hot then, much as it has with today’s cryptic post.
As of this writing, U.S. representatives are set to arrive in Islamabad, Pakistan, tomorrow evening for indirect negotiations. Iran has not publicly responded to the latest Trump statement, and shipping interests continue to watch developments closely given the strait’s critical role in global energy flows. The situation remains fluid, with both sides signaling openness to a deal while holding firm on core demands. Whether the current pressure and diplomatic track yield results or further escalation will depend on the coming days of talks.

Did they think he was a nice guy?

• Trump Warns Iran: ‘No More Mr. Nice Guy’ (Margolis)

President Donald Trump is done playing nice with Iran — and he wants Tehran to know exactly what that means. After Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps fired on multiple ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, Trump took to social media with a message that left zero room for ambiguity. Trump said Iran violated a ceasefire agreement by opening fire in the Strait of Hormuz, describing the incident as a serious escalation. He claimed that multiple vessels were targeted, including a French ship and a British freighter. “Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz — A Total Violation of our Ceasefire Agreement!” Trump said. “Many of them were aimed at a French Ship, and a Freighter from the United Kingdom. That wasn’t nice, was it?”

Trump added that U.S. representatives are headed to Pakistan for negotiations, signaling that diplomatic efforts are still underway. “My Representatives are going to Islamabad, Pakistan — They will be there tomorrow evening, for Negotiations,” he said. At the same time, Trump suggested that Iran’s own actions have effectively reinforced a U.S. blockade in the region. “Iran recently announced that they were closing the Strait, which is strange, because our BLOCKADE has already closed it,” he said. “They’re helping us without knowing, and they are the ones that lose with the closed passage, $500 Million Dollars a day!”
According to Trump, the United States stands to benefit from shifting shipping patterns, particularly in domestic energy markets. “The United States loses nothing. In fact, many Ships are headed, right now, to the U.S., Texas, Louisiana, and Alaska, to load up, compliments of the IRGC, always wanting to be ‘the tough guy!’” He emphasized that the administration has put forward what he described as a fair deal, while warning of severe consequences if Iran refuses. “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran,” Trump said. “NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!”
Trump closed with a stark warning, framing potential military action as long overdue. “They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years,” he said. “IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END!” Speaking with Fox News’ Trey Yingst Sunday morning, Trump took it further, warning that if no deal is reached, “the whole country is getting blown up.” That’s language strikingly similar to what he deployed just before a previous ceasefire was announced, which suggests this may be Trump’s version of deadline diplomacy. Push hard enough, make the consequences concrete enough, and watch the other side blink.
He also made clear that the military option is fully loaded. “We’re preparing to hit them harder than any country has ever been hit before because you cannot let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told Yingst, adding that the U.S. has “massive amounts” of ammunition ready to go. Trump’s frustration is obvious, and clearly, he’s done playing games. The fact is that Iran has spent decades testing the limits of American patience and walking away with sanctions relief, pallets of cash, and enough breathing room to keep spinning centrifuges. The mullahs have learned, quite effectively, that the cost of bad behavior rarely exceeds what they can absorb.
Trump argues that the price just changed. Whether this is carefully calibrated pressure designed to bring Iran to the table on American terms, or a genuine ultimatum with a Tuesday deadline, one thing is clear: the administration believes the only language Tehran understands is overwhelming force, and Trump is speaking it fluently. “It’s time for the Iran killing machine to end,” he said. And when Trump says it, you know he means it.

“Everything comes from Turkey. It’s fiber optics. We’re talking about Azerbaijan and Armenia, which is flowing oil, gas, information, data and materials. Where does it go? How does it go?”

• Turkey Could Be ‘Next Iran’ For Israel: US Envoy Scrambles To Calm Tensions (MEE)

US Envoy Tom Barrack has downplayed escalating tensions between Turkey and Israel as just “rhetoric” and pushed for regional cooperation between the two countries in security and energy projects. Speaking during a panel at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, Barrack pushed back against comments from some officials in both countries that suggested they could come into conflict in the near future. “I think Turkey is just not a country to be messed with,” Barrack said. Barrack said that both countries were seeing a distorted image of each other as a result of sensationalized media coverage that painted both as expansionist.

“So if you wake up in Tel Aviv, you read the newspaper, what do you see? You see the diagram on the paper of The Ottoman Empire 2.0, which is Vienna to the Maldives, right,” he said. “You wake up in Istanbul and read the paper and it’s Greater Israel.” Turkey was the first Muslim-majority country to recognize the state of Israel in 1949, and has enjoyed largely cordial security and trade ties throughout most of their modern history. However, since the 2010 attack on the Mavi Marmara flotilla, when Israeli forces raided a Turkish ship delivering aid to Gaza and killed 10 of those on board, tensions have been strained and the government has increasingly hit out at Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
The ‘next Iran’?
The most recent attempt to restore relations in September 2023 – which saw Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meeting and shaking hands for the first time in New York – collapsed the next month after the 7 October Hamas-led attacks on Israel and the subsequent genocide in Gaza. Since then, the rhetoric has escalated from politicians in both countries, with former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett describing Turkey as potentially the “next Iran” in March. The US government has staunchly backed Israel’s military actions across the region, including joining its war on Iran.
However, Turkey’s status as a Nato member and US President Donald Trump’s stated admiration for Erdogan has led American officials to seek to restore relations between the two countries. Barrack told the forum in Antalya that the energy price shocks from the Iran war had proven the importance of regional cooperation to maintain energy security. “Everything comes from Turkey. It’s fiber optics. We’re talking about Azerbaijan and Armenia, which is flowing oil, gas, information, data and materials. Where does it go? How does it go?” he said. “So Israel aligned with Turkey, like Israel aligned with Abu Dhabi. Saudi Arabia could be aligned with Israel and, for the prosperity of the Israeli people, to me that’s the answer.”
Some recent rhetoric out of Israeli media:

'No matter how much Trump might deny it, Israel has grave concerns over Erdoğan of Turkey with very good reason.'@perry_dan on #TheRundown with @Nicole_Zedeck pic.twitter.com/KgPvInm5Oe
— i24NEWS English (@i24NEWS_EN) December 30, 2025

Barrack added that Israel should go further, and try to engage Turkey as part of the International Stabilisation Force established for Gaza as part of the ceasefire deal signed in September. “The smartest thing that Israel could do is to entice and embrace Turkey to enter that force,” he said. Barrack said that Erdogan’s interactions with the Palestinian group Hamas was instrumental for reaching a deal to release Israeli hostages, and that it happened because Ankara didn’t designate the group. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan also met with Barrack on Monday for what they said was a “productive” meeting.

“On Friday, Trump declared the US had “prohibited” further Israeli strikes..”

• Netanyahu Left ‘Personally Stunned’ By Trump Rhetoric On Lebanon Strikes (ZH)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his inner circle were reportedly blindsided – left “stunned” – after President Trump dropped a surprise line effectively clipping Israel’s wings in Lebanon, according to Axios, citing sources familiar with the exchange. On Friday, Trump declared the US had “prohibited” further Israeli strikes just as the administration-brokered 10-day ceasefire with Lebanon kicked in. The US President was unusually harsh in rhetoric with America’s longtime #1 Mideast ally, writing on Truth Social that “enough is enough”.

The words were clearly not directed at Lebanon, or Hezbollah, but squarely at Israel and its deadly air campaign which had included intense bombing of Beirut at the South for the last week-and-a-half.The statement set off alarms in Jerusalem, with Israeli officials scrambling for clarity from Washington. Almost everything out of the Trump administration has up to now been generally glowing and positive when it comes to Israel and Netanyahu. However, Axios captures the reaction in Tel Aviv, in a Saturday report saying “Netanyahu was personally stunned and alarmed when he learned of the post, the sources said.”
Israel is set to pause offensive ops, but still says it reserves the right to “take all necessary measures in self-defense at any time against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks.” The NY Times has highlighted that all of this has put Netanyahu in a tough spot: “Now, the prime minister’s critics, and even some of his allies on the right, have seized on what appears plain as day: his inability to resist Mr. Trump’s pressure, not just in pushing to bring the long-distance war with Iran to a close but even in demanding a truce with an enemy directly across Israel’s northern border.
“A cease-fire must come from a position of strength and be an Israeli decision, reflecting leverage that serves negotiations,” said Gadi Eisenkot, a former military chief of staff whose new centrist opposition party, Yashar, is gaining in the polls. “A pattern is emerging in which cease-fires are being imposed on us — in Gaza, in Iran and now in Lebanon.” Again, this actually constitutes some of the toughest talk and restrictions ever imposed on Israel from this administration. This suggests the White House is indeed serious about cobbling together a final offramp.
Still, Netanyahu has declared that the fight with Hezbollah is not over, while at the same time confirming Israel’s agreement with the 10-day ceasefire in Lebanon.”One hand holds a weapon; the other is extended for peace,” Netanyahu said in a fresh speech. “I will say honestly, we have not yet finished the job,” he continued. “There are things we plan to do regarding the remaining rocket threat and the drone threat, which I will not detail.” Israel seeks to “dismantle” Hezbollah, Netanyahu continued, “but this will not be achieved tomorrow. It requires sustained effort, patience, and careful navigation in the diplomatic arena.”

“.. categorically false and defamatory” As an MO.

• Will This Atlantic Hit Piece Be the Final Straw? (Margolis)

The Atlantic has a well-documented history of publishing fake hit pieces about President Donald Trump and his administration, and one wonders how many more hoaxes they can run before they get in real trouble.Its latest ef fort targeting FBI Director Kash Patel may be its most reckless yet — and this time, the bureau is fighting back with lawyers. The piece, written by reporters Sarah Fitzpatrick and Jonathan Lemire, claims that on Friday, April 10, Patel struggled to log into an internal FBI computer system while wrapping up his workday.

He quickly became convinced that he had been locked out, and he panicked, frantically calling aides and allies to announce that he had been fired by the White House, according to nine people familiar with his outreach. Two of these people described his behavior as a “freak-out.” Patel oversees an agency that employs roughly 38,000 people, including many who are trained to investigate and verify information that can be presented under oath in a court of law. News of his emotional outburst ricocheted through the bureau, prompting chatter among officials and, in some corners of the building, expressions of relief. The White House fielded calls from the bureau and from members of Congress asking who was now in charge of the FBI.
It turned out that the answer was still Patel. He had not been fired. The access problem, two people familiar with the matter said, appears to have been a technical error, and it was quickly resolved.The piece didn’t stop there. It also alleged Patel has been plagued by “bouts of excessive drinking,” claiming members of his security detail had trouble waking him on multiple occasions because he was seemingly intoxicated. It further alleged that breaching equipment — the kind used by SWAT and hostage-rescue teams — was requested last year because Patel had been unreachable behind locked doors. The FBI denied every word of it before the article ever went live. Attorney Jesse Binnall sent a formal letter to The Atlantic and Fitzpatrick ahead of publication, putting them on notice that the claims were “categorically false and defamatory.”

This is the letter we sent to The Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick BEFORE they published their hit piece on FBI Director @FBIDirectorKash. They were on notice that the claims were categorically false and defamatory. They published anyway.

See you in court. pic.twitter.com/Ke8cqNh8hY
— Jesse R. Binnall (@jbinnall) April 17, 2026

The bureau’s response was even more direct: “Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook.” They printed it anyway. Late Friday night, Patel fired back on X.

see you and your entire entourage of false reporting in court… But do keep at it with the fake news, actual malice standard is now what some would call a legal lay up. https://t.co/MfbHH8OtLv pic.twitter.com/kw5U3LrfMM
— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) April 18, 2026

It’s worth noting that The Atlantic was apparently the only outlet willing to run this story. Other D.C. reporters chased the same tips and couldn’t verify them. They passed. The Atlantic published it. And now they’re going to be sued. This is what The Atlantic does. They publish outlandish and bogus stories that no other outlet will touch, which accomplishes the goal of giving Democrats and their supporters reason to insist the stories are true.
The outlet’s hoax piece alleging Trump didn’t want to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018 because the troops there who died in battle were “losers” and “suckers” was disputed by over a dozen witnesses. Yet, the left still insists it happened—even after Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, admitted it could have been wrong. Sarah Fitzpatrick herself has a history of publishing bogus hit pieces lacking sources and corroboration.

By the way, @S_Fitzpatrick is also the reporter who wrote the throughly debunked hit piece that claimed Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh drugged women so they could be sexually abused.

She has a history of writing hit pieces with either no sources on the record or… https://t.co/YnaE5llsJO pic.twitter.com/5HMYZVyYjl
— Megan Basham (@megbasham) April 19, 2026

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche both publicly defended Patel. Blanche praised Patel, noting he “has accomplished more in 14 months than the previous administration did in four years.” FBI spokesperson Erica Knight added that since being sworn in, Patel has taken just 17 days off — roughly half the time taken by former directors James Comey and Christopher Wray over comparable stretches.

The Atlantic published a "bombshell" on Director Patel tonight that every real DC reporter chased, couldn't verify, and passed on.

Here's reality. Since being sworn in, Director Patel has taken a grand total of 17 days off — half as much time off as Comey and Wray — and he…
— Erica Knight (@_EricaKnight) April 17, 2026

Try again in 2028.

• The Enigma of JD Vance (Alan Joseph Bauer)

The sitting vice president is hard to figure out.

Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) said the other day that nearly 80 million people specifically voted for Donald Trump, and thus it was incumbent on Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act and other legislation that the president supports. Tuberville was right about Trump: many, if not most, of those who voted in 2024 for Donald Trump did so because of the man. Whereas some people vote based on party, independent of the candidate, Donald Trump is the main draw for many voters. Whether it be his colorful ways, supportive family, fighting style, blunt presentation, reliability with friends and allies, little dance, or other features, there is simply nobody like Donald Trump. The stock market is reaching highs, the Iranians are assessing massive damage, tariff revenue is enormous, the armed services reached their recruiting goals five months early, etc. The U.S. and the world are different and, for many, better due to the actions of Donald Trump.
So what happens after Trump? The basic thinking is that JD Vance is the heir apparent of MAGA and the obvious choice to run in 2028. Some people whisper that Vance will take the family over country route and not actually run. There are other Republicans who might have an eye on the prize, though Marco Rubio has consistently said that he will not run if Vance chooses to do so. So what about JD Vance? Nobody can be a Trump II. Fine. But is JD Vance a good fit for the tens of millions who supported Donald Trump, the man and his policies?
Before the vice president left for Pakistan recently in order to talk to the Iranians, he gave a quick interview on the tarmac in Hungary. There had been an open point on Lebanon and the ceasefire. Iran claimed that the two were intertwined as the Iranians are desperate to save their decades-long, hundreds of billions of dollars investment in the Shiite terror group, Hezbollah. The U.S. said that Israel stopping its military campaign in southern Lebanon was never included in the 15-point ceasefire document. What struck me was a comment that Vance made on the subject. In the interview, he said that the issue of a Lebanese ceasefire was one of misunderstanding, but he went on to say that the negotiations should not fall over Lebanon, “which has nothing to do with them [the Iranians].”
My “uh-oh” sensor went off. Now I appreciate that it is hard to give a cogent interview while halfway on one’s way home, but the question is whether JD Vance really meant what he said. Lebanon is everything to Iran. I recently saw an interview with Ayatollah Khomeini on an Air France flight back to Iran. He was asked what he felt returning to his homeland. His answer: “Nothing.” His only goal was to spread Shia Islamic teachings and terror, and if Tehran was a good place to set up his office, so be it. Lebanon has been the graveyard of dozens of IRGC generals and officials. Not surprisingly, when the beepers exploded, the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon was seriously injured. Why would he have a beeper meant for Hezbollah operatives?
More recently, at a TPUSA event last week, JD Vance spoke. Ben Shapiro noted that his response to the young audience was troubling. Essentially, he stated that okay, you may not like our being friends with Israel, but there are so many other things that you do like, such as beating up Iran, raising wages, etc., that you should judge us on the whole and join us going forward. I have seen at other TPUSA events with Vance and other Republican stars where they skirt the Groyper arguments against Israel (“attacking Christianity!” “making a genocide!” “the USS Liberty!”) and say, yeah, let’s talk about other stuff that you like. All of the calumnies thrown at Israel by the Groyper-Tucker Carlson wing of the party are lies. There have been no Israeli attacks on Christian sites, with the Christian population of Israel the only one growing in the Middle East. There was no genocide in Gaza, with the population growing and over 80 percent of those killed identified by Hamas as their operatives. The Liberty attack was a mistake; Israel apologized and paid reparations. Hey, did we hear anything from these clowns about the Muslim Kuwaiti pilot who whacked three American F-15Es at the start of the current war?
Do you know how not anti-Christian Israel is? After the Kotel or Western Wall was closed to prayers for the duration of the shooting war, it finally opened after the ceasefire took hold. Several family members went to the Old City to pray at “the Wall.” They were not allowed to enter the Old City. Why? Because it was the Saturday on which local Christians have their Fire Ceremony, so access to the Old City was denied to non-Christians. My wife tried to get in at several points, but the walled city was blocked off to all but Christians and residents of the Old City. Now, does that sound like anti-Christian bigotry?
I remember similar events from the past and being rerouted due to a Christian march in the Armenian Quarter. What I just wrote, Vance should have cited. He should have fought back against the strong Groyper, Jew-hating movement infesting TPUSA and younger Republicans. But he chose to punt: Okay, you may not like our Middle East policies, but how ‘bout them tax cuts? The GOP has a Jew-hating problem imported from the Left/Muslim nexus. It’s no coincidence that Tucker Carlson has high praise for Qatar, Islam, and Muslim cities being superior to Western cities. Vance said that Theo Von was the go-to podcaster. A doorknob is more knowledgeable than Von. Von asked Joe Rogan how much longer Israel will “let us stay alive.” And this is Vance’s guy?
So is JD Vance the real deal? Nobody is going to be Donald Trump, and there is no point trying to compare any potential 2028 candidate with a model that they made one copy of and then destroyed the mold. We should be grateful for Donald Trump’s forceful leadership in an age of wet noodles, but we must realize that just as George H. W. Bush was no Ronald Reagan, the next president will not tell a rally that he is going to bomb the s**t out of America’s enemies. Vance may not run, or he may be bested by someone else in the party. But if Vance is the nominee and he can’t get his head around Israel as a good country and not a genocider or starver of the millions, then he will lose some of the MAGA base. The U.S.-Israel relationship is based on respect, and I have heard only praise from Pete Hegseth and Adm. Brad Cooper regarding Israel’s full participation in the war against Iran. While the Gulf states do little, Israel dropped 18,000 munitions prior to the ceasefire. Where is the praise of a true ally while the Europeans hide in the sand? Where is the counter to Groyper anti-Israel lies? Silence here is not golden.
One can’t expect a guy who grew up in the Rust Belt to have the knowledge and experience with Jews that a New York real estate developer has. Donald Trump grew up among Jews, and he learned respect from his father, who did not take rent from Holocaust survivors who could not afford it. I don’t believe for a minute that JD Vance is an antisemite, and even if he won’t divorce himself from Tucker Carlson’s hatred, I know that he is a friend of Israel and the Jewish people. I don’t think he fully understands the region, and I hope that he is a quick learner.

Spain doesn’t let them enter Spain, it lets them enter Europe. No borders.

“As tens of thousands of migrants rush embassies across Spain to begin the regularization process, for the Spanish right, the clock is now ticking to save the country”

• Will Spain’s Supreme Court Block Mass Legalization Of Migrants? (RMX)

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and his far-left government are not over the finish line yet when it comes to their plan to legalize hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants. Now, the Spanish legal group Hazte Oír have made the first successful step in challenging the far-left government’s “Royal Decree,” which was used to pass the legislation without a vote from parliament. After Hazte Oír’s application was accepted for processing by the Spanish Supreme Court, the government now has a non-extendable 20-day deadline to hand over the complete administrative file regarding mass legalization.

While it does not guarantee a reversal, it places the decree in a state of significant legal uncertainty. By admitting the case, Spain’s top court has found sufficient legal grounds to examine the merits of the lawsuit rather than dismissing it outright. The Supreme Court will verify whether the government followed correct legal procedures and whether it possessed the constitutional authority to use a Royal Decree for a mass regularization, according to La Razon.
The legal risk for the government currently remains high. The plaintiffs argue that such a measure requires a formal law passed by Parliament rather than a simple cabinet decree. Crucially, Hazte Oír has requested a precautionary suspension of the law. If the Supreme Court grants this, the legalization process would be frozen immediately while the judges deliberate on a final ruling. Hazte Oír argues that if the decree is allowed to proceed, it will create “irreparable damage” by granting legal status to hundreds of thousands of people — a situation that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reverse even if the decree is later found to be illegal.
Already, scenes showcasing thousands of migrants across the country lining up at different embassies to receive the proper paperwork to apply for legalization have spread across social media. The law, which went into effect on April 15, has proven controversial and been fiercely opposed by conservative and right-wing parties. “These are the lines to manage mass regularization in each municipality of Spain. Tomorrow this chaos will move to the health centers, to the social services, to the real estate agencies… It’s called thirdworldization. It’s already happening. Our priority is to reverse it, radically,” wrote Vox party leader Santiago Abascal.
In contrast, Sánchez has been active promoting his Royal Decree, writing: “Thanks to civil society, institutions, the Church, social agents, and the Plataforma Regularización Ya for making it possible. Regularizing is not just necessary: it is just. It is recognizing a reality that already exists. It is guaranteeing rights and obligations, dignity and social cohesion.” The law is expected to have not only a dramatic effect on Spain, including its public services, but all of Europe, as these legalized migrants will have the right to travel freely across borders within the EU.
The lawyer of Hazte Oír is pointing out the irreversible nature of the decree to argue that it is most certainly a law that should have been passed by parliament. The appellant association, Javier María Pérez-Roldán, refers specifically to the transformative aspect of the law on the Spanish system, noting “the granting of residence and work authorizations; registration with Social Security; access to benefits; and the suspension of final expulsion orders.”
Hazte Oír indicates that the Royal Decree “structurally alters the State’s immigration policy, with direct and lasting effects” on the labor market, the public benefits system, the municipal registry, “and, in the medium term, the electoral roll.” As many critics of the law have also pointed out, the mass amnesty will have profound effects on public services, which are already buckling under the pressure of mass immigration. “Massive regularization without planning directly impacts the saturation of essential public services (educational and social), affecting the collective interests that this association defends,” said Pérez-Roldán.
While the Supreme Court did not grant an immediate suspension, that suspension could still arrive once the court reviews the documentation justifying the law. In such a case, the process of legalization could be frozen, creating a legal limbo for all migrant applicants. Royal Decrees are also legally reserved for situations of “extraordinary and urgent need.” Hazte Oír argues there is no “sudden emergency” that justifies bypassing the normal legislative process. They argue the government is using a “shortcut” to avoid political friction in Congress.
In contrast, the government argues the situation is urgent because of labor shortages in key sectors like agriculture and hospitality, and the humanitarian need to bring “invisible” people into the social security system to fund future pensions. It is unclear if the Supreme Court will buy this argument from the government. While the Royal Decree was used to bypass parliament, which allowed the government to fast-track the process of legalization, it may also still prove the decree’s downfall.

Will Zelensky’s wife volunteer? Or will she be decorating their mansion?

• Will Ukraine Forcibly Conscript Women To Fight On The Frontline? (RMX)

Since Ukraine’s population has shrunk dramatically, the army’s number one problem is no longer the lack of weapons, such as ballistic missiles and air defense systems, but the lack of soldiers to operate them, writes Világgazdaság. The competent authorities in Kyiv, however, must bring the army size required by Commander-in-Chief Zelensky (800,000 active soldiers), and since the number of men eligible for military service (between the ages of 18 and 60) is slowly running out, the Ukrainian leadership is now trying to fill the gaps by conscripting women.

As of early 2024, approximately 5 million men are considered to be of conscription age in Ukraine, reduced from about 8.7 million before the February 2022 invasion due to death and emigration. And yet, many of these 5 million are exempt, unfit for service, or already serving. Ukraine has long been shown to use forced conscription methods, with increasing violence, leading men to attempt to leave the country, often at the risk of their lives. Last year, Hungarian channel M1-Hirado recently ran a special compiling some of the latest footage of Ukrainians being beaten and shoved into vans in forced mobilization operations.

“The most immediate concern for Roberts should be that this is strike two: another leak from within the Court.. ”

• Chief Justice Roberts Faces Two Strikes After New Leak Rocks the Court (Turley)

The legendary baseball player and manager Ted Williams once wrote a letter to the Angels outfielder Jay Johnstone on improving his hitting. Among his pieces of advice was that “with two strikes, you simply have to protect the plate.” Williams’s advice on not striking out came to mind this week when another leak of confidential information rocked the Supreme Court. (The prior leak of the Dobbs decision went unsolved). For Chief Justice John Roberts, the message is clear: it is a time like this that you have to protect the plate.

Roberts, of course, is famous for his own baseball analogies. In his confirmation, he declared that “judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them…Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” Yet, justices do make rules not only in new precedent, but in the operation of the court system. Those rules are being broken. In the same week as the new leak, Justice Sonia Sotomayor attacked her colleague Brett Kavanaugh as essentially an out-of-touch prig who had never even met an hourly wage worker. It was an unfair insult and a departure from the Court’s long-standing rules of civility. (Sotomayor later apologized).
Additionally, a forthcoming book by Mollie Hemingway on Justice Samuel Alito contains an embarrassing account of how Justice Elena Kagan allegedly screamed at Justice Stephen Breyer so loudly before the Dobbs opinion that the “wall was shaking.” (The book suggests that Kagan was upset with Breyer agreeing to spur along the dissents to get out the final opinions in light of rising threats against conservative colleagues after the leak). For an institution that prides itself on its confidentiality and insularity, the Court is looking increasingly porous and partisan in these leaks. Worse yet, people are indeed coming to the Court “to see the umpires.”
The most recent leak was published by the New York Times, which was given internal memos from various Supreme Court justices on the use of what is known as the “shadow docket” to issue rulings without oral arguments. Notably, the leaks occurred after a controversial speech by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at Yale Law School in which she denounced the use of the shadow docket by her conservative colleagues to release decisions that were sometimes “utterly irrational.”
The memos reveal the concern of the justices that the Environmental Protection Agency was effectively gaming the system, imposing unlawful regulatory burdens on electric utilities despite a countervailing earlier ruling in Michigan v. EPA. Chief Justice Roberts noted that the EPA was using the ongoing litigation to force utilities to spend billions of dollars to comply with the new regulations: “In other words the absence of stay allowed the agency to effectively implement an important program we held to be contrary to law.”
The controversy over the use of the shadow docket is immaterial to this story. The most immediate concern for Roberts should be that this is strike two: another leak from within the Court that was clearly designed to wound some of its members. Unlike the Dobbs leak (which appeared to be an effort to influence the final opinion), this is a leak about a decade-old case. It had a purely malicious purpose to embarrass or disrupt the Court.
The question, again, is the identity of the culprit. There is no reason to assume that the same person was involved in both leaks. Rather, the leaks appear to reflect a deteriorating culture at the Court. After the Dobbs leak, Chief Justice Roberts launched a fruitless investigation through the federal marshals to find the responsible person. The use of the marshals as the lead investigators (rather than the FBI) was criticized at the time. Roberts may have been sensitive to an executive-branch agency rooting around in the highest court of a sister branch.The result was the worst possible outcome. The culprit succeeded in both leaking the opinion and evading any accountability.
The fact is that the Court’s culture and institutional identity have always been its greatest protection of confidentiality. In a city that floats on a rolling sea of leaks, the Court was an island of integrity and civility. The “umpires” could call balls and strikes without playing the leak game. That culture is fast becoming nothing but a relic in the wake of yet another major leak. For the future of the Court and the faith of the public, Roberts has to set his reservations aside and bring in the FBI to find the culprit. Most importantly, he has to guarantee total transparency in allowing the public to see the results wherever they may lead. In other words, with two strikes, Roberts needs to protect the plate.

“This refers to revanchism, “which assumes that they now want to carry out that very revenge that will allow them to still win in this very division of the world, the redrawing of the world’s resources for themselves,” Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman added..”

• West Still Wants To Seize Ukrainian Black Soil, Russian Oil – Zakharova (TASS)

Western countries have not abandoned their plans to seize Ukrainian black soil and Russian oil, as well as divide the world to suit their own interests, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in an interview with TASS for the Day of remembrance of the victims of the genocide of the Soviet people, which will be held for the first time on April 19.m”No, they do not want to give up the idea of taking over the Ukrainian black soil, Russian oil and gas, at least managing them, and extending their influence to the resources of Central Asia, South Caucasus, and so on,” she said. This refers to revanchism, “which assumes that they now want to carry out that very revenge that will allow them to still win in this very division of the world, the redrawing of the world’s resources for themselves,” Zakharova added.

“.. they embraced the business model of Howard Stern and Jerry Springer: saying and doing increasingly outrageous things.”

• Circling the Drain Phase of Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens Gimmick (Pinsker)

First, the good news: We’ve juuuust about reached the point where we won’t have to talk about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens anymore. They’ve unmasked themselves as lying, bigoted click-whores. Carlson’s career was longer; Owens’ was shorter. But for a brief, flickering moment in the 2010s, both were considered credible, trustworthy journalists and/or mainstream conservative “influencers.” Turning Pont USA and The Daily Wire boosted Owens; Carlson was the beneficiary of the (exceptionally) well-oiled NewsCorp PR machine. And then… they weren’t.

Conservative audiences are a fiercely loyal breed. We instinctively protect our favorites from the liberal mob — because history has taught us that they’re constantly under attack. That’s our muscle-memory: They smeared Rush Limbaugh. They smeared every other big-name Republican. They attack, demean, defame, and deplatform — and the only way to stop them is by fighting back. Rush Limbaugh still reigns supreme in conservative hearts. No man in the history of political media was slandered more viciously than El Rushbo. Not because he deserved it — but because liberals feared him.
That’s the tragedy of Carlson and Owens’ dark turn: Limbaugh dedicated his professional career to building goodwill between himself and conservative audiences. Time and again, that “harmless, lovable fuzzball” proved himself worthy of our love and respect. No matter how often the mainstream media called him a racist, a sexist, a Nazi, and a homophobe, we knew it wasn’t true. This became our template. It’s how we understood the host-audience relationship. So great was Limbaugh’s legacy that we assumed future hosts would be just as worthy — which meant, as long as we continued to have their back, conservatism, truth, and decency would prevail. It’s a symbiotic relationship: If we do our part, the host will surely do his.
Turns out the paradigm was wrong: Carlson and Owens were unworthy successors — and Rush Limbaugh’s genius was even rarer than we thought. Carlson and Owens traveled the road that Limbaugh paved. They benefited from all the trust and goodwill that he spent his entire career building. And then they destroyed the road.
Because, despite how easy Limbaugh made it look, talking about conservatism 24/7 for years at a time is VERY hard work. Even in the talk-radio medium, there’s absolutely no one else like Limbaugh — someone capable of carrying a three-hour show completely on his own, without guests, co-hosts, a “morning zoo,” or a whack-pack. (Heck, Rush barely even took phone calls!) Yet Limbaugh had the #1 show for decades… and it mostly consisted of him speaking extemporaneously about life, politics, news, and culture.
Of course, Rush had real, actual talent (“on loan from God!”). Lesser hosts must take shortcuts to retain an audience. Like, for instance, Sean Hannity: The veteran conservative still has a highly entertaining program when he’s interviewing someone interesting and compelling. And when he doesn’t, it’s not. There’s no shame in that. Limbaugh-level talents are extraordinarily rare; there almost certainly won’t be another one in our lifetime. (Or, probably, in our kid’s lifetime.) If anything, Hannity deserves credit for staying true to his values. Despite the pressures of fame and fortune, Hannity continues to provide conservative programming for conservative audiences — because conservatism is his north star.
Not so with Carlson and Owens. They abandoned conservatism when they became independent journalists. When they worked for conservative media outlets, they delivered a (mostly) conservative message. Then, when they lost their jobs and had to get clicks to make money, their content changed in a hurry. Instead of being like Limbaugh or Hannity, they embraced the business model of Howard Stern and Jerry Springer: saying and doing increasingly outrageous things. Such as global Jewish conspiracies. Or Mrs. Macron’s innie being an outie. Or Erika Kirk murdering her husband. Or Donald Trump being the Antichrist. Or Muslim extremists being peaceful friends of Christians.
Initially, it was important for conservative media to call out the bait-and-switch, because Limbaugh’s legacy loomed so large, we instinctively gave Owens and Carlson the benefit of the doubt — over and over (and over) again. In fact, the more they were attacked, the more we yearned to protect them! After all, Rush Limbaugh never broke our hearts — so why would his successors? It was a dangerous time for the conservative movement, because Carlson and Owens were mainstreaming antisemitism, crazy conspiracy theories, and historical inaccuracies. Tainting MAGA with their nonsense would’ve been electoral poison. We still considered Owens and Carlson conservatives first — and influencers second. (Just like you-know-who.)
Alas, the trouble with the shock-jock strategy is that it depends on escalation: What shocked us yesterday is old news today. Once you begin circling the drain, you’ve got to circle faster and faster — or the novelty wears off. And eventually, you still go down the drain.

Didn’t she retire?

• Marjorie Taylor Greene Amplifies Viral Doubts About Butler (ZH)

Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has drawn attention to a detailed personal account from a longtime Trump supporter who now questions key elements of the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. In an April 12 post on X, Trisha Hope, a self-described J6 activist and 2024 Republican National Convention delegate from Texas, details how she shifted from staunch MAGA supporter to skeptic – writing “I learned of the attempt on Trump’s life at the Butler rally. I was in the middle of having dinner at a restaurant in Little Rock, AR.”

Then, at the convention, she thought it was strange that Trump opened his speech by saying he would recount the incident “exactly” once because “it’s actually too painful to tell,” which she found out of character for someone who makes everything about himself. Hope also thought that the ‘ICONIC’ photograph of Trump rising with fist raised, shouting “FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT” was weird and “perfectly timed” with a flag lowering and Secret Service agents positioned as if for a staged shot.
“Following the inauguration, I found it odd that Trump wasn’t going aggressively after those who allowed this to happen. He seemed to behave like it was no big deal,” she writes, adding that Trump later promoted Sean Curran – the agent visible in the white shirt in that photo – to head of the Secret Service on January 22, 2025, rather than dismissing anyone for security failures. She also questions Trump’s limited subsequent references to the event, except to say he “took a bullet for us,” and argues that Corey Comperatore’s death was necessary to make the incident believable, while his widow has been denied ongoing answers. Hope concludes by urging readers to apply “critical thinking skills” and have “at least some questions.”
“Instead of his SS detail being terminated as they should have been, Trump made the gentleman in the white shirt the HEAD of the Secret Service on January 22, 2025. Instead of losing his job Sean Curran was given a massive promotion,” she said.

I was a long time Trump supporter, I became a National Delegate to make certain Trump was seated as the nominee.

While en-route to Wisconsin, I learned of the attempt on Trump's life at the Butler rally. I was in the middle of having dinner at a restaurant in Little Rock, AR.… pic.twitter.com/Ed1gz2HiyB
— Trisha Hope – National Delegate-TX (@JustTheTweets17) April 12, 2026

Greene – a former MAGA loyalist whose split with the party over the Epstein files, airstrikes on Iran, Trump’s continued support for Israel and the Gaza conflict, and US involvement in Ukraine – led to her November 2025 resignation from Congress, amplified the post six days later. “Extremely important post worth the read and consideration. Corey Comperatore’s family deserves to know the truth about Matthew Crooks and what happened in Butler on July 13, 2024,” Greene wrote. “President Trump, of all people, should be leading the charge. Why isn’t he? That’s the question.” https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/2045528340602269713
The Official Story
According to the FBI, congressional investigations, and law enforcement accounts, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, acted alone when he fired eight rounds from an AR-15-style rifle from the roof of a building near the Butler Farm Show grounds. The shots grazed Trump’s right ear, killed 50-year-old volunteer firefighter and former fire chief Corey Comperatore (who was shielding his family), and critically injured two other attendees, David Dutch and James Copenhaver. A Butler County Emergency Services Unit officer and a Secret Service counter-sniper returned fire; Crooks was killed on the roof. The FBI has stated after extensive interviews and analysis that Crooks acted alone, though questions about his motive have persisted. Security lapses were acknowledged, including how Crooks was able to access the rooftop despite local police spotting him earlier, but the incident was classified as a genuine assassination attempt.
The Official Doubt
A growing number of voices – particularly from within former Trump-supporting circles – aren’t buying it – arguing that the iconic photograph appeared too perfectly composed to be spontaneous, with the flag lowering in sync, agents seemingly posing, and Trump allowed to stand exposed on stage for the image. Some note Trump’s RNC remarks as unusually curt, suggesting an intent to shut down further discussion rather than capitalize on the drama. Critics highlight the promotion of a Secret Service agent involved in the detail instead of widespread firings or accountability, and Trump’s relative silence on the matter afterward beyond occasional references to “taking a bullet.”
Skeptics also note several early security lapses and immediate post-incident actions as further reason to question the official timeline. Video and photographs show FBI investigators hosing down the rooftop where Crooks was killed the day after the shooting, arguing the scene was cleaned too quickly and that biological evidence was potentially lost.
Then there’s police radio chatter that captured officers spotting Crooks, losing sight of him, and struggling to clearly relay the escalating threat between local law enforcement and the Secret Service – communications that were later explained as coordination failures but struck many as highly unusual. Multiple confirmed reports show Crooks was identified as suspicious, photographed with a rangefinder roughly 90 minutes before the shooting, and was spotted on the roof by Secret Service snipers about 20 minutes before he fired – details critics say should have prompted immediate action to remove Trump from the stage or secure the building.

For good reason https://t.co/jVojEAdhS4
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 18, 2026

Children are the future https://t.co/2nwlFiea0P
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 18, 2026

Jordan Peterson: "Second guessing Elon Musk is a fool's game."pic.twitter.com/AcZBe0o74C
— Joe Rogan Podcast News (@joeroganhq) April 18, 2026

Indeed, this needs to stop https://t.co/wtfmWM2hqJ
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 18, 2026

Muslims in Greece are losing their minds after this bold interview.

Greek MP Afroditi Latinopoulou from the European Parliament told them clearly:

“Whoever wants to wave a Palestinian flag should go to Gaza!
You have no place in Greece.”

Thin is exactly the kind of straight… pic.twitter.com/NLzvGARHF8
— Yossi BenYakar (@YossiBenYakar) April 18, 2026

https://twitter.com/AlexAndBooks_/status/2045497400416969022?s=20 https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/2045676255077433779?s=20 https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/2045735203260207306?s=20

This 1 hour lecture by Richard Feynman will teach you more about imagination, atoms, and how the world actually works than years of memorizing science in school.

Bookmark this & give it 1 hour, no matter what. It’ll change how you see everything around you. pic.twitter.com/JfWsCrz44h
— Peak Thinkers (@PeakThinkers_) April 18, 2026

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

Debt Rattle March 27 2025

Mar 272025

March 27, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:57 am Finance Tagged with: Atlantic, Big Pharma Ads, Crossfire Hurricane, Fetterman, Grenell, Kallas, Moody’s, SignalGate, SWIFT, US intel 41 Responses »

Henri Matisse Woman with a hat 1905

• Trump Admin Hit by Record Number of Injunctions From Partisan Courts (McCarthy)

• When Judges Violate the Constitution (Joecks)

• President Trump Unleashes 25% Tariffs On Foreign-Made Auto Imports (ZH)

• Japanese Carmakers Face Catastrophic Profit Hit From Trump’s Auto Tariffs (ZH)

• Goldberg Accidentally Proved His ‘Signalgate’ Narrative Is a Hoax (Margolis)

• “Those Are Some Really Sh*tty War Plans”: Hegseth Ridicules ‘Bombshell’ (ZH)

• White House Selects Elon Musk To Investigate SignalGate Controversy (JTN)

• Distinguishing the Signal From the Noise (Victoria Taft)

• Might of the Living Feds: 1,500+ Cash-Sucking ‘Zombies’ (RCW)

• “Sometimes a Little Brain Damage Can Help.” (Pinsker)

• Trump Declassifies FBI Crossfire Hurricane Files (RT)

• US Government is a Big Money Laundering Operation – John Rubino (USAW)

• RFK Jr. is Pushing Big Pharma Ad Ban – And Corporate Media is Panicking (Becker)

• EU Officials Unhappy With Kallas – Politico (RT)

• Moscow Backs Ceasefire Despite Kiev’s Breaches – Kremlin (RT)

• Russia Winning In Ukraine, Continually Gaining Leverage: US Intel (ZH)

• Ukraine Never Had Nuclear Weapons – Grenell (RT)

• US Looking For ‘Proper Way’ To Reconnect Russia to SWIFT – Bessent (RT)

• Moody’s Issues Warning On US Finances (RT)

Elon why

Ron Baron: “You're working seven days a week but people constantly criticize you. Why do you do this?”

Elon Musk: “I think what I'm working on has an important effect on the future.” pic.twitter.com/8GBuNNGyBg

— ELON CLIPS (@ElonClipsX) March 26, 2025

BREAKING: President Trump just signed an executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship on voter registration forms, revoking Biden's order turning agencies into Democratic voter turnout centers, & cutting funding to states that don't secure their elections.

-… pic.twitter.com/9EgA5tOsRA

— George (@BehizyTweets) March 25, 2025

Russian steel

Back in 2009, residents in the tough Russian steel mill town of Pikalyovo desperately called for authorities to intervene after all three factories in the town halted work and stopped paying full wages.

They were surprised when Vladimir Putin arrived and publicly humiliated the… pic.twitter.com/5xAnLgU4VJ

— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) March 25, 2025

2016
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1904948216447008882

“..69 District Court judges presiding over cases involving the Trump administration..”

• Trump Admin Hit by Record Number of Injunctions From Partisan Courts (McCarthy)

Since returning to the White House on Jan. 20, President Donald Trump has unleashed a storm of executive orders, a great many of which have been halted or blocked—not by the now-Republican-controlled Congress, but by federal District Courts. According to numbers compiled by the Harvard Law Review, U.S. District Courts have issued more sweeping injunctions against Trump in the past two months than they have against three former presidents over their entire terms. Since Jan. 20, lower courts have imposed 15 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration, compared to what the Harvard Law Review recounts as six over the course of George W. Bush’s eight-year presidency, 12 over the course of Barack Obama’s eight years in the White House, and 14 during Joe Biden’s single four-year term.

During his first term, Trump was subjected to 64 nationwide injunctions. If inferior courts continue issuing nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration at the current rate (15 for every two months in office), then the second Trump administration will have accumulated 360 nationwide injunctions by the time the president leaves office—and a grand total of 424 over the course of both of Trump’s terms. However, there have been a total of over 45 rulings or more targeted injunctions leveled against the second Trump administration overall, according to The New York Times.

The Harvard Law Review’s tally (published in 2024) also noted the increased partisanship of the federal judiciary. Of the six injunctions imposed against Republican Bush, half came from judges appointed by Democrats and half from judges appointed by Republicans. Of the 12 injunctions imposed against Democrat Obama, seven (less than 60%) were issued by judges appointed by Republicans. Of the 64 injunctions Trump’s first Republican administration was slapped with, 92.2% were issued by judges appointed by Democrats. All—100%—of the 14 injunctions issued against Democrat Biden came from Republican-appointed judges.

Almost a year before Trump’s return to the White House, the Harvard Law Review also warned against the practice of “judge shopping,” essentially looking at the partisan leanings of various federal judges and bringing a complaint in a given district based on a judge’s presumed political leanings. During the first Trump administration, more injunctions were issued against the president by federal District Court judges in deep-blue California than by judges in any other state.

The second Trump term is seemingly witnessing a repeat of this effect. The Washington Stand conducted an analysis of all the lawsuits either already heard or pending a ruling or injunction at the District Court level against the second Trump administration, disregarding the handful of cases being overseen by federal magistrate judges. Of the 69 District Court judges presiding over cases involving the Trump administration, 21 were appointed by Republican presidents: two by Ronald Reagan, one by George H.W. Bush, eight by George W. Bush, and 10 by Trump himself. Already, several of those Republican-appointed judges have issued injunctions or rulings against Trump’s executive orders and actions. The other 48 District Court judges overseeing complaints against the Trump administration were appointed by Democrats: seven by Bill Clinton, 20 by Obama, and 21 by Biden.

In its analysis, The Harvard Law Review observed that “the extreme use of nationwide injunctions during the Trump Administration could reflect judicial responsiveness to the unprecedented degree to which President Trump tested the limits of presidential power.” However, the legal journal added that “in the Biden years, judges appear to be ordering vacatur in cases where plaintiffs requested an injunction.” An order of vacatur is binding only on the agency to which it is directed—as opposed to nationwide injunctions, which are, as the name suggests, binding nationwide and enforceable by holding violators in contempt—and simply vacates a rule, declaring that it shall have no legal effect.

The Harvard Law Review continued, “Whether the falling rate of injunctions from the Trump to the Biden Administration reflects a decrease in abuses of executive power, judicial responsiveness to growing criticism of the nationwide injunction, or the replacement of some injunctions with the ‘lesser remedy’ of vacatur, the decrease should not mislead: district court judges appear to be striking down executive policies of opposing administrations with unprecedented frequency.”

The growing use of nationwide injunctions by inferior courts, the prestigious legal journal warned, necessarily has a chilling effect on the development of law and precedent. When several inferior courts of different jurisdictions issue conflicting rulings, the matter often winds up at the U.S. Supreme Court, where a definitive standard is set for addressing similar issues going forward. However, nationwide injunctions halt the continued challenging of executive orders, executive actions, or laws, since, as the Harvard Law Review pointed out, various other inferior courts simply refuse to take up related cases, determining that there can be no demonstration of injury in fact while the nationwide injunctions are in place.

“..Constitution. Article II gives “executive power” to the president, who is also commander in chief of the military. Yet, according to some federal judges, the judiciary is in charge of the executive branch’s military policy, hiring, spending decisions and deportation flights. The Trump administration can’t even take down a website.”

• When Judges Violate the Constitution (Joecks)

Leftist judges want to turn President Donald Trump into a president in name only. Look at all the ways that individual judges have hamstrung the Trump administration. A district court judge recently blocked Trump’s executive order removing transgender individuals from the military. Another judge ordered the Trump administration to send two men who are pretending to be women into a women’s prison. One federal judge ordered the administration to restore government webpages that promote the Left’s transgender narrative. A different district court judge stopped the Trump administration from disbanding the wasteful United States Agency for International Development. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appointed Jeremy Lewin to a high-level position in USAID. The judge later ruled that Lewin wasn’t allowed to serve in that role.

Last weekend, another federal judge blocked the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrant gang members. He even unsuccessfully attempted to force them to turn around flights that were already in the air. These examples are only the tip of the judicial overreach iceberg. Now, all presidential administrations face lawsuits, but what’s happening here is well beyond historical norms. In his four years in office, former President Joe Biden’s administration received 14 federal injunctions. In less than two months, judges have already hit the Trump administration with more than that. These rulings are an affront to the Constitution. Article II gives “executive power” to the president, who is also commander in chief of the military. Yet, according to some federal judges, the judiciary is in charge of the executive branch’s military policy, hiring, spending decisions and deportation flights. The Trump administration can’t even take down a website.

Contrast that judicial activism with what Alexander Hamilton laid out in Federalist 78. “The judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power,” he wrote. And “it can never attack with success either of the other two.” But, Hamilton warned, while “liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone,” it “would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments.” That’s what some district court judges are attempting to do. These unelected, unaccountable judges are attempting to upend the constitutional order. Most people take it for granted that the executive and legislative branches will abide by judicial decisions. And despite Trump’s social media bluster, his administration has been remarkably deferential to the judicial process in its actions.

That’s likely in part due to a belief that higher courts, including the Supreme Court, will largely overrule these individual judges. That’s already happened in one case involving Trump’s push to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion. Republicans in Congress are also working on potential solutions, such as requiring a three-judge panel to rule on injunctive relief. The judiciary is more vulnerable than many activist judges seem to realize. As Hamilton wrote, the judiciary “may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” In other words, if Trump tells the court to enforce its own rulings, the court can’t. It can only hope there would be a political price to pay for openly defying a court order.

Public support for the judiciary, however, could collapse quickly. The Left has been attacking it for years. Biden openly disregarded a Supreme Court decision on student loan forgiveness. Some Democrats pushed to pack the Supreme Court, while others have wrongly smeared conservative justices as corrupt. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts needs to stop rogue district court judges from violating the Constitution–and quickly. If he doesn’t, support from the right could evaporate quickly. A diminished court isn’t ideal, but neither is one that flagrantly violates the Constitution.

There are hardly any American cars in Europe. But the US is full of Mercs and Beamers. The issue is quite obvious.

• President Trump Unleashes 25% Tariffs On Foreign-Made Auto Imports (ZH)

Update (1600ET): President Trump has announced a 25% tariff on all cars not made in the US. “This will continue to spur growth,” Trump told reporters. Trump confirmed that these new tariffs are in addition to existing tariffs and are expected to result in $100 billion in revenues. To underscore his seriousness, Trump said, “This is permanent.” In addition to the tariffs, Trump discussed his plan to allow Americans to deduct interest payments on cars that are made in America. If the car is built in the US, there will be no tariffs. “We are going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth, taking a lot of things that they have been taking over the years.” GM and Ford shares are tumbling further on the news…

European and Canadian officials have already thrown their teddy-bears out of the stroller. Ontario Premier Doug Ford (who folded like broken deckchair on his last threat to hike electricity costs to Americans), warned that: “…he’ll “encourage Carney to target US automobiles… and will inflict as much trade pain as possible.” Canadian PM Mark Carney commented that US tariffs are a “direct attack” on Canadian auto workers, adding that the Trump tariffs “will hurt us.” “We will defend our workers, our companies, and our country.” European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen immediately posted her disappointment on X:

“I deeply regret the US decision to impose tariffs on European automotive exports. The automotive industry is a driver of innovation, competitiveness, and high quality jobs, through deeply integrated supply chains on both sides of the Atlantic. As I have said before, tariffs are taxes – bad for businesses, worse for consumers equally in the US and the European Union. We will now assess this announcement, together with other measures the US is envisaging in the next days. The EU will continue to seek negotiated solutions, while safeguarding its economic interests. As a major trading power and a strong community of 27 Member States, we will jointly protect our workers, businesses and consumers across our European Union.”

“Our automobile industry will flourish like it’s never flourished before,” Trump commented, seemingly unflapped by the possibility of retaliation.

“..about 46% of all new cars sold in the US are imported.”

• Japanese Carmakers Face Catastrophic Profit Hit From Trump’s Auto Tariffs (ZH)

As the fallout from Trump’s tariff plans comes into relief, a harsh truth is emerging for the automotive industry: there are lots of losers and not many winners. But foreign automakers, those without US facilities, will be hit especially hard. As Bloomberg notes, from South Korea’s Hyundai to Germany’s Volkswagen, and to a lesser extent America’s own General Motors, many of the world’s most prominent carmakers will soon face higher costs from Trump’s new levies on auto imports and key components. That’s because about 46% of all new cars sold in the US are imported.

“There are very few winners,” Sam Fiorani, vice president of global vehicle forecasting for AutoForecast Solutions, said in a phone interview. “Consumers will be losers because they will have reduced choice and higher prices.” One notable winner in the tariff chaos is Elon Musk. His Tesla, which has large factories in California and Texas, churns out all the electric vehicles it sells in the US, although as Elon noted late on Wednesday, the company will also not remain unscathed.

Important to note that Tesla is NOT unscathed here. The tariff impact on Tesla is still significant.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 27, 2025

Ford could also face a less-severe impact than some rivals, with about 80% of the cars it sells in the US being built domestically. Others will be less lucky: starting April 2, the new 25% tariffs will apply to all imported passenger vehicles and light trucks, as well as key parts like engines, transmissions. Not surprisingly, the tariffs give automakers that heavily source parts in the US an edge, and Trump also allowed an exemption: the new levies will only apply to the non-US share of vehicles and parts imported under a free-trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. That may soften the blow for vehicles whose supply lines zig-zag across the continent. Tariffs on parts from Canada and Mexico that comply with the trade deal also won’t take effect until the US sets up a process to collect those levies. The US neighbors could use that window to try to stave off full implementation, even if it’s a long shot.

There are whole lists of Goldberg’s anti-Trump articles.

• Goldberg Accidentally Proved His ‘Signalgate’ Narrative Is a Hoax (Margolis)

The Democrats’ latest effort to manufacture a Trump administration scandal blew up in their faces this week after Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, reported that he was somehow included in an encrypted Signal chat group with top administration officials discussing a planned attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen. According to Goldberg, officials discussed classified and/or top-secret war plans. No one disputes that Goldberg was erroneously included in the chat, but the real issue is whether classified or top-secret war plans were actually discussed. CIA Director John Ratcliffe and DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard testified that nothing classified or top secret was discussed in the chat. Others in the administration have said the same thing. Goldberg had been given the opening to release the chats in their entirety to prove them wrong. But he insisted that he wouldn’t.

During an interview on The Bulwark Podcast with Tim Miller, Goldberg repeatedly evaded calls to produce evidence, raising serious questions about the credibility of his claims. Miller directly challenged Goldberg, pointing out that top Trump administration officials had accused him of lying. “Now, the Secretary of Defense and the White House Press Secretary have said you’re lying, have said there are no war plans there, have said there’s no classified information,” Miller stated. “So the obvious question is, shouldn’t you now demonstrate it? Shouldn’t you publish the text?” Goldberg flatly refused. “No, because they’re wrong. They’re wrong,” he insisted, offering no proof to back up his claims.

Here’s the problem with that claim: In the encrypted chat, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz explicitly mentioned the participants’ “high side” inboxes, a reference to the classified system. This made it clear they knew certain topics couldn’t be discussed on the Signal platform. Miller pressed Goldberg further in the interview, asking whether he would at least provide the alleged messages to congressional intelligence committees. Instead of responding substantively, Goldberg deflected with sarcasm. “Wow. What? You wanna become my lawyer?” he quipped with an annoyed tone. He clearly wasn’t comfortable with the line of questioning, and I got the sense he was hiding something.

As the conversation continued, Goldberg struggled to justify his refusal to produce evidence, resorting to vague justifications. “Just because they’re irresponsible with material doesn’t mean that I’m gonna be irresponsible with this material,” he said. He further attempted to cast doubt on the administration’s credibility, suggesting officials were merely trying to “get out of a jam.” In a final attempt to defend his decision, Goldberg framed it as a matter of principle. “I have a pretty clear standard in my own behavior of what I consider… information that I consider to be in the public interest, even if it’s technically classified or not,” he said, adding that he was “sticking to my principles.”

“No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information.” ..”some really shitty war plans.”

• “Those Are Some Really Sh*tty War Plans”: Hegseth Ridicules ‘Bombshell’ (ZH)

Update(1326ET): Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has responded to the growing calls among Dems for him to step down. This is hours after The Atlantic published the fuller chat logs, alleging that he’s discussing ‘war plans’ in an unsecure and unclassified setting – also with a journalist inadvertently added to the group chat. Hegseth emphasized on X that there were No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information.” And he said sarcastically these these make for “some really shitty war plans.”

So, let’s me get this straight. The Atlantic released the so-called “war plans” and those “plans” include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information.

Those are some really shitty war plans.

This only proves…

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) March 26, 2025

Still, this is unlikely to appease the Trump White House’s enemies, who are also now claiming that national security officials ‘lied’ before the Senate yesterday.

* * *
The Atlantic has published the fuller chat thread from the Signal group that journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was ‘inadvertently’ included in. This comes after the top Trump officials involved denied that they shared secret “attack plans” in an unsecure, unclassified setting. The President has downplayed it, defending both national security adviser Mike Walz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has called for both Hegseth Waltz to either resign or be fired from their top national security posts. “When the stakes are this high, incompetence is not an option,” Warner wrote on social media Tuesday. “Pete Hegseth should resign. Mike Waltz should resign.”And in a a letter to President Trump, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries has urged Hegseth’s termination, calling him “unqualified” and a national security risk.

“The so-called secretary of defense recklessly and casually disclosed highly sensitive war plans — including the timing of a pending attack, possible strike targets and the weapons to be used — during an unclassified national security group chat that inexplicably included a reporter,” Jeffries wrote. “His behavior shocks the conscience, risked American lives and likely violated the law.” The newly published messages were sent on March 15 and purport to be from an account identified as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Amid the ongoing controversy, Golberg and The Atlantic are seeking to present a ‘smoking gun’ of sorts. The messages include times of strikes and the types of aircraft being used in attacks on Yemen’s Houthis, who have for many months been sending drone and missiles against Red Sea shipping, including American warships and even at times a carrier.

The “chat” group is invite only. It should be simple to see who invited, and then added, the journalist.

• White House Selects Elon Musk To Investigate SignalGate Controversy (JTN)

The White House on Wednesday asked Tesla CEO Elon Musk to lead a probe into the so-called SignalGate scandal, which refers to the accidental addition of a journalist to a national security chat on the encrypted messaging app Signal. Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, reported on Monday that he was added to a chain last week containing messages from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, and 15 other senior national security officials. The discussion regarded the Defense Department’s strike plans on the Houthis. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed to reporters that Musk had been asked to help lead the investigation, along with his team at the Department of Government Efficiency, per The Hill.

“Elon Musk has offered to put his technical experts on this to figure out how this number was inadvertently added to the chat, again to take responsibility and ensure this can never happen again,” she said. The White House Counsel’s office and the National Security Council are also helping with the investigation. President Donald Trump said a staffer on Waltz’s team was responsible for Goldberg’s inclusion, and Waltz has denied ever meeting or talking to Goldberg. The journalist’s invitation allegedly came from Waltz’s account. Waltz has accepted “full responsibility” for the scandal.

“I won’t make excuses for the security breach, for that’s what you call it when Jeffrey Goldberg is on the text chain hiding under the name “Jeffrey Goldberg.”

• Distinguishing the Signal From the Noise (Victoria Taft)

After the hypersonic quickness and near-flawlessness of the first few weeks of the Trump 47 presidency, the mediacrats have seized upon a Signal chat between 17 high-level administration officials and Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg. They’ve attempted to turn a discussion about attacking Houthis into the theft of the Manhattan Project. It won’t work, but it doesn’t mean that between applauding the Tesla showroom fire bombings and threatening the drivers of those cars, the left won’t keep trying to make this fetch happen. The Morning Joe gadflies, endless CNN panels, even Hillary Clinton and everyone at the Trump White House agree on one thing: Jeffrey Goldberg shouldn’t have been on that Signal text chain because no one can trust him.

Financier, Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary, often says, “To be effective you must be able to distinguish the signal from the noise.” The way this issue has been discussed by mediacrats, it’s been all noise. Endless noise. First, Goldberg hates Trump. His wife works for Hillary Clinton, for goodness’ sake. Goldberg is “The Atlantic’s” Bob Woodward: the guy that comes up with all kinds of uncorroborated stories that no one has ever heard of, much less seen evidence for. If it’s true, why is it only stated in front of Bob or Jeffrey and never reported or even alluded to by anyone before or since? Even actor Bill Murray worked out that puzzle. Goldberg put the words “suckers and losers” into Donald Trump’s mouth at the same time he allegedly petulantly refused to go to a World War II cemetery in Normandy. Yeah, that’s totally on brand for Trump. Not.

Of course, it had nothing to do with the weather making it impossible to fly over the French countryside and near the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc to get to the cemetery. I mean, there are never weather problems there. Take the Normandy invasion as an example, the reason why Trump was there. That whole Normandy invasion thing wasn’t beset by weather problems. Dwight Eisenhower had no problems with the weather. He parked those Higgins Boats without an issue, and everyone got to Omaha without a scratch — in Jeffrey Goldberg’s imagination, anyway. Also, do you think a president, especially one who owned his own aircraft, might take the word of a helo pilot when things are too dangerous? Naw. Never happen. The whole thing’s absurd. Matt’s got a nice round-up of the rest of the boneheaded things Goldberg has said about Trump over here.

This isn’t a bash Jeffrey Goldberg session; there are plenty of pieces around here doing that because he makes it so deliciously easy. I must mention, however, that “The Atlantic” editor reported that they discussed war plans on the Signal text chain. Or maybe that’s what he thought this discussion was. Let’s ask Jeffrey. Jeffrey, how did this compare to the last time you were privy to “military plans”? Did you get all the troop movements, LZs, and weapons packages the last time? Were you included in further communications when members of the national security team said on the Signal chat, “we need to move to the high side” to continue the discussion on a more secure apparatus? I won’t make excuses for the security breach, for that’s what you call it when Jeffrey Goldberg is on the text chain hiding under the name “Jeffrey Goldberg.” But who had Goldberg in their contacts, anyway? What the actual hell?

The noise continued with the hilarious and beside-the-point reactions by former Obama and Biden officials. They are pure irony. Honestly, who thought it was a good idea to get Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice’s reactions? That is comedy gold. What, no Tony Blinken to discuss his expertly executed Afghanistan pullout that included an agreement not to kill the terrorists killing innocents in front of American soldiers? Or was it the bug-out at Bagram, giving China a home base? The woman who destroyed documents, emails, phones under preservation orders, and also had her own server, which even Mike Morrell, one of the 51 spies who lied, said was certainly spied on by the ChiComs and Russians, and worse, weighed in. Goldberg’s wife’s boss, Hillary Clinton, said:

Hillary Clinton reacted to The Atlantic’s claim that Trump officials “accidentally” texted war plans, saying, “You have got to be kidding me.”

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/Gx1pjDlEwX

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 24, 2025

1,500+ organizations that haven’t been (re-) authorized by Congress for 45 years, but should have been. And have kept functioning, and received funding, as if they have been.

• Might of the Living Feds: 1,500+ Cash-Sucking ‘Zombies’ (RCW)

In 1974, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation to connect lower-income Americans involved in civil disputes with free legal help. The law that established the agency stipulated that authorization for its funding would expire in 1980, when lawmakers were required to vote on whether to keep it alive. They never did. Still, Congress has funded LSC every year since. In fiscal 2025, its 51st year, LSC’s 135 employees will spend 95% of its now $560 million annual budget paying legal groups to represent Americans in cases such as eviction, domestic violence, and disputes over government benefits, according to Ron Flagg, the agency’s president since 2020. “LSC would welcome reauthorization,” Flagg said. “We haven’t hidden from it. Every budget cycle, we go through an exhaustive process before Congress appropriates funds — dozens of meetings with leaders of both parties. We demonstrate our return on investment, how we help 2 million Americans get life-saving legal help.”

The Legal Services Corp. now stands as America’s oldest “Zombie” program, but it’s far from unique. At a time when the Trump administration is moving aggressively to scale back government, including eliminating the entire Education Department, it’s sobering to note that 1,503 agencies or programs live on despite expired authorizations, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Another 155 will expire on Sept. 30. The Zombies, nearly half of which have been officially dead for more than a decade, persist in a budgetary netherworld. In a deep dive last year, CBO analysts were able to find dollar amounts for 491 of the programs, with total expenditures of $516 billion. They don’t know how much funding the other programs received.

The total federal budget in 2024 was $6.8 trillion, meaning expired Zombie programs take up at least 8% of the budget, and likely much more. “A lot of programs don’t get reauthorized because Congress is okay with how they’re operating,” said Josh Huder, former congressional staffer now at the Georgetown University Government Affairs Institute. “They continue to get annual appropriations because most members think they’re worthwhile.” Many Zombie programs now soak up far more funding than lawmakers originally envisioned. The Federal Election Commission, for example, was expected to spend $9.4 million per year before its authorization expired in 1981. Yet the agency continued to receive funding and spent $95 million in 2024, auditors at government watchdog Open The Books found. The Federal Communications Commission was originally allocated $339.6 million per year. Its funding authorization expired in 2020, yet it spent $28.4 billion last year.

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency hasn’t addressed the Zombies that are prowling the federal spreadsheets. Given DOGE’s headlong push to first root out alleged waste, fraud, and abuse and ask questions later, experts say, Zombies may offer a ripe target. “One could imagine that if DOGE is clued into the notion of expired authorizations, they’ll think a program is defunct,” said Sarah Binder, senior fellow at Brookings and professor of political science at George Washington University. She said this would be a mistake. “If Congress is still appropriating money to the programs, they’re not Zombies. They’re living, breathing agencies.” Binder says the fault lies not with the agencies, some of which have become important enough to be household names, but Congress. Lawmakers have made it so difficult to accomplish their most fundamental tasks, such as funding the government for another year, that they hardly ever get around to doing other important things, such as reauthorizing existing programs.

The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, for example, expired in 2003. Yet in 2024, Congress spent $38.4 billion on 24 of the law’s programs, allowing legislators to influence the White House’s foreign policy and security assistance to other nations. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, now led by Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), supported the funding of 346 expired programs, more than any other committee, the CBO found. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, now chaired by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), spent more identifiable money than any other group: $153.5 billion. “Congress’ job doesn’t stop when they allocate the money,” said Casey Burgat, professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

“They have to oversee it. And when they fail to do that they open themselves up to somebody else doing that. In this case, an aggressive executive branch in the form of DOGE.” Of the 1,503 agencies or programs, 22 remain alive that required a reauthorization vote as long ago as the 1980s, according to the CBO. In addition to the Legal Services Corp., whose authorization expired in 1980, and the FEC (a 1981 reauthorization deadline), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, which oversees the country’s power grids (1984) and the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, whose data informs U.S. policymaking (1984), are among the Zombies pushing middle age.

Fetterman.

• “Sometimes a Little Brain Damage Can Help.” (Pinsker)

He might be dead, but George Carlin is having a career year on social media. Seems the 20-something liberal crowd has discovered his standup material, and short clips of him lambasting the establishment are still going viral. Of course, Carlin was also waaaay to the left: In one of his books, he wrote, “Property is theft. Nobody ‘owns’ anything. When you die, it all stays here.” Liberals love that. (Interestingly, clips of his 1990 “Doin’ It Again” HBO concert, where he condemns euphemistic language, censorship, PC gibberish, and even defends the use of the N-word, are seldom shared online. Can’t imagine why.) Whenever Carlin’s clips are uploaded, the youngsters all seem to have the same reaction: “Wow, this guy was REALLY ahead of his time!” And in some ways, he absolutely was. But perhaps he was most notably ahead of his time with his 1984 book, “Sometimes a Little Brain Damage Can Help.”

Because, 40 years later — which sounds almost biblical, an irony Carlin would probably appreciate — an enormously large, brain-damaged Pennsylvania senator named John Fetterman is having a career year, too. I mentioned his size because it’s striking: At six foot eight, he’s the only man left in D.C. who can look Barron Trump in the eye. With his shaved head and “gym bro” sweats, he’s one of a handful of Democrats who wouldn’t be out of place on the set of the “Joe Rogan Experience.” In fact, he’s already recorded one episode with Rogan and will probably be taping more. (Over two million views on YouTube and Spotify.) Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is just beginning to realize that it’s lost an entire generation of young male voters. As we discussed two days ago, “75-year-old white men supported Kamala Harris at a significantly higher rate than 20-year-old white men.”

As Newsweek described it: “This is the thing I am the most shocked by in the last four years—that young people have gone from being the most progressive generation since the Baby Boomers… to becoming potentially the most conservative generation that we’ve experienced maybe in 50 to 60 years,” Shor [the head of data science at the pro-Democratic polling firm Blue Rose Research] stated. It’s quickly becoming an existential problem for the Democratic Party. This is still a closely divided country; neither party can afford to lose key members of their constituencies. It’s all hands on deck! As professor David B. Cohen told Newsweek: Young voters compose a crucial part of the Democratic base, and if that is eroding, where do they make up for that? Going forward, Democrats will have to figure out how to bring young voters back to the fold — particularly young men — if they want to be competitive nationally.

Enter John Fetterman. He’s been candid about his mental health struggles — something which disproportionately afflicts young men, by the way. When pro-Hamas hoodlums protested outside of his home, he took to the roof and waved the Israeli flag. And he’s had it with the wackjobs in his own party: “I was really the first Democrat to refuse to shut our government down, and my party was so desperate to pander to shut the government down,” Fetterman said. “Absurd, absolutely absurd. Six months ago, we were lecturing the Republicans, ‘You can’t shut the government down.’ Now it’s, ‘Well, yeah, let’s do these things.’” He added, “It’s like that’s part of the problem, to pander, and they want to pander to the extreme parts of our party, to shut the government down. I said I will never burn the village down and claim that I’m saving it.”

Fetterman also pointed to Michigan as an example of political “pandering” that failed, claiming the Democratic Party tried to appeal to the left-wing Arab-American population only to lose the state to President Donald Trump anyway. He specifically called out Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., for refusing to support President Joe Biden and later Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 election because of their support for Israel. Fetterman claimed that she and other far-left Democrats ultimately helped to elect Trump. [Emphasis added] But his stance came at a cost: It put him in the crosshairs of the Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez/Bernie Sanders wing of the party. They hate him! But Big John isn’t backing down:

Fight “harder”—a stunt that would have harmed millions and plunged us into chaos.

We kept our government open.

Deal with it. pic.twitter.com/B7NvcidNfa

— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) March 21, 2025

It’s a power struggle. And it’s one that Fetterman won’t win: He might be big, but his “wing” of the party is puny. The Democratic Party is essentially a coalition party, where the common denominator is that everyone agrees that they’ll work together. For most of the last 50 years, the coalition has been comprised of women, minorities, liberals, young voters, and “left-leaning libertarians” — folks like Bill Maher, who generally lean to the left but mostly want to be left alone. And you could probably include John Fetterman in that group, too.

After JFK and MLK, people will be sleptical.

• Trump Declassifies FBI Crossfire Hurricane Files (RT)

US President Donald Trump has ordered the declassification of all FBI files related to the agency’s investigation into his first election campaign’s alleged contacts with Russia. The FBI launched the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ investigation in July 2016 to examine whether Trump – then a presidential candidate – or members of his campaign were colluding or coordinating with Moscow to influence the election. In a memorandum released on Tuesday by the White House, Trump directed the Attorney General to make the materials available to the public “immediately.” Crossfire Hurricane was prompted by the ‘Steele Dossier’ – a compilation of unverified rumors about Trump and his alleged links to Russia. The dossier was compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, and reportedly funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Crossfire Hurricane preceded the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose subsequent ‘Russiagate’ investigation found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. In 2023, the US Justice Department’s (DOJ) special counsel John Durham – appointed to review the origins of the Crossfire Hurricane probe – concluded that the FBI and DOJ had “failed to uphold their mission” by relying on biased information to surveil Trump. Durham criticized the FBI for showing a “serious lack of analytical rigor,” particularly when handling information from politically-affiliated sources. It was also revealed that the Steele Dossier had been used by the FBI to obtain court permission to spy on Trump’s campaign. In 2019, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported that the FBI had made “basic, fundamental, and serious errors” in its warrant application.

Mike Davis
https://twitter.com/liz_churchill10/status/1904725820863578255

‘Crossfire Hurricane’ and Mueller’s Russiagate investigation cast a long shadow over Trump’s presidency, with allegations of “Russian collusion” persisting in the media even after Mueller’s report found no evidence to back them up. In a video posted on Tuesday on Truth Social, Trump said after signing the order: “This was total weaponization. It’s a disgrace…but now you’ll be able to see for yourselves.” Addressing journalists, he added: “You probably won’t bother because you’re not going to like what you see.” Trump had previously ordered a full declassification of Crossfire Hurricane during the final days of his first term, but the documents were never released. According to a 2023 CNN report, a binder containing highly classified information later went missing.

“There is a decent chance of instead of having this gigantic collapse because the dollar is basically evaporating, that this government will be smart enough to do the monetary reset. Go back to a gold standard . . . go back to some sort of commodity base standard..”

• US Government is a Big Money Laundering Operation – John Rubino (USAW)

Analyst and financial writer John Rubino warned last October that “Chaos is Coming.” With exploding Tesla dealerships, mass deportations of violent gangs, DOGE uncovering massive fraud and waste, and an out-of-control Leftist judiciary trying to stop President Trump at every turn, you could say chaos is here. Rubino contends it’s not going away anytime soon as government grifters are going to try to keep the cash flowing. Now, AG Pam Bondi says her office is going after the fraudsters ripping off America. Rubino explains, “We are finding out that the federal government is a big money laundering operation. There are so many different ways and so many different avenues that take cash from taxpayers or newly created cash . . . and it basically funnels it to political operatives, political class and the ‘expert’ class all around the world. . . . We have created this class of people who are effectively grifters . . . because they don’t do anything worthwhile at all. Do you think that think-tanks produce anything of value, or lobbyists or Washington law firms or regulators? The regulator is basically on a long job interview for the company you are regulating. You prove you are a team player and then Pfizer hires you for 10 times your FDA salary. So, everywhere you look it’s a form of money laundering.”

So, now interest payments are spiraling to infinity with massive amounts of debt and currency creation. Rubino says, “We have hit the death spiral point for the dollar and the other big fiat currencies, which means the cost to maintain this debt starts to spiral out of control and people lose faith in the currency or the currency collapses or you have a currency reset. What is really interesting about the Trump Administration is it contains a lot of gold bugs. . . . There is a decent chance of instead of having this gigantic collapse because the dollar is basically evaporating, that this government will be smart enough to do the monetary reset. Go back to a gold standard . . . go back to some sort of commodity base standard where we peg the dollar to something that is real and cannot be created in infinite quantities on a printing press. It could be we do that without insane amounts of pain and stress, but it would still be painful. Anybody who has dollars will watch those dollars be devalued dramatically.”

In this scenario, the dollar sinks in value. What happens to gold? Rubino says, “Everybody who runs the numbers says gold has to be $10,000 per ounce at a minimum and maybe much higher. Gold has to go way up in price in a currency reset. . . . So, your gold becomes much more valuable, and your silver gets pulled along by gold and goes up by some multiple of gold’s percentage gains. If gold goes up three times, silver will go up five to ten times.” Rubino thinks Europe is headed for war with Russia or civil war. Either way, the Euro will not survive. Rubino says the domestic violence will continue here in America but thinks the Deep State won’t stop President Trump’s agenda. Rubino also says everybody should concentrate on owning real things such as farm land, gold, silver and a good vehicle. Rubino also says some emergency food and a garden are good ideas too.

“Nearly 31% of ad minutes on major nightly news broadcasts in 2024 came from pharmaceutical brands.”

• RFK Jr. is Pushing Big Pharma Ad Ban – And Corporate Media is Panicking (Becker)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Donald Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary, is pushing a plan to ban pharmaceutical ads from television. He’s right to push for it—and not just because the U.S. is one of only two countries on earth that allows such advertising (the other being New Zealand). America’s health system isn’t just flawed; it’s harming public health, distorting journalism, and fueling Big Pharma’s malignant influence over our daily lives. Let’s start with the obvious: TV drug ads aren’t designed to inform—they’re designed to manipulate. The formula is always the same. Cue soft lighting and sappy piano music. A sad, listless person pops a pill and suddenly life is vibrant again. They’re running through fields, laughing with family, walking dogs across idyllic bridges. Then, in a breathless voiceover, the side effects come tumbling out like a legal disclaimer roulette wheel—stroke, heart failure, suicidal thoughts. The goal? Make viewers want a drug before they even talk to their doctor. It’s emotional coercion dressed up as health education.

This completely inverts how medicine is supposed to work. Health care decisions should be made inside the exam room, not in a 60-second marketing spot. Patients should go to their doctors with symptoms, and those doctors—armed with clinical training and knowledge of the patient’s full health profile—should decide whether a drug is even necessary. Many issues could be better addressed through lifestyle changes, diet, supplements, or preventative care. But instead, America has normalized a pill-for-everything culture, supercharged by the fact that doctors are often nudged by patients demanding whatever drug they saw advertised last night during a commercial break. This isn’t just bad medicine—it’s dangerous. And it’s no accident.

Big Pharma isn’t spending billions on advertising because it cares about your health. It’s doing it because the return on investment is enormous. Studies estimate the ROI on direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug ads ranges from 100% to 500%, depending on the drug. In 2025 alone, pharmaceutical companies are projected to spend over $5 billion on national linear TV ads, according to iSpot.tv. That number balloons even higher when you include digital and streaming. Just a handful of blockbuster drugs—like Skyrizi, Jardiance, and Ozempic—are burning through tens of millions in TV ads every month. This revenue isn’t just padding Big Pharma’s pockets—it’s quietly buying influence in the media. Nearly 31% of ad minutes on major nightly news broadcasts in 2024 came from pharmaceutical brands.

That means a huge portion of media budgets depend on the very companies they should be holding accountable. And surprise, surprise: when Big Pharma misleads the public, many news outlets are either silent or hesitant to report critically. The financial conflict of interest is baked in. We saw the worst-case version of this during the COVID-19 pandemic. The novel mRNA shots—rushed to market under emergency use—were sold to the public as miracle solutions. Government officials and media outlets claimed these vaccines would “stop infection,” “prevent death entirely,” and “end the pandemic.” Younger, healthy individuals were told they needed them for everyone’s safety, despite already low statistical risk. None of these claims held up. As the data evolved, we learned the vaccines offered some reduction in severe disease, but not sterilizing immunity. Yet the media rarely corrected course.

Why would they? Pharma ads were paying the bills. Meanwhile, federal workers were mandated—and many private sector employees coerced—into getting injections under false pretenses. Billions of dollars flowed to Big Pharma. The American public was misled. This pattern of deception is not new. Pfizer alone has paid billions in legal penalties over the years for unethical marketing, off-label promotion, and other violations. The most infamous: a $2.3 billion settlement in 2009—the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history at the time. Yet companies like Pfizer, AbbVie, and Johnson & Johnson still enjoy a polished image on TV, thanks in part to relentless ad spending and regulatory leniency.

They hired her for her Russophobia. What did they think they would get?

• EU Officials Unhappy With Kallas – Politico (RT)

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has been criticized by nearly a dozen EU officials over her hawkish stance on Russia and leadership style, Politico has reported, citing unnamed sources. According to the outlet, Kallas’ challenges began on her first day in office in December, following her tweet stating, “The European Union wants Ukraine to win this war” against Russia. Several EU officials reportedly felt uneasy that the former Estonian prime minister, within a day of assuming her new role, “felt at liberty to go beyond” established language norms. ”If you listen to her, it seems we are at war with Russia, which is not the EU line,” Politico cited one EU official as complaining on Wednesday.

Kallas has been a vocal critic of Russia and an advocate for increased military support to Ukraine. Her initiative to increase EU military aid to Kiev to up to €40 billion ($43.1 million) this year faced opposition from member states like Italy and Spain, who do not perceive Moscow as an immediate threat to the EU. Kallas, however, still has her defenders among the EU’s northern and eastern states, noted Politico. Russia has openly criticized the top diplomat, labeling her statements “rabidly Russophobic,” and “undiplomatic,” and accusing her of pushing for militarization amid ongoing US-brokered peace talks on Ukraine. She’s also reportedly been criticized for continuing to act like a prime minister by failing to consult diplomats from member countries before making sensitive proposals.

Kallas’ relationship with the United States has been questioned by some officials. After the sudden cancellation of her February meeting in Washington with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, attributed to “scheduling issues,” Politico sources suggested that Kallas had not adequately prepared by providing a clear agenda to US counterparts. After a contentious February Oval Office exchange involving US President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, Kallas tweeted, “The free world needs a new leader.” The apparent jab at Trump reportedly unsettled nations eager to maintain strong ties with the US administration.

” Moscow suspects that Kiev is attempting to derail Washington’s efforts to mediate a comprehensive truce by continuing its attacks on energy infrastructure.”

• Moscow Backs Ceasefire Despite Kiev’s Breaches – Kremlin (RT)

Ukraine’s ongoing attacks on energy infrastructure are in breach of a US-mediated ceasefire but will not dissuade Russia from maintaining its commitment to the pause, Dmitry Peskov stated on Wednesday. The agreement to refrain from attacking such sites was brokered by US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin during a phone conversation last week. Ukraine launched three separate assaults over two days, aimed at a natural gas reservoir and two segments of the national power grid, the Russian military reported on Wednesday; the latter two resulted in supply disruptions. At a press briefing, Peskov acknowledged Kiev’s “inability to adhere to agreements,” citing the incidents as evidence. Nevertheless, the Russian military is adhering to the suspension of strikes.

Peskov expressed the Kremlin’s commitment to the moratorium, saying it signifies progress in the improvement of US-Russia bilateral relations. He reminded journalists that Moscow has specified the types of targets protected under the partial ceasefire, which were discussed during consultations in Saudi Arabia earlier this week. Moscow suspects that Kiev is attempting to derail Washington’s efforts to mediate a comprehensive truce by continuing its attacks on energy infrastructure. The Foreign Ministry had previously warned that Russia could withdraw from the agreement in response to Ukrainian “provocations.”

Discussions in Riyadh reportedly focused on reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, a defunct security framework under which Moscow guaranteed the safety of civilian transportation to and from Ukrainian ports. Russia turned down the renewal of the agreement in 2023, citing Kiev’s misuse of the arrangement for military goals and the West’s failure to ease sanctions in order to facilitate food and fertilizer exports. Peskov assured that if past commitments made to Russia are finally honored, the initiative would be “reactivated.”

“..a gradual but steady erosion of Kyiv’s position on the battlefield, regardless of any U.S. or allied attempts to impose new and greater costs on Moscow..”

• Russia Winning In Ukraine, Continually Gaining Leverage: US Intel (ZH)

The US government in its 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community – which was just released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in conjunction with top officials’ testimony at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday – has admitted that Ukraine’s battlefield prospects are fading amid the onslaught of superior Russian forces. Currently, Moscow has “seized the upper hand” in the war over the past year, the fresh assessment warns, and “is on a path to accrue greater leverage” as peace talks with Washington are underway. “Even though Russian President [Vladimir] Putin will be unable to achieve the total victory he envisioned when initiating the large-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia retains momentum as a grinding war of attrition plays to Russia’s military advantages,” the report states.

“This grinding war of attrition will lead to a gradual but steady erosion of Kyiv’s position on the battlefield, regardless of any U.S. or allied attempts to impose new and greater costs on Moscow,” it continues. This should come as no surprise to any objective observer; however, what is surprising is the huge amount of Russian losses estimated by US intelligence. While there’s no way of verifying such information, the report claims that there are over 750,000 dead and wounded on the Russian side. Still, the intel community emphasizes the Russian military machine’s ability to quickly replenish personnel while growing its industrial capacity to continually support the war.

On the prospect for achieving a quick peace settlement, the report notes that both Russian and Ukrainian leadership “probably still see the risks of a longer war as less than those of an unsatisfying settlement.” “For Russia, positive battlefield trends allow for some strategic patience, and for Ukraine, conceding territory or neutrality to Russia without substantial security guarantees from the West could prompt domestic backlash and future insecurity.” “Regardless of how and when the war in Ukraine ends, Russia’s current geopolitical, economic, military, and domestic political trends underscore its resilience and enduring potential threat to U.S. power, presence, and global interests,” it adds.

https://twiter.com/yarotrof/status/1904857430925648010?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1904857430925648010%7Ctwgr%5E23ccd6fdd0351c2bcd235f92faf7645aa404b476%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Frussia-winning-ukraine-continually-gaining-leverage-us-intel-community

* * *
A note from UBS … US Intelligence On Russia Nuclear Capacity, China And Taiwan . The US annual threat assessment from the Director of National Intelligence carries warnings about Russia and China. The 2025 edition warned that Russia is developing a satellite capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. It said that China was making aggressive efforts to assert its sovereignty in the south and east China seas, and seems likely to increase its economic pressure on Taiwan. Indeed the report warned that China represented the most comprehensive and robust military threat to US security. The report claimed that both Russia and China are eyeing up Greenland for natural resources.

“..the weapons remained under Russian operational control and Kiev lacked the technical capability to launch them..”

• Ukraine Never Had Nuclear Weapons – Grenell (RT)

The nuclear weapons that Ukraine transferred to Russia under the terms of the Budapest Memorandum in the 1990s were never under Kiev’s control, US Presidential Envoy for Special Assignments Richard Grenell has said. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine inherited a significant portion of the USSR’s nuclear arsenal, temporarily making it the third-largest nuclear power at the time. However, the weapons remained under Russian operational control and Kiev lacked the technical capability to launch them. In 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum along with the US, Russia and the UK, under which Kiev agreed to transfer all of its nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for security assurances.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Grenell wrote: “Let’s clarify the Budapest Memorandum situation: the nuclear weapons belonged to Russia and were leftovers. Ukraine returned the nuclear weapons back to Russia. They did not belong to Ukraine. That’s an inconvenient fact.” Grenell’s comments come amid renewed statements by Ukrainian officials criticizing the country’s disarmament in the 1990s. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky recently told British journalist Piers Morgan that Ukraine was “forced” to give up its nuclear weapons and described the Budapest Memorandum as “stupid, illogical, and very irresponsible.” He argued that Kiev should now either be fast-tracked into NATO or given nuclear weapons and missile systems to counter Russia.

Retired US General Keith Kellogg, who serves as Trump’s envoy to Ukraine and Russia, dismissed the proposal. Speaking to Fox News Digital last month, Kellogg said, “The chance of them getting their nuclear weapons back is somewhere between slim and none. Let’s be honest about it, we both know that’s not going to happen.”

Russia has repeatedly stated that Ukraine never possessed any nuclear weapons of its own, as the assets belonged to Moscow as the sole legal successor of the Soviet Union. Russian officials also maintain that the Budapest Memorandum envisioned Ukraine’s neutral status, which has since been undermined by NATO’s eastward expansion and Kiev’s aspirations to join the bloc. Moscow has cited Ukraine’s ambition to join NATO and its threat to obtain nuclear weapons as root causes for the Ukraine conflict. In November, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that if Ukraine were to obtain nuclear weapons, Moscow would use “all the means of destruction at Russia’s disposal.”

Major step.

• US Looking For ‘Proper Way’ To Reconnect Russia to SWIFT – Bessent (RT)

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has confirmed that all options remain on the table as Washington considers lifting certain sanctions against Moscow, including the possible reconnection of Russian banks to the Belgium-based SWIFT network. The US and EU cut off major Russian banks from the SWIFT messaging system as part of a decade-long sanctions campaign, which was significantly expanded following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. As part of the Black Sea ceasefire initiative discussed in Saudi Arabia earlier this week, Moscow requested that its Agricultural Bank (Rosselkhozbank) and other institutions involved in food and fertilizer sales be reconnected to the international payment system. “There would be a long discussion about many things in terms of the proper way to bring Russia back into the international system,” Bessent told Fox News on Wednesday, emphasizing that it was “premature to discuss the terms of a deal before we have a deal.”

“I think everything is on the table,” he added, noting that “it will be determined by the Russian leadership’s next moves whether the sanctions go up or down, and President Trump, I think, would not hesitate to raise the sanctions if it gives him a negotiating advantage.” Reconnecting Rosselkhozbank to SWIFT was part of the original Black Sea Grain Initiative, brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye. A Western failure to deliver on that commitment, along with Kiev’s alleged misuse of the arrangement for military purposes, prompted Moscow to reject the renewal of the agreement in 2023. The US and Russia agreed to revive the defunct Black Sea deal following 12 hours of talks in Saudi Arabia on Monday. President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that his administration is considering lifting some sanctions on Moscow. “There are about five or six conditions. We’re looking at all of them,” he said.

The Brussels-based SWIFT system is incorporated under Belgian law and must comply with EU regulations and restrictions. European Commission spokeswoman Anitta Hipper stated on Wednesday that the bloc will not amend or lift its sanctions until Russia “unconditionally” withdraws all forces from the “entire territory of Ukraine.” Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week that Western sanctions are not a temporary measure but a long-term tool used to apply strategic pressure on Moscow, and that Russia’s rivals will always seek out ways to weaken the country. According to Putin, a total of 28,595 sanctions have been imposed on Russian individuals and entities in recent years – more than the total number imposed on all other countries combined – which have only strengthened the national economy by encouraging self-reliance.

“..without effective policy interventions, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio could rise from the current 124% to approximately 130% by 2035, with interest payments consuming about 30% of federal revenue.”

• Moody’s Issues Warning On US Finances (RT)

Ratings agency Moody’s has sounded the alarm on the United States fiscal health, warning of a continued decline due to widening budget deficits and increasing concerns over debt affordability. The warning comes as the national debt surpasses $36 trillion and annual deficits exceed $1.7 trillion, raising concerns about the government’s ability to manage its financial obligations. ”[US] fiscal strength is on course for a continued multiyear decline”, having already “deteriorated further” since Moody’s assigned a negative outlook to America’s top-notch AAA credit rating in November 2023, the agency said in a report on Tuesday, as cited by Financial Times.

US President Donald Trump has advocated measures aimed at stabilizing the nation’s finances, including implementing significant tariffs and proposing tax cuts intended to stimulate economic growth. However, Moody’s has cautioned that extending substantial tax cuts without implementing significant spending reductions could exacerbate the country’s fiscal challenges. ”We see diminished prospects that these strengths will continue to offset widening fiscal deficits and declining debt affordability,” it said, according to Reuters.

Republicans are pushing for a $4.5 trillion extension of tax cuts, which would in turn require significant spending reductions, something that may conflict with Trump’s commitment to protect social programs, the agency noted. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, tasked with reducing wasteful spending, claims to have achieved $115 billion in savings nationwide. However, according to Moody’s, such cuts are relatively minor compared to mandatory spending obligations. The agency projects that, without effective policy interventions, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio could rise from the current 124% to approximately 130% by 2035, with interest payments consuming about 30% of federal revenue.

Tucker cancer

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong is a surgeon who made billions inventing cancer drugs. He says that Covid, and the vaccines that didn’t stop it, are likely causing a global epidemic of terrifyingly aggressive cancers.

(0:00) Why Are Cancer Rates Rising in Young People?
(6:16) What Is… pic.twitter.com/5QO8AWLtXx

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 26, 2025

Change

This speech will change your life pic.twitter.com/KcyW6EdDRV

— Best of Philosophy (@BotPhilosophyQ) March 25, 2025

IVM

This is huge – about time. https://t.co/Vf7zE8kdcX

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) March 26, 2025

Water

I wish the whole world was like this ♥️ pic.twitter.com/YjWcxM5XlX

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) March 26, 2025

Bike
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1904655016427741277

Best friend
https://twitter.com/Yoda4ever/status/1904589189267808471

Such a good boy pic.twitter.com/fBXJ9GI5Oh

— Wow Animals (@WOW_ANIMALS1) March 25, 2025

Family
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1904965543695663410

Herds

Elephant herds in Africa
pic.twitter.com/oJvF8Kk28A

— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) March 26, 2025

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

Debt Rattle March 26 2025

Mar 262025

March 26, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 11:03 am Finance Tagged with: Atlantic, Bill Barr, easing sanctions, judicial overreach, retaliate, Riyadh, Signal, Supreme Court, tariffs, Trump 45 Responses »

Georges Seurat A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte 1884

• Trump’s Appeals Are Piling Up For The Supreme Court (Whedon)

• Ted Cruz On Judicial Overreach From District Judges (Downs)

• Nationwide Injunctions Pit Executive Versus Judicial Authority (ET)

• Even Bill Barr Thinks the Judges are Out of Line (Spencer)

• Trump Eyes Two-Stage Tariffs On April 2 To ‘Strengthen Legal Framework’ (ZH)

• The Atlantic’s Signal Story Is Quickly Falling Apart (Vespa)

• Disdain For Europe In US Signal Chat Horrifies EU (BBC)

• Europe Backs Off Tariffs, But … (Lyman)

• EU Could Slap Meta With €1 Billion Fine, Trump Vows To Retaliate (RMX)

• EU ‘Contradicting’ US On Ukraine – Lavrov (RT)

• White House Reveals Details Of US-Russia Talks In Riyadh (RT)

• Zelensky Announces Push To Enlist Younger Men (RT)

• US ‘Thinking About’ Easing Russia Sanctions – Trump (RT)

• Trump Hails ‘Progress’ On Ukraine (RT)

Donald Trump Cares pic.twitter.com/Bkn5MVibNk

— A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) March 24, 2025

Manufacturing

ELON: HERE’S HOW I BECAME VERY GOOD AT MANUFACTURING

“It's not as though I wanted to insource manufacturing, it's just that I was unable to outsource it effectively.

The idea, at the beginning of Tesla, was that we would outsource almost all the manufacturing.

But then it… pic.twitter.com/DjnDo9Ewwq

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) March 25, 2025

Elon

pic.twitter.com/ouI5Ro2Zwo

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 25, 2025

Alina

MAGA Goddess Alina Habba steps in to clean up New Jersey. Another Winning MAGA Move. pic.twitter.com/tei2Ece0pg

— Dr Trumpenstein (@DoctorCanDo) March 24, 2025

DOGE

HUGE ‼️ Elon Musk’s DOGE is targeting Consulting Firms

“DOGE is turning its attention to massive government contracts, and consulting firms are scrambling to justify their funding”

They must justify the billions in taxpayer cash they’ve been given!!

“Firms have just a week to… pic.twitter.com/a75hHHU5hG

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 25, 2025

DeSantis
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1904201240843604212

Signal

A point of clarity: so, we don't have months and months of this again, before people catch up.

Jeffrey Goldberg has no factual information that Mike Waltz invited him to the group Signal chat.

**Goldberg only knows a device, presumably attributed to Mike Waltz, added his user… https://t.co/Y0wfCOVDny

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) March 25, 2025

Bondi

BREAKING: Pam Bondi just confirmed they will be criminally investigating the fraud uncovered by DOGE!

LOCK THEM ALL UP!
pic.twitter.com/sRFvExK4o5

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) March 24, 2025

I have argued this for the past two years: Failure to make peace now and threats of expanding NATO after the war will result in Russia seizing its historical territories from Kharkov to Odessa.
– If Ukraine had not been robbed of its neutrality in 2014, then there would not have been any territorial claims. Even in 2022, the Istanbul peace agreement was solely focused on neutrality. We need to end this war now and end NATO expansionism

“District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs [Temporary Restraining Orders] during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration..”

• Trump’s Appeals Are Piling Up For The Supreme Court (Whedon)

The Trump administration’s latest legal showdown with James Boasberg, chief judge of the federal district court for the District of Columbia, over the deportation of Venezuelan gang members threatens to dump yet another judicial injunction on the plate of the Supreme Court. It adds yet more pressure on the justices to rule on the scope of lower court authority and interaction with the Executive Branch. Nationwide injunctions have become increasingly common in recent years. An April 2024 Harvard Law Review study found that 96 were issued from the presidency of George W. Bush to the date of publication. Overall, 86.5% of those were issued by judges appointed by members of the opposing party. Trump’s first term saw 64 injunctions while Biden only faced 14. Less than 65 days into this term, judges have imposed at least 15 such injunctions on the Trump administration in its first two months alone.

The administration has so far faced dozens of lawsuits, mostly over Trump’s executive orders and the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Most of the injunctions so far have come from judges on either the Maryland or District of Columbia courts, although the injunctions purport to be in effect nationwide. The breadth of such injunctions is sure to be raised to the Supreme Court at some point in the near future. Trump is currently fighting to freeze federal funding, deport foreign gang members, fire thousands of federal workers, reinterpret birthright citizenship and to achieve a host of other objectives. Boasberg’s case involves Trump’s invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and has led to heated exchanges in the courtroom over the administration’s responsiveness to the judge’s orders. The administration on Tuesday invoked state secrets privilege when declining to provide further information on the deportation of the gang members requested by Boasberg.

“This is a case about the President’s plenary authority, derived from Article II and the mandate of the electorate, and reinforced by longstanding statute, to remove from the homeland designated terrorists participating in a state-sponsored invasion of, and predatory incursion into, the United States,” the government wrote to the court. “The Court has all of the facts it needs to address the compliance issues before it. Further intrusions on the Executive Branch would present dangerous and wholly unwarranted separation-of-powers harms with respect to diplomatic and national security concerns that the Court lacks competence to address.” The appeals process is ongoing at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which held oral arguments on Monday. That body has yet to issue a decision, but an unfavorable one is sure to result in an appeal by the administration to the Supreme Court.

When urging the Supreme Court to intervene, the Trump administration has highlighted the potential burdens on the top bench should nationwide injunctions become normalized and the court faces an influx of emergency appeals. The Supreme Court traditionally hears roughly 100-150 cases per year of the more than 7,000 cases seeking their intervention. The Supreme Court hears cases on a system of “certiorari,” under which a case cannot, as a matter of right, be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Any party seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court from a lower court decision must file a writ of certiorari.

“District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs [Temporary Restraining Orders] during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration,” acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote while asking the court to address injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order. “That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this Court’s emergency docket.”

“..Cruz did speak to examples he’s more hopeful about, which provide hope for the future. Such remedies include, as the senator sees it, “sunshine, drawing attention to it.”

• Ted Cruz On Judicial Overreach From District Judges (Downs)

The judicial overreach from district judges constantly ruling against the Trump administration and whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will get involved has certainly been in the news lately, as Townhall. It’s gotten to such a level that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) weighed in with his Monday episode of “The Verdict,” the podcast co-hosted with Ben Ferguson. In discussing the newsworthy topic, Cruz issued several key reminders about these judges, as Ferguson asked for a “remedy” and a “strategy to fight back,” reminding that “it’s very frustrating,” especially those who voted for President Donald Trump’s agenda, which a majority of Americans support,

As Cruz reminded in response, “to be clear,” the judges “were in every single case, elected by no one.” For every one of these judges, they were appointed by the president and then confirmed by the U.S. Senate, with Cruz stressing that “no federal judge is elected.” For unelected judges, there is a few examples of checks and balances. There’s impeachment, with Republican congressmen bringing forth plans to do just that, though Cruz was not optimistic about such an option. “Impeachment, unfortunately, is not going to be effective against this abuse of power,” Cruz shared, explaining how it’s the similar process as impeaching an executive officer. While it only takes a majority in the House to impeach a judge, which could happen, “impeaching, however, it is not removing the judge,” Cruz reminded. “It is the equivalent of bringing charges. It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts, which is to bring criminal charges against someone, impeaching is the same thing.”

Even if Republicans in the House were to unify, however, “the chances that any of these judges would be removed for issuing these nationwide injunctions are 0.00 percent,” Cruz made clear. In the Senate, Cruz reminded, you need two-thirds to convict and remove the person in office, in this case a federal judge. “Now, we do not have 67 Republicans in the Senate. We only have 53 that means we would need at least 14 Democrats, and that’s assuming every Republican stood together. The chances of 14 Democrats voting to convict any of these radical left-wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump are zero; and understand why. The Democrats in the Senate hate Trump,” he said, going on to add how these Democrats, so full of hatred against Trump, reacted to his address before a joint session of Congress earlier this month.

“These are the same people that sat there and refused to applaud for the president, refused to applaud for the mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal immigrant criminals. These are the same Democrats that refused to applaud for a 13-year-old kid fighting to overcome brain cancer.”Further, Democrats are actually quite supportive of these judges and what they’re doing. Arguably the most prominent example was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) with his comments last week. Democrats, Cruz reminded, are “cheering on these injunctions,” as “they want more lawlessness, and so impeachment is not going to be effective.” Cruz also spoke further about the power of Congress beyond impeaching judges, which has no chance of resulting in removal. “Now, secondly, another remedy is that Congress can restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and Congress has broad authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” the senator added.

“Actually, Congress could abolish the district courts. There’s nothing in the Constitution that creates district courts. The only court created in the Constitution is the Supreme Court of the United States, and Congress created the lower courts, the district courts and the courts of appeals to process the volume of cases. But Congress has broad authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but again, to exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to overcome the filibuster, which means you would need 60 votes. We have 53 Republicans. The chances of any Senate Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges issued a nationwide injunction? If it’s not zero, it’s damn close to zero. So those remedies are quite limited,” the senator highlighted, speaking of that example.However, Cruz did speak to examples he’s more hopeful about, which provide hope for the future. Such remedies include, as the senator sees it, “sunshine, drawing attention to it.”

“..“only this court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”

• Nationwide Injunctions Pit Executive Versus Judicial Authority (ET)

President Donald Trump’s agenda has been slowed by a long list of orders issued by federal judges against his policies. Those orders include many that are nationwide in scope. Dubbed nationwide or universal injunctions, they are considered extraordinary because they allow a single judge to block national policies. Nationwide orders have increasingly been used by judges in recent years, prompting pushback from presidential administrations. Trump recently denounced their use and asked the Supreme Court to intervene. “Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!” the president said in a March 20 post on Truth Social. “These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings.”

Judges have defended the broad scope of the injunctions, saying they’re necessary to avoid purported harms resulting from executive action. Critics, meanwhile, argue that courts are exceeding their authority, even as lawyers “shop” for favorable judges who are likely to agree with their policy preferences. While the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue, it could have the final say, as challenges to Trump’s actions make their way up the appeals process. According to a study by the Harvard Law Review, the number of universal orders has increased in recent years. Most come from judges appointed by a president from the opposing party to the one in the White House. The trend, the study said, has been fueled by “judge shopping,” where plaintiffs strategically file lawsuits before judges they view as more favorable to their case.

Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama saw six and 12 universal injunctions, respectively, during their terms. That number increased to 64 during Trump’s first term—59 of which came from a judge appointed by a president of the opposing party. President Joe Biden, meanwhile, saw a slightly higher number than Obama with 14—all of them coming from judges appointed by a president of the opposing party. Judges have defended the nationwide scope of their rulings. “The reason the Executive Orders are unconstitutional—namely that, at minimum, they violate the separation of powers—are applicable to jurisdictions throughout the country,” U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson said in February while blocking Trump’s order on so-called gender-affirming care.

“The necessity of a nationwide injunction is underscored by the fact that hospitals all over the country could lose access to all federal funding if they continue to provide gender-affirming medical care.” In issuing a preliminary injunction on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said in February that a geographically limited injunction would be “ineffective” as plaintiff states would have to pay for the children of illegal immigrants who travel from other states. Trump attempted to combat what he said to be “abuses of the legal system and the federal court” with an order on March 22 that directed the attorney general to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.”

Experts have pointed to Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship as one that’s likely to reach the Supreme Court. Given a recent filing by the Trump administration, it could prompt a broader ruling about nationwide injunctions. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has asked the Supreme Court to say “enough is enough.” She filed a petition asking the court to review three nationwide preliminary injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration,” Harris said. She noted that the number of universal injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued against the current administration has already outpaced the first three years of the Biden administration. She argued that “only this court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”

“..we have this phenomena of nation-wide injunctions where the lowest level judge, district judges, try to bind the entire nation and bind the president in their initial decision. That is not what we have meant by the judicial power under our Constitution.”

• Even Bill Barr Thinks the Judges are Out of Line (Spencer)

When you’ve lost Bill Barr, you really don’t have a case. Even Bill Barr, who was Donald Trump’s attorney general from Feb. 2019 to Dec. 2020 but had a bitter falling-out with him, thinks that the activist far-left judges who are blocking Trump’s efforts to deport criminal migrants are going too far. This is significant because Barr is not only no friend of Trump; he is, indeed, a pillar of the old Republican establishment that hates everything about Orange Man Bad. And the way he has spoken about Trump would make you think that he was having cocktails with Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff every evening.

Trump, Barr said in June 2023, is like a “defiant 9-year-old kid who is always pushing the glass toward the edge of the table defying his parents to stop him from doing it. He’s a very petty individual who will always put his interests ahead of the country’s. But our country can’t be a therapy session for a troubled man like this.” Yes, the guy who said that thinks that the judges are going too far. Trump and Barr first fell out over Barr’s claim that the 2020 presidential election was entirely on the up-and-up. Then Barr backed Jack Smith’s bogus legal persecution of Trump over supposedly mishandling classified documents. Affecting a pompous, above-it-all, more-in-sadness-than-in-anger pose,

Barr wrote: “For the sake of the country, our party, and a basic respect for the truth, it is time that Republicans come to grips with the hard truths about President Trump’s conduct and its implications.” And just as he somehow missed all the evidence that something was very much amiss with the 2020 election, Barr also missed the unmistakable indications that the Biden regime had weaponized the justice system to discredit and destroy its principal opponent. Barr insisted that “Trump’s indictment is not the result of unfair government persecution. This is a situation entirely of his own making. The effort to present Trump as a victim in the Mar-a-Lago document affair is cynical political propaganda.”

Barr based his claim, however, upon his negative assessment of Trump’s character more than on the facts of the case: “This is not a circumstance where he’s the victim or this is government overreach. He provoked this whole problem himself. Yes, he’s been the victim of unfair witch hunts in the past, but that doesn’t obviate the fact that he’s also a fundamentally flawed person who engages in reckless conduct that leads to situations, calamitous situations, like this, which are very disruptive and hurt any political cause he’s associated with.”

Since he has this low an opinion of Trump, Barr would not have surprised anyone if he started touting the wisdom and courage of the leftist judges for blocking the whims of this “defiant 9-year-old kid.” Instead, however, Barr said: “There’s a pattern whereby these district court judges are trying to usurp the responsibility of the president in the national security area. The president is absolutely right to be frustrated and concerned about the way the courts are handling this.” Well, blow me down. This is Bill Barr talking?

Barr went even farther, saying: “The Constitution gives the president the power to make the judgments about how we deal with foreign nationals when we are animated by national security concerns. It’s his call, not a district court judge’s call.” Barr even explained how the judges are abusing the power of the judiciary: “Even where it’s appropriate for the court to play its traditional role of safeguarding the liberties of American citizens, we have this phenomena of nation-wide injunctions where the lowest level judge, district judges, try to bind the entire nation and bind the president in their initial decision. That is not what we have meant by the judicial power under our Constitution.”

Indeed. Or as Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan put it in 2022: “It can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through normal process.” It will be interesting to see if Kagan votes that way once this comes to the Supreme Court. Said Barr: “If they [the U.S. Supreme Court] finally stand up and decide a case instead of hanging back from these decisions, I think it’ll come out the right way. I think most of the justices appreciate how absurd this is.”

Trump wants to hear from countries what they think is fair. They won’t tell him. He wants to make a deal. They don’t know how that works.

• Trump Eyes Two-Stage Tariffs On April 2 To ‘Strengthen Legal Framework’ (ZH)

As April 2nd approaches – the day President Donald Trump is set to roll out a global tariff regime, the Financial Times reports that Trump is now considering ‘a two-step approach,’ which would split tariffs into two stages; targeted emergency tariffs now to raise money for planned tax cuts, and more after his administration has completed probes into trading partners to provide a more robust legal framework to deploy “reciprocal” tariffs (we charge them the same percentage they’re charging us). Basically while Trump and Lutnick want to go full bore now, US trade representative Jamieson Greer (a lawyer who worked for Trump’s first trade chief Robert Lighthizer), insisted they pump the brakes in order to legally justify sweeping tariffs. The dual-track strategy is poised for a high-profile unveiling on April 2, a date Trump has branded “Liberation Day,” spurring a flurry of diplomatic activity as allies seek exemptions.

Among proposals his team has been discussing is a plan to launch so-called Section 301 investigations into trading partners, while simultaneously using rarely invoked emergency powers to apply immediate tariffs in the interim. -FT Speaking Monday, Trump vowed “substantial” tariffs on U.S. trading partners, though he also suggested the possibility of selective leniency. “They’ve charged us so much that I’m embarrassed to charge them what they’ve charged us,” Trump said – hours after announcing new tariffs on buyers of Venezuelan oil, including China. “But it’ll be substantial.” According to the Financial Times, officials close to the matter say the administration is eyeing an immediate deployment of tariffs using emergency authorities such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), or Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 – a provision that permits duties of up to 50% on foreign goods on trading partners.

One more obscure route, now considered a long shot, involves Section 122 of the 1974 Act, which permits temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days – a stopgap measure that may not deliver the revenue or optics the former president is seeking. Lawyers and people familiar with the plans also told FT that Trump could immediately slap tariffs on vehicle imports on April 2, reviving a national security study into the global auto industry from his first term. On Monday, Trump said tariffs on cars could be announced “over the next few days.” The debate within the Trump team has at times split along functional lines. The two main points of contact have also differed in their approaches, say people familiar with the discussions. While commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has served as the administration’s chief negotiator, he has lambasted trading partners over their trade surpluses and tax policies, before demanding “a deal”.

US trade representative Jamieson Greer, a lawyer who previously worked for Trump’s first-term trade chief Bob Lighthizer, has increasingly asserted himself as the legal planner, seeking to create a durable blueprint for the president’s drive to reorder global trade. -FT. Greer has notably advocated for launching investigations into trading partners before applying tariffs, according to people familiar with his thinking. This would rely on tested trade law, but could delay tariffs by up to six months. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the final details of the reciprocal tariff plan remain under wraps, but emphasized internal alignment on the broader goal: “Although the final reciprocal tariff plan for April 2 has yet to be unveiled by President Trump, every member of the Trump administration is aligned on finally leveling the playing field for American industries and workers.”

Hard to follow even. This is what we call “convoluted”?

• The Atlantic’s Signal Story Is Quickly Falling Apart (Vespa)

So, what the hell is this story now? It’s a warning that perhaps more administrative due diligence should be applied when creating these group chats on encrypted and secure messenger apps. Still, while alarming at first, the hubbub is dying down quickly. This story in The Atlantic that secret war plans were disclosed to known anti-Trump fake news writer Jeffrey Goldberg, who was accidentally added to the group, is falling apart faster than a skiff made of paper.

You can bluff that the other 2 cards in your hand we can't see make a full house—until the other players call your bet.

Gabbard & Hegseth called the bet—show your cards or fold.

The problem is that Goldberg's trademark move has always been to over-promise & under-deliver.

— Tony Kinnett (@TheTonus) March 25, 2025

Was it an unforced error by the Trump team? One hundred percent—they’re no angels here, but no classified information was disclosed. There were no war plans. We have a bunch of top officials speaking candidly and in generalities about anti-Houthi operations. These were unclassified discussions, and Signal is an approved app. Biden’s people used it. It was already downloaded on the devices of the principals involved. CIA Director John Ratcliffe was on those chats—no classified information was disclosed.

So unclassified info was discussed on an encrypted messaging app approved for use by staff, where all parties involved were unified under President Trump’s agenda.

They’re so bad at this lol.

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) March 25, 2025

So, it’s a nothing burger on the primary charge that this administration disclosed secret war plans to a journalist. That kills the narrative when the CIA director says nothing harmful was disclosed, and Ratcliffe is respected on both sides of the aisle. That’s three significant stories this publication has tried to trip up the administration, only to do faceplants.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed that according to CIA record management, Signal is approved for “work use.” Let’s set this record straight. Here is the truth about Signal:
-In 2016, the DNC instructed all staffers to exclusively use Signal to talk crap about Trump because it was encrypted.
-In 2017, Signal was approved by the sergeant at arms of the U.S. Senate and staff. -The use of common amongst the security community.
-Cybersecurity firm iVerify’s Rocky Cole has also stated the app has “stellar reputation and is widely used and trusted in the security community”.
-Even Edward Snowden has said that he uses Signal due to its strong encryption services.

Losers and suckers in 2020 was a lie. Trump liking Nazi generals was a lie. And now, classified information being leaked on Signal has blown up in their faces. It was for sure the liberal media’s attempt to avenge the Hillary Clinton emails fiasco from 2016, which makes no sense because it was the liberal media who covered that story extensively; that wasn’t primarily a conservative media thing. The New York Times, believe it or not, had some of the most damning articles about that and the slush fund politics at the Clinton Foundation.

The Atlantic tried to drive a wedge into Trump’s inner circle. They aimed and missed again. This story died in less than 24 hours, disintegrating so fast that all the theatrics and talking points the Democrats had prepared looked out of date and unhinged. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) got all twisted up, bellowing about things that Ratcliffe never said at today’s hearing.

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1904567362239504804

Meanwhile, we might have some palace intrigue: someone is talking to Politico about National Security Adviser Michael Waltz’s status, who looked like a dead man walking a few hours ago. Now, if this leaker is found, no doubt that person should be fired, not Waltz. Whatever happens, happens, but after we’ve all had a drink or two and simmered down, this is another bombshell that quickly collapsed because it’s the fake news doing its work again.

https://twitter.com/storm_paglia/status/1904548462907072950?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1904548462907072950%7Ctwgr%5E430d286571e97f4efa82650f8d45c839b9c928ed%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fmattvespa%2F2025%2F03%2F25%2Fcia-director-ratcliffe-blows-up-secret-war-plans-narrative-n2654467

Trump responds:

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1904613271249830207?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1904613271249830207%7Ctwgr%5E430d286571e97f4efa82650f8d45c839b9c928ed%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fmattvespa%2F2025%2F03%2F25%2Fcia-director-ratcliffe-blows-up-secret-war-plans-narrative-n2654467

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1904615502959300954?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1904615502959300954%7Ctwgr%5E430d286571e97f4efa82650f8d45c839b9c928ed%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fmattvespa%2F2025%2F03%2F25%2Fcia-director-ratcliffe-blows-up-secret-war-plans-narrative-n2654467

***

Last Note: Again, Hillary Clinton can shut her face, along with the rest of the political class who think this is some major scandal. Most people in DC use Signal, too. Hillary Clinton did all official State Department business through an unsecured server, which was not approved, and if she had asked, it wouldn’t have been permitted, per the inspector general at the time:

Was it leaked just to see the EU’s reaction?

• Disdain For Europe In US Signal Chat Horrifies EU (BBC)

“Horrific to see in black and white. But hardly surprising,” is how a top European diplomat reacted to what comes across as deep, heartfelt disdain for European allies, revealed late on Monday, European time, in an online group chat between top US security officials. Seemingly by accident, Atlantic magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was also invited to the chat, which discussed planned strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen aimed at unblocking trade routes on the Suez Canal. He subsequently made the frank exchange public. In the chat, Vice-President JD Vance notes that only 3% of US trade runs through the canal, as opposed to 40% of European trade, after which he and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth complain of European “free-loading”. The monumental security breach is causing a ruckus at home, with Democrats calling for Hegseth’s resignation as a result.

Across the pond – aka the Atlantic – Europe’s leaders and policy-makers felt “sick to their stomach”, as an EU official put it to me. Officials quoted here are speaking on condition of anonymity in order to comment freely on what are volatile times in US-European relations. You won’t see comments in the public domain, so as not to rock the transatlantic boat any further. Vance first stunned European officials with his speech at last month’s Security Conference in Munich condemning the continent for having misplaced values such as protecting abortion clinics and censoring speech in the media and online. “The enemy from within,” he called it. Monday’s Signal chat strikes at the heart of a slew of tensions, discomfort and plain old fear in Europe right now, that the Trump administration can no longer be relied on as the continent’s greatest ally. At a time when Europe is facing off against a resurgent Russia.

Western Europe has looked to the US to have its back in terms of security and defence since World War Two. But it is precisely that fact that so riles the Trump administration and has cemented Europe in its mind as “freeloaders”. While the US commits 3.7% of its colossal GDP to defence, it’s taken the majority of European partners in the transatlantic defence alliance Nato until recently to cough up even 2% of GDP. Some, like big economies Spain and Italy, aren’t even there yet, though they say they plan to be soon. Europe relies heavily on the US, amongst other things, for intelligence, for aerial defence capabilities and for its nuclear umbrella.With the phasing out of conscription in most European countries, the continent also relies on the around 100,000 battle-ready US troops stationed in Europe to help act as a deterrent against potential aggressors.

Europeans have focused more on investing in welfare and social services than defence – collective or otherwise – since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Why on earth should the US pick up the slack, asks the Trump administration. On the leaked group chat, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz laments the state of Europe’s naval forces. “It will have to be the United States that reopens these [Suez] shipping lanes.” The chat then debates how to ensure that Europe remunerates the US for its actions. “If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return,” states a message from someone called SM – presumed to be deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller. Europe is now loudly and publicly discussing spending a lot more on its own defence – hoping to keep Donald Trump onside and an aggressive Russia at bay after Ukraine.

But Trump’s irritation with Europe is nothing new. He displayed his displeasure during his first term in office: furious about Europe’s low defence spending; incandescent over the EU’s trade surplus with the US. The United States had been long been taken for a ride and that must stop, seemed to be his sentiment. Imposing trade tariffs was one of Trump’s first responses. Then as now. Earlier this month, when Trump threatened eye-watering 200% tariffs on European alcohol in an ongoing trade tit-for-tat, he lambasted the EU as “abusive” and “hostile” for allegedly taking advantage of the US at any opportunity. Coinciding uncomfortably with the leaked Signal chat and its Euro-bashing, the EU’s trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic, along with the head of cabinet of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, arrived in Washington on Tuesday hoping to launch a charm offensive to try to stave off a new tariff onslaught.

“We will spend more on defense and we will spend it better,” von der Leyen said.”

• Europe Backs Off Tariffs, But … (Lyman)

In the first face off of what could turn into an all-out trade war between the U.S. and the European Union, the Europeans blinked first. European economies are already feeling the impacts of the 25% levy on global imports of steel and aluminum that went into force March 12. The European Union vowed to retaliate with around $30 billion worth of targeted tariffs on U.S. goods including a 50-percent markup on Bourbon and other American whiskey, starting April 1. Further EU taxes were set to start two weeks later. In response, Trump said the strategy was “nasty,” and he threatened a 200% markup on prices for European alcohol in the U.S. Then, this week, Europe struck back by delaying the April 1 tariffs until at least April 15. The reason, according to European Union trade spokesman Olof Gill, is to give time for “a constructive dialogue with the U.S. in order to seek a solution that avoids unnecessary harm to both economies.”

Wine producing countries were particularly worried about the 200-percent tariff threat and so it was no surprise that the implementation of the measures was reportedly pushed by France, Italy and Spain – not coincidentally, the three European countries that sell the most wine in the U.S. market. The decision on tariffs came during an unusually high-profile meeting of the European council of leaders Thursday and Friday in Brussels and in the days after, scores of analysts were almost unanimous that a trade war would hurt Europe more than the U.S. The European leaders did take more decisive stands in other areas related to the policies of the two-month-old Trump administration. That includes reiterating support for Ukraine and sending an additional $1 billion to help the country in its war against Russia.

That is a stance that has not changed despite the unexpectedly harsh welcome for Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House last month. Leaders also agreed to “intensify” the process toward Ukraine becoming a European Union member state. Despite Russia President Vladimir Putin’s intense opposition to that, they elected not to consider unfreezing $50 billion in Russian financial assets immobilized last year. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also said she opposed the proposed U.S. ceasefire plan for Ukraine, arguing that such a move would only allow Russia to “regroup” before launching new attacks. Probably most notably, the European states agreed to dramatically increase defense spending and to coordinate their security initiatives as the 27-nation bloc looks for ways to flex its geopolitical muscles even as the U.S. withdraws security guarantees Europe has enjoyed since the end of World War II.

“We will spend more on defense and we will spend it better,” von der Leyen said. “We have no choice.” Apart from Europe’s at least temporary retreat on tariff policies and its renewed support for Ukraine under Zelensky and opposition to Putin’s Russia, the big takeaway from the Council of Europe meeting may be the difficult position some European leaders find themselves in as they seek to straddle the growing U.S.-Europe divide. The best example of that may be Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, who supported Trump’s first term even when she was part of Italy’s political opposition (she had a prominent spot at CPAC in 2019, for example). As prime minister, she made a surprise trip to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in January, more than two weeks before Trump’s inauguration (Trump called her “a fantastic woman”). The bond between Trump and Meloni had media calling the 48-year-old Italian Europe’s “Trump Whisperer.”

But Meloni is also committed to European priorities that sometimes clash with White House priorities. That includes strong support for the Ukrainian cause, a willingness to criticize Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and the recognition that the cash-strapped Italian government cannot afford to spend dramatically more on its military (the country is under the NATO target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense) and that any disruption of trade would hit Italy harder than it would most European economies. That has put Meloni, likely Trump’s most important ally in Europe, in a tough spot, as France’s Le Monde (and many others) reported, leaving the Rome native “trapped in an awkward position on European defense and the trans-Atlantic crisis.”

“These heavy fines appear to have two purposes: to force businesses to follow European standards and to tax American companies in Europe..”

• EU Could Slap Meta With €1 Billion Fine, Trump Vows To Retaliate (RMX)

The European Union could fine Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta (Facebook, Instagram) €1 billion or more for violating antitrust rules, in response to President Donald Trump’s sanctions against EU companies. The European Commission (EC), the EU’s antitrust watchdog, is expected to conclude that Meta does not comply with the Digital Markets Act, sources close to the situation said. The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) comes into force in 2023 and applies strict competition rules to Meta and six other internet moguls. The regulator’s focus is on data processing and business activity. According to Post sources, the fines could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars at the minimum and as high as $1 billion after the EC’s decision. The EU investigation into the parent company of Facebook and Instagram is expected to be concluded this week, with the commission’s enforcement measures to be announced immediately, the people said.

According to the sources, EU officials are expected to call on Meta to comply with the rules and inform the company of what changes it needs to make to comply. In addition, Apple is also in the EU commission’s crosshairs and could be fined this week or next week. Interestingly, earlier this month, Reuters reported that Apple and Meta were likely to get away with “modest fines” for violating the DMA. Theresa Ribera, the EU’s antitrust chief, had previously said that a decision on enforcement actions against both companies would be made in March. Now, that view appears to have changed. In addition to Meta and Apple, the companies considered “gatekeepers” under the DMA include Google’s Alphabet, Amazon, Booking.com, TikTok’s ByteDance and Microsoft. These are the so-called Big Tech companies.

EU regulators and other supporters say the law prevents tech giants from using anti-competitive behavior, such as abusing their market power, to squeeze out smaller rivals. The law allows Big Tech companies to be fined up to 10 percent of their global revenue for repeated violations, with the penalty going up to 20 percent of revenue. The EU launched an investigation into Meta in June last year over its “pay or opt-in” model that restricted customers. In practice, this meant that users either paid to opt out of ads on Instagram and Facebook or were given them without asking. The problem was that those who didn’t pay also agreed to Meta using their data to target ads. The EU commission said the company had failed to offer a third option. Meta argued that the EU commission had consistently used conditions to comply with the rule that went beyond the law.

In June of last year, Apple became the first company to be charged with violating the DMA, allegedly for preventing rival app developers from easily diverting customers to services outside the App Store. The EU last week again warned Apple that it must open up its iPhone operating system to app developers, just as it has done with Android. The problem with Google’s Alphabet is that it treats its in-house (i.e., its own) services “more favorably.” Amidst sharp criticism from big tech, the law has increasingly drawn the ire of President Trump, who has vowed to impose retaliatory tariffs to level the playing field. Trump issued a memo last month warning that his administration would consider countermeasures.

President Trump will not allow foreign governments to siphon off America’s tax base for their own benefit, the White House said at the time. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has specifically asked EU officials for information on how the bloc plans to enforce the Digital Markets Act. Jordan noted that six of the seven “gatekeepers” covered by the law are American-owned. “These heavy fines appear to have two purposes: to force businesses to follow European standards and to tax American companies in Europe,” Jordan said in his letter.

“He also dismissed EU leaders’ proposals to deploy Western ‘peacekeepers’ to Ukraine, calling them “dreamers” who are “proving their complete political irrelevance with each passing day.”

• EU ‘Contradicting’ US On Ukraine – Lavrov (RT)

The approach taken by EU leaders on the Ukraine conflict directly contradicts the position of US President Donald Trump, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In an interview with Russia’s Channel 1 on Tuesday, Lavrov said the bloc’s continued push for Ukraine’s NATO membership is the result of former US President Joe Biden’s decision to push the EU towards a confrontation with Russia. As a result, the EU is grappling with “an enormous number” of social and economic problems, which “probably partly explains why they are so fervently not giving up on Ukraine” and are calling for more military aid to the country, Lavrov said.

“In other words, they are in direct contradiction to the Trump administration,” he added, noting that the US president, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, had “made it clear that preliminary talks are underway on the parameters of the final settlement [of the conflict] and that NATO should be off the table.”

Ukraine has long sought NATO membership as a security guarantee for ending the conflict with Russia. Moscow, however, has cited Kiev’s NATO ambitions as one of the key causes of the conflict and has called for Ukraine’s neutrality as a foundation for any peace deal. sLavrov said Biden made “a colossal mistake” by refusing to engage with Russia and instead insisting that Ukraine join the military bloc, “thereby creating an unacceptable threat for us.” He also dismissed EU leaders’ proposals to deploy Western ‘peacekeepers’ to Ukraine, calling them “dreamers” who are “proving their complete political irrelevance with each passing day.”

Earlier this month, the UK and France signaled an openness to sending a military contingent to Ukraine once a ceasefire is reached. Moscow has described the plan as a pretext for deploying NATO troops in the country, warning that this could lead to a direct war between the military bloc and Russia. Lavrov has likened EU rearmament plans and calls to contain and defeat Russia to past military campaigns by Napoleon and Hitler, who had similar goals. “We’ve been through all this before,” he said. The diplomat’s comments come a day after senior Russian and US officials held 12-hour talks in Saudi Arabia aimed at resolving certain technical issues. Details of the negotiations are expected to be released later on Tuesday.

“The United States and Russia have agreed to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea..”

• White House Reveals Details Of US-Russia Talks In Riyadh (RT)

The White House has released a short statement on the US-Russia negotiations in Saudi Arabia, shedding some light on the more than 12-hour talks held on Monday. The “bilateral technical-level talks” focused on the situation in the Black Sea, as well as the agreement to halt strikes on “energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine” proposed by US President Donald Trump, the White House said on Tuesday. “The United States and Russia have agreed to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea,” the statement reads.

The US has also pledged to “help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions,” according to the White House. Both Moscow and Washington remain committed to “working toward achieving a durable and lasting peace” to end the Ukraine conflict, it added. Earlier in the day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed that the negotiations explored the possibility of reviving the defunct Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye. The deal envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural exports in exchange for the West lifting restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer trade. Moscow declined to renew the deal in 2023, citing the West’s failure to meet its obligations.

To renew the deal, Moscow needs firm guarantees from the US, which can “only result from a direct order issued by Washington to [Ukraine’s Vladimir] Zelensky and his team,” Lavrov explained, pointing to Kiev’s habit of breaking promises. Russia’s position now “is simple: We cannot take anyone’s word at face value,” he said in an interview with Channel 1. “We need the clearest, most specific, verifiable, working guarantees and mechanisms [to revive the deal],” Lavrov stated. “We want the grain and fertilizer market to be predictable so that no one tries to kick us out of this market.”

“The Defense Ministry is promoting the offer by showing how much recruits can buy with the money – equating it to 15,625 cheeseburgers or 185 years of Netflix subscriptions.”

• Zelensky Announces Push To Enlist Younger Men (RT)

Ukraine must enlist more young men into its armed forces, as a number of units face a pressing need for reinforcements, according to Vladimir Zelensky. In a regular news briefing on Monday, Zelensky announced that the military leadership had approved an expansion of recruitment targeting citizens aged 18 to 24. While mandatory conscription applies to men over 24, the government is trying to encourage younger individuals to volunteer by offering an array of incentives. “I visited the front on Saturday. There is a demand from specific brigades, and we will be responding positively to it. There will be more brigades employing young specialists,” Zelensky stated. “This initiative will extend to the National Guard and border guard units, as all effective defense forces should be given every opportunity to enhance their capabilities.”

Under a recruitment campaign launched in February, young adults are promised 1 million hryvnia ($24,000) for a year of military service, as well as free dental care and the option to leave Ukraine after fulfilling their contract – an option not available to regular fighting-age men. The Defense Ministry is promoting the offer by showing how much recruits can buy with the money – equating it to 15,625 cheeseburgers or 185 years of Netflix subscriptions. Critics have condemned the ad campaign as demeaning to potential recruits. Last year, Zelensky reduced the minimum conscription age from 27 to 25, but refrained from further adjustments, citing concerns over the economic and demographic impact.

Western supporters have urged Kiev to enlist younger men, saying the aging Ukrainian army is struggling to fight effectively. Ukraine is intensifying its mobilization efforts as the US attempts to mediate a resolution to the conflict with Russia, leveraging Kiev’s reliance on foreign aid. Washington has convinced both sides to agree to a moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure. After several attacks, however, Moscow has accused Kiev of not honoring its obligation and has threatened to pull out of the 30-day partial ceasefire. Over the past few days, US officials met separately with Ukrainian and Russian delegations in Saudi Arabia to explore the potential resumption of the Black Sea Initiative, aimed at facilitating maritime exports.

“Russia needs ironclad guarantees from the US, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said, arguing that only a “direct order” from Washington could compel Kiev to observe any agreement.”

• US ‘Thinking About’ Easing Russia Sanctions – Trump (RT)

Moscow and Washington have committed to advancing the Black Sea Initiative as a step toward settling the Ukraine conflict, although according to the Kremlin, the deal will take effect only after the US lifts a number of sanctions hampering Russia’s trade and freedom of navigation. Both the Kremlin and the White House stated on Tuesday that, as part of the agreement, the US “will help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.” Moscow’s statement further noted that the deal envisages lifting restrictions on Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international trade of food and fertilizers, as well as removing sanctions on Russian-flagged vessels, port services, and the supply of agricultural machinery and related goods to Russia.

The White House did not provide details, but President Donald Trump confirmed that his administration is indeed considering lifting some of the sanctions against Moscow. “They will be looking at them, and we’re thinking about all of them right now. There are about five or six conditions. We’re looking at all of them,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky lashed out at Washington later in the day, accusing the US of discussing the issue of sanctions with the Russian delegation without properly briefing Kiev on the matter. “We did not agree to this so that it would be in a joint document. We believe that this is a weakening of positions and a weakening of sanctions,” he claimed.

The US and Russia agreed to revive the defunct Black Sea Grain Initiative following 12-hour talks focused on the Ukraine conflict, held on Monday in Saudi Arabia by expert groups from both countries. The agreement, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting sanctions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports. Moscow eventually refused to extend the deal, citing the West’s failure to uphold its obligations. Now, Russia needs ironclad guarantees from the US, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said, arguing that only a “direct order” from Washington could compel Kiev to observe any agreement.

Why it couldn’t be done in one day.

• Trump Hails ‘Progress’ On Ukraine (RT)

US President Donald Trump has hailed the outcome of Washington’s negotiations with delegations from Moscow and Kiev as a significant step forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict. Following separate talks in Saudi Arabia this week, both Kiev and Moscow expressed readiness to observe President Trump’s proposed agreement to mutually halt strikes on energy facilities, as well as to revive the defunct Black Sea Initiative – aimed at preventing the use of force and ensuring commercial vessels are not used for military purposes. “We’ve made a lot of progress on two fronts,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday, explaining that he was referring to “Russia, Ukraine, and also the Middle East.” “We’ll see what happens. We’re in deep discussions with Russia and Ukraine, and I would say it’s going well,” the US president said.

Trump declined to disclose further details about the contacts in Riyadh but acknowledged that his administration officials are “thinking” about lifting some sanctions against Moscow to facilitate progress on the Black Sea Initiative. In response, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky accused Washington of “weakening” its position and sanctions pressure. Earlier in the day, the Kremlin released a comprehensive list of energy facilities subject to the 30-day US-brokered truce, including oil and gas processing and storage sites, pumping stations, pipelines, electricity production and distribution infrastructure, nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric dam facilities.

The suspension of strikes was originally proposed by Trump during a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week. The Russian leader agreed and immediately ordered the military to halt attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. According to the Russian military, it had to intercept and destroy seven kamikaze drones that were already en route to targets in Ukraine. While Zelensky publicly backed the ceasefire initiative, Kiev violated the truce almost immediately, according to Moscow, with multiple energy facilities in Russia reportedly targeted by Ukrainian drones over the past week. An international oil consortium – including US firms Chevron and ExxonMobil – also condemned the attacks on its vital energy infrastructure in Russia’s Krasnodar Region.

Lab coat
https://twitter.com/MustangMan_TX/status/1904219626952688089

Phantom
https://twitter.com/Yoda4ever/status/1904282170988142818

Peanuts

Elon Musk: The DOGE team could get jobs for millions of dollars. Instead, they come here, earn peanuts, and get death threats.

“We're just trying to do the right thing for the American taxpayer and for the American people.

Thank you to the DOGE team, who are literally getting… pic.twitter.com/C6SjOZPULO

— ELON CLIPS (@ElonClipsX) March 24, 2025

Shanahan

JUST IN: Nicole Shanahan says she almost lost her life during the campaign, says she had a miscarriage at 20 weeks.

Shanahan says she lost 4 liters of blood.

"I almost lost my life… I lost over four liters of blood. You only have four liters of blood, so I lost pretty much… pic.twitter.com/VIIAkgQ3tt

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 24, 2025

Transform

You would not believe what this transforms into

pic.twitter.com/KpTEOeIe9J

— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) March 25, 2025

Snoopy

Charles Schultz and the original Snoopy, 1950s pic.twitter.com/1AzZZLIf5w

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) March 25, 2025

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

Debt Rattle November 2 2022

Nov 022022

November 2, 2022 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 8:33 am Finance Tagged with: Amnesty, Atlantic, blue checks, Boots On The Ground, censorship, grain corridor, new world order, PCR, Pelosi, Zelensky 70 Responses »

Balthus Girl at a window 1957

• Pentagon Confirms US Boots Are On The Ground In Ukraine (ZH)

• Outrage Ensues After The Atlantic Suggests ‘Amnesty’ For Pandemic Authoritarians (ZH)

• We Need Covid Accountability, Not Amnesty (QTR)

• New World Order: The West Will Have To Live Within Its Means (Karaganov)

• Zelensky ‘Nullified’ Grain Shipping Deal – Russian Duma Speaker (RT)

• There Will Be No Deal – Zelensky Broke The Rules! (Milacic)

• Russia Offers Alternative To Ukraine ‘Grain Deal’ (RT)

• Russia Demands Black Sea Corridor Guarantees From Ukraine (RT)

• Russia Responds To Kiev’s Nuclear Plant ‘Hypocrisy’ (RT)

• Blue Checkers Revolt Over Musk’s Threatened Monthly Charge (Turley)

• UK Households Face ‘Very, Very Hard’ Winter – National Grid (RT)

• Cockamamie Story (Kunstler)

• The Tale of Two Greedy Landlords (Catte Black)

• Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy (Springer)

• Fatal Flaw: 42% False Discovery Rate for SARS-CoV-2 nonQ-RT-PCR Test (PR)

GW is going to be right on source of the virus and the timeline. pic.twitter.com/FT2iW5Gj7q

— George Webb – Investigative Journalist (@RealGeorgeWebb1) November 2, 2022

“..this is the start of perhaps inevitable ‘mission creep’..”

• Pentagon Confirms US Boots Are On The Ground In Ukraine (ZH)

Two bombshell reports by the Associated Press and Washington Post Monday and Tuesday have confirmed that the United States has boots on the ground in the Ukraine conflict. Crucially, these troops are performing tasks separate from mere embassy security. The American troops are said to be performing “inspections” of US weapon caches after last week the State Department and Pentagon unveiled a new plan to track US-supplied weapons in efforts to implement accountability for the billions of dollars worth of arms and ammunition transferred to Ukrainian forces since near the start of the war eight months ago.

“A small number of U.S. military forces inside Ukraine have recently begun doing onsite inspections to ensure that Ukrainian troops are properly accounting for the Western-provided weapons they receive, a senior U.S. defense official told Pentagon reporters Monday,” the AP/WaPo reporting revealed. A Pentagon briefing confirmed this “small” contingency of troops has been advised to not do inspections “close” to the front lines of fighting: The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to provide a military update, would not say where the inspections are taking place or how close to the battlefronts the U.S. troops are getting. The official said U.S. personnel can’t do inspections “close to the front lines,” but said they are going where security conditions allow.

There have already been “several inspections” overseen by U.S. Defense attache and a US Office of Defense Cooperation team based out of the Ukrainian capital. The report underscores that “U.S. President Joe Biden has ruled out any combat role for U.S. forces inside Ukraine.” However, what’s clear is that despite the White House’s ruling out of “combat” troops, this is the start of perhaps inevitable ‘mission creep’ – as has been seen in other conflict zones (such as Syria). If US troops are doing inspections of Ukrainian arms and ammo, and presumably Russia is currently targeting any and all Ukrainian military bases, this puts American troops and assets in Russia’s crosshairs, greatly increasing the possibility that the US and Russia could stumble into a direct shooting war.

“Hey I’m sorry we scared the hell out of you & lied for years & persecuted & censored anyone who disagreed but there was an election going on & we really wanted to beat Donald Trump so it was important to radically politicize the science even if it destroyed your children’s lives.”

• Outrage Ensues After The Atlantic Suggests ‘Amnesty’ For Pandemic Authoritarians (ZH)

The Atlantic has come under fire for suggesting that all the terrible pandemic-era decisions over lockdowns, school closures, masking, and punishing an entire class of people who questioned the efficacy and wisdom of taking a rushed, experimental vaccine – for a virus with a 99% survival rate in most, should all be water under the bridge. “We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID,” writes Brown Professor Emily Oster – a huge lockdown proponent, who now pleads from mercy from the once-shunned. “Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward,” she continues. Except, they weren’t “in the dark” about Covid.

There were numerous sources pointing out the actual science that ran contrary to the mandate claims, and they were deliberately silenced by a vast media campaign. Evidence suggests that media platforms worked in tandem with Big Tech, the CDC and the Biden Administration. It was not a simple matter of overreaction, there was collusion to remove all counter-information. Nice try, Emily. As the Daily Sceptic’s Michael P. Senger puts it: “There’s a lot wrong here. First, no, you don’t get to advocate policies that do extraordinary harm to others, against their wishes, then say, “We didn’t know any better at the time!” Ignorance doesn’t work as an excuse when the policies involved abrogating your fellow citizens’ rights under an indefinite state of emergency, while censoring and cancelling those who weren’t as ignorant. The inevitable result would be a society in which ignorance and obedience to the opinion of the mob would be the only safe position.”

And look at that ratio: In one epic Twitter thread, Claremont Institute Senior Fellow Matthew J. Peterson (@docMJP) excoriates Oster’s entire premise; “Hey—sorry you lost your job b/c of the vax that doesn’t work and your grandmother died alone and you couldn’t have a funeral and your brother’s business was needlessly destroyed and your kids have weird heart problems—but let’s just admit we were all wrong and call a truce, eh? It’s too bad we shut the entire economy down & took on tyrannical powers that have never been used before in this country—looking back, you should have been able to go to church and use public parks while we let people riot in the streets—but it was a confusing time for everyone.

Hey I’m sorry we scared the hell out of you & lied for years & persecuted & censored anyone who disagreed but there was an election going on & we really wanted to beat Donald Trump so it was important to radically politicize the science even if it destroyed your children’s lives. OK, yes we said unvaccinated people should die & not get healthcare while never questioning Big Pharma once but we are compassionate people which is why even though we shut down the entire economy we also bankrupted the nation & caused inflation. You’re welcome! Let’s be friends.”As QTR’s Fringe Finance notes, Oster’s plea for the decency that her ilk failed to offer up to most Americans during the throws of the pandemic comes at a point where the Covid narrative has been all but lost by the Democrats and the mainstream media.

There have been several recent large wins for the unvaccinated who had the constitution and backbone to stand up for themselves throughout a year of being constantly berated and ferociously scorned as second class citizens.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1587148452055629826

Starting with Emily Oster and the Atlantic..

• We Need Covid Accountability, Not Amnesty (QTR)

And now Emily Oster has the gall to write a ho-hum style piece calling for “amnesty” with nary a worthy apology to be seen? Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to see any common sense making its way through the cracks. I support the apologies to the unvaccinated and the court rulings because I think they are just. I haven’t been gloating about them because I’m over the topic in general and because I’m simply ready to move on and not dwell on it. But the same hubris and arrogance that caused all of this poor decision-making to begin with is still dripping off of The Atlantic’s latest “mea culpa”, which makes an attempt to rewrite history and trivializes the trauma many endured. “Some of these choices turned out better than others,” the article casually writes at one point.

At another point, like an alcoholic who can’t stop himself from taking another swig from the bottle, it begrudgingly has to make a perfunctory and obligatory reference to “misinformation”: We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty. We can leave out the willful purveyors of actual misinformation while forgiving the hard calls that people had no choice but to make with imperfect knowledge. Instead of an apology, we are left with this kumbaya moment: The standard saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. But dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward.

The Atlantic article can lead me to only one conclusion: many of the left simply don’t know how to apologize. After all, it wasn’t enough to tell honest people that they were wrong during the course of the pandemic for decisions that turned out to be right, The Atlantic now wants to tell them they’re wrong again if they don’t forgive those who made their lives hell over the last two years. A little tip for The Atlantic: next time, write a piece focused on apologizing instead of issuing orders about exactly how, when and why people should be forgiving you. In case you didn’t notice, it was trying to micromanage other peoples’ lives that got you in this mess in the first place. Talk to us when you offer up accountability, not amnesty.

Professor Sergey Karaganov, honorary chairman of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and academic supervisor at the School of International Economics and Foreign Affairs Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Moscow

• New World Order: The West Will Have To Live Within Its Means (Karaganov)

We are living in a dangerous period, on the brink of a full-fledged third world war that could end humanity’s existence. But if Russia wins, which is more than likely, and the hostilities do not escalate into a full-blown nuclear conflict, we should not look at the coming decades as a time of dangerous chaos (as most in the West are saying). We have been living in this period for a long time. It will be, if we choose a world of constructive creation and the attainment of freedom, justice and dignity by peoples and nations. The old system of institutions and regimes has already collapsed (freedom of trade and respect for private property). Meanwhile, institutions like the WTO, the World Bank the IMF, the OSCE and the EU are, I am afraid, reaching their last years.

New bodies are beginning to emerge to which the future belongs. They are the SCO, ASEAN+, the Organisation of African Unity and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The Asian Development Bank is already lending many times more than the World Bank. Not all new institutions will survive, and let us hope that a number of them will survive, especially in the UN system, which urgently needs reform to primarily represent the Global Majority in the secretariat, rather than the West. The main thing is to prevent a losing West from stalling history or derailing it through a world war. Not only Global Majority countries, but Western countries can live quite happily in this world.

The West will simply lose the opportunity to plunder the rest of the planet and it will have to shrink a bit. They will have to live within their means. I am afraid that this new world taking shape now will be created beyond my intellectual or physical life. But my young colleagues and certainly their children will see it. But this beautiful vision has to be fought for, first of all by preventing a third world war, because of the attempted revenge of the West. Again, it was in Europe that the first two world wars were unleashed. Russia is now fighting, among other things, to ensure that the prerequisites for a third are not ripe. But conflicts will occur in an era of rapid change. So the struggle for peace should be one of the main themes of our intellectual community and the world at large.

Wonder how this will end.

• Zelensky ‘Nullified’ Grain Shipping Deal – Russian Duma Speaker (RT)

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has rendered the internationally brokered grain shipping agreement void by using the safe passage in the Black Sea to strike Russian warships, Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the State Duma, the lower house of Russia’s parliament, said. Moscow claims that Kiev dispatched attack drones via the route designated for grain vessels. “The resumption of the grain deal is impossible as long as the safe corridor is being used for terrorist attacks,” Volodin wrote on his Telegram channel on Tuesday. “With his actions, Zelensky has nullified all of the agreements that were brokered by Türkiye and the UN. ”The senior legislator said the use of the safe corridor for the attack on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is “unacceptable” and that the grain agreement “cannot exist on the old terms.”

Under the deal struck in July, the sides agreed to unblock the export of grain and other agricultural products from Ukrainian ports. Ukraine, a major producer, is among the vital suppliers of wheat, corn, and barley. On Saturday, Moscow accused Kiev of sending aerial and seaborne drones to strike warships in the city of Sevastopol in Crimea, which hosts a naval base. A minesweeper was damaged in the raid, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. The ministry claimed that the drones moved along the corridor set up for grain ships, and that one device may have been launched from a civilian vessel hired to transport grain. Moscow also said that a British Navy unit masterminded the attack. London has dismissed the accusation. Russia subsequently announced the closure of the corridor on Monday.

Zelensky accused Russia of blackmail and “deliberately exacerbating the food crisis.” Speaking to reporters on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that only 3-5% of grain that had been shipped through the safe corridor went to poorer countries. The UN, however, reported last month that 27% of the ships went to “low and lower-middle income countries” such as Egypt, Kenya, and Bangladesh. It said that 26% went to “upper-middle income countries” such as Türkiye and China, while 47% went to “high-income”nations such as Spain and Italy.

“Western insurance companies, despite official permission, refused to insure cargoes of food and fertilizers from Russian ports under various pretexts.”

• There Will Be No Deal – Zelensky Broke The Rules! (Milacic)

Just a few hours after the attack by sea “drones” on the ships of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the early morning of October 29, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced the suspension of the “grain deal” – an agreement that had been in force since July 22 of this year. The fact that Russian military claims that naval drones have passed through the territory included in the “grain deal”, where there is no Russian fleet – it only made that decision stronger! The “grain deal” allowed Kyiv to freely export grain from the Black Sea ports under the auspices of the UN, in exchange for some easing of sanctions against Russian exports of grain and fertilizers. Formally, this agreement was strictly humanitarian and its sole purpose was to provide grain to the countries of Africa and Southeast Asia, dependent on food imports.

During the passage of the Bosporus, ships traveling from Ukraine and back were examined by UN inspectors to exclude the possible import and export of prohibited goods. But the Kremlin did not receive its benefit from the deal … Ukraine, having unblocked the export of grain by sea, at the same time was able to unload land communications and receive a significant income from the export of agricultural products. In addition, its Western partners were once again able to resell Ukrainian grain, which, with the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, rose significantly in price. But Russia continued to face difficulties in securing the export of its grain. Western insurance companies, despite official permission, refused to insure cargoes of food and fertilizers from Russian ports under various pretexts.

At the same time, information was increasingly appearing in the media that American and European authorities were putting significant pressure on insurers. Naturally, Moscow was more and more dissatisfied with the terms of the deal concluded before November 19 and doubted the possibility of its extension. The attack on Sevastopol gave the Kremlin a great trump card – the deal was instantly suspended, although the Russian fleet did not suffer significant damage. The military response of Russia also followed very quickly, the communications center and the base of the special forces of the Ukrainian fleet in Ochakiv were destroyed. However, both the attack on the Russian base and the actual breach of the deal with Russian exports are just the tip of the iceberg.

“Currently, Russia is “not ready to say” what conditions would have to be met for it to resume its participation in the deal.”

• Russia Offers Alternative To Ukraine ‘Grain Deal’ (RT)

Russia is ready to provide poorer grain-importing nations with supplies from its own stocks to replace Ukrainian exports, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Monday. Earlier, Russia suspended its participation in the so-called “grain deal” with Ukraine following an attack on its navy base in Sevastopol. “We can guarantee the Russian side’s readiness to compensate for the missing [grain export] volumes from its own stocks,” Peskov said. Earlier, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said Moscow would continue to support African nations despite halting its compliance with the pact. The Kremlin spokesman also said only a tiny portion of all Ukrainian agricultural products exported under the deal were destined for the poorest nations anyway, while “not-so-poor nations located in Europe got the rest.”

Moscow also believes that the grain deal between Russia and Ukraine, which was reached in Istanbul with UN and Turkish mediation, is now in limbo for security reasons. “The deal could hardly be implemented when Russia says it cannot guarantee maritime security in the designated waters” of the Black Sea, Peskov said, adding that the implementation of the agreement is now “much more risky, dangerous and not guaranteed.” The Kremlin has not said the deal is dead altogether, however. Moscow is “still in contact” with other parties, including the UN and Türkiye, Peskov said. Currently, Russia is “not ready to say” what conditions would have to be met for it to resume its participation in the deal.

Under the agreement reached in July, Russia provided a secure “grain corridor” through the Black Sea waters to facilitate the exportation of Ukrainian agricultural products. The agreement was praised as critical for easing the global food crisis and helping the world’s poorest nations to avoid starvation. Last week’s decision by Russia to halt its compliance with the deal caused a grain price surge. Moscow suspended its participation in the deal last week after a massive drone attack on its naval base in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the naval drones launched as part of the attack used the grain corridor to reach their targets and one of them may even have been launched from a civilian vessel supposedly chartered to ship Ukrainian grain.

“Moscow is now ready to supply African nations with “large volumes” of grain and fertilizers out of its own stocks for free..”

• Russia Demands Black Sea Corridor Guarantees From Ukraine (RT)

Kiev should provide “real guarantees” that it would not use the Black Sea corridor created as part of an Istanbul grain deal in its military activities, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a phone conversation on Tuesday. The two were discussing the circumstances that could convince Moscow to return to its own commitments under the agreement. Russia indefinitely suspended its participation in the deal last week following a massive drone attack on its naval base in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol. Some of the naval drones launched by Kiev allegedly used the Black Sea grain corridor’s security zone to close in on their targets, according to the Russian military.

“It is necessary to conduct a detailed investigation of … this incident, as well as to get real guarantees from Kiev that it would rigorously abide by the Istanbul agreements, including the non-use of the humanitarian corridor for military purposes,” the Russian president said, according to the Kremlin’s press release. Russia would only consider re-opening this corridor if that happened, Putin added. He also pointed out that the part of the deal that involved lifting restrictions on Russia’s own agricultural and fertilizer exports had never been implemented. The corridor was touted as a way to secure food supplies to the neediest nations as a matter of priority. But this goal has not been reached in the three months since the agreement was established, Putin noted. “Moscow is now ready to supply African nations with “large volumes” of grain and fertilizers out of its own stocks for free, the president confirmed.

The Russian military closed the Black Sea grain corridor on Monday, arguing that its security could not be guaranteed while Kiev used it for military purposes. Moscow had previously blamed Ukraine and UK Navy specialists for the attack on Sevastopol. London has dismissed the accusation. The Russian Defense Ministry said that the corridor would stay closed at least until all the circumstances of the attack were established. Russia has also repeatedly said that it has not left the deal entirely but only suspended its own commitments under the agreement. In the wake of Moscow’s decision, the UN insisted that “food must flow” regardless of the circumstances. Civilian vessels “can never be a military target or held hostage,” the UN coordinator for the Black Sea grain initiative, Amir Abdulla, said.

“Ukrainian troops are shelling the region almost on a daily basis, threatening the lives and safety of people, but they keep silent about it, while expressing concerns about the fish..”

• Russia Responds To Kiev’s Nuclear Plant ‘Hypocrisy’ (RT)

Kiev’s accusations that Moscow is responsible for an alleged environmental disaster at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant sound hypocritical, given that Ukraine has been constantly targeting the facility, Vladimir Rogov, a member of the administration of Russia’s Zaporozhye Region, said on Tuesday. His statement comes after the Ukrainian state-owned operator, Energoatom, claimed that Russian actions had led to a massive die-off of fish in the facility’s cooling pond.Rogov denounced Kiev’s accusations as the “wildest hypocrisy that knows no bounds.” “Ukrainian troops are shelling the region almost on a daily basis, threatening the lives and safety of people, but they keep silent about it, while expressing concerns about the fish,” he told RIA Novosti.

Moreover, he noted that the plant’s energy units had been shut down precisely because Kiev’s forces have been constantly targeting the area around the facility. On Monday, Ukraine’s Energoatom said that the shutdown of the plant’s energy units had resulted in a decrease in the water temperature in the cooling pond, which led to “mass fish death.” The fish had been “performing a sanitary function” by destroying the green algae and cleaning the cooling tubes of the turbine condenser, it said. However, Ukraine had gone to great lengths to paralyze the plant’s operations and prevent it from coming online again, according to Rogov.

The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, which is Europe’s largest, has been under Russian control since March. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin officially placed the facility under Moscow’s management. The Russian leader signed the relevant order as Moscow was finalizing the accession of Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions, as well as the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, to Russia following referendums that overwhelmingly supported the move. Russia has on numerous occasions accused Ukraine of shelling the Zaporozhye facility, warning that the attacks could lead to a nuclear disaster. Kiev has denied the allegations, blaming Russia for the shelling instead.

“Musk is looking for ways to reduce the dependency on advertisers and many of us would support that effort.”

• Blue Checkers Revolt Over Musk’s Threatened Monthly Charge (Turley)

As a regular MSNBC pundit is calling for Elon Musk to be stripped of his citizenship for trying to reintroduce free speech protections to Twitter, the new owner is outraging blue checkers by suggesting a monthly charge for verified users. Figures like CNBC’s Jim Cramer declared: “I’m not paying them anything. They should pay me.” Some of us would be willing to pay an added monthly fee to support a true free speech alternative on social media if Musk keeps his word. Of course, for full disclosure, I would first have to get a blue check to get charged for a blue check. I have been barred from being verified for years by Twitter despite being a columnist for newspapers like USA Today and the Hill as well as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and now Fox over the last two decades.

I have been ranked in the top five law professors on Twitter, but I was still turned me down over a dozen times under multiple categories. I have previously joked about the bar on verification and I am not sure how much the blue check honestly does for individuals. Indeed, there are some advantages. I can presumably deny prior statements since they were made by an entirely unverified person using my name for over a decade. Yet, as a long-time critic of Twitter’s censorship system, there has been a long curiosity over the denial. Musk has indicated that he is now looking into such concerns and there may be greater transparency in the weeks to come. However, Musk is looking for ways to reduce the dependency on advertisers and many of us would support that effort.

Recently, General Motors suspended advertising on Twitter until it can evaluate the implications of Musk’s new policies. Some of us immediately criticized the action by GM over the move. The company had no problem with supporting Twitter when it was running one of the largest censorship systems in history — or supporting TikTok (which is Chinese owned and has been denounced for state control and access to data). Twitter has been denounced for years for its bias against conservative and dissenting voices, including presumably many GM customers on the right. None of that was a concern for GM but the pledge to restore free speech to Twitter warrants a suspension.

“..rolling blackouts could happen during “those deepest darkest evenings in January and February..”

• UK Households Face ‘Very, Very Hard’ Winter – National Grid (RT)

Many British households will struggle to pay energy bills this winter that could be double what they are accustomed to despite a government price cap, the National Grid’s CEO, John Pettigrew, has warned. In an interview with the Financial Times on Tuesday, he said he was “under no illusions” and that Brits would find the upcoming winter “financially very, very hard.” “Even with the [taxpayer-funded] price cap this is a doubling-up of what people are used to paying for their energy bills,” Pettigrew said, adding: “Therefore, inevitably there are going to be people who are going to struggle.” The British government has capped the unit cost of energy until April, meaning that an average household would pay about £2,500 ($2,885) over a year on average.

But last winter the equivalent amount was £1,277 ($1,474). Each household will also receive a £400 rebate on utility bills with additional means-tested payments through Social Security benefits. However, that will still be unable to make up the difference given the soaring energy prices. Pettigrew said the National Grid was working on a number of emergency plans to protect the UK against a shortfall of energy from Europe. Earlier, the grid operator’s boss warned that the country could face power cuts on “really cold” evenings this winter due to Europe’s continuing energy squeeze. He said that rolling blackouts could happen during “those deepest darkest evenings in January and February,” likely between 4pm to 7pm.

Such measures were “unlikely,” according to Pettigrew, who warned, however, that there were potential scenarios where Britain’s power generators would fail to secure sufficient supplies from Europe. Normally, during the coldest months and extreme weather events, the UK imports gas and electricity from continental Europe for its gas-fired power plants. However, this year European countries are themselves facing a severe energy crisis exacerbated by anti-Russian sanctions and a sharp decrease in Russian energy supplies.

Top spot for craziest story.

• Cockamamie Story (Kunstler)

So far, police have not disclosed how DePape journeyed from Berkeley to Pacific Heights at 2:00 o’clock in the morning, about fourteen miles. Did he walk from Berkeley across the Bay Bridge and then halfway across town? Mr. DePape is apparently also known to the police as a gay hustler, that is, a person who sells sex for money. Unless I’m mistaken, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) has a detective department — experienced men and women who go around the city seeking clues, evidence, and testimony in order to make sense of perplexing crimes — and then solve them! Shall we assume they are on-the-job? Now, Paul Pelosi, 82, who made a $300-million fortune running a car service (also shrewd investments in real estate and the stock market), has been in quite a bit of trouble this year.

On May 28, 2022, he was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in Napa (near a vineyard estate he owns with Nancy) when his 2021 Porsche crashed into a 2014 Jeep driven by one “John Doe” (as the police identified him). KGO-TV, ABC’s affiliate in the San Francisco area, said that there was a second person in the Porsche with Pelosi at the time of the accident. He has never been identified. In August, Mr. Pelosi was sentenced to five days in jail, a fine of roughly $7,000, a three-month drinking-and-driving course, eight hours of public service, and having an “interlock” device installed on his car that would require him to blow into an alcohol sensor before the engine can ignite. By any chance, were the Napa Police or the County Court contacted in the matter at some point by the US Capitol Police or the FBI? We may never know.

If David DePape didn’t walk fourteen miles from Berkeley to Pacific Heights, or take a cab (expensive), how did he get there? Here’s a theory: he rode the BART subway from Berkeley to the Church Street and Mission station in the city, a five-minute walk to the Castro, San Francisco’s fabled gay district. Sometime before 2:00 a.m. closing time, he met up in a bar there with Paul Pelosi, who drove DePape to the Pelosi house in a car not equipped with an interlock device. That is to say, David DePape was let into the house by Mr. Pelosi. The police and the news media have theorized that DePape broke into the place by smashing a glass door in back. Uh-huh…. Ask yourself: would there not be an alarm system at least on all the ground floor windows and doors in the house? Would there not be security cameras on the back side of the house — the side that burglars might prefer, if they could get over the wall?

Would the Speaker of the House, with a discretionary budget on top of a $300-million fortune, and in a time of epic political rancor, not have a team of security guards in place at her private home? Initial news media chatter had both DePape and Paul Pelosi dressed in their underwear, struggling over a hammer which turned out to belong to Mr. Pelosi. Not until the police entered the house did DePape wrest the hammer from Mr. Pelosi and commence to brain him with it. What does the arrest report actually say about the two men’s state-of-dress? It is not public information. How and why were the police just watching until DePape assaulted Mr. Pelosi — who was hospitalized afterward and had surgery on his cracked skull? (Uh, how did a blow that literally broke his skull not kill the elderly Mr. Pelosi?)

“what would we do without the Banker to guide us!?”

• The Tale of Two Greedy Landlords (Catte Black)

Once upon a time in a land far away and in a time of plenty there were two rich and prosperous Landlords who each owned large and spacious adjoining buildings wherein many people lived. The apartments were warm and comfortable and every week there was a market where grain was brought from Landlord B’s land and fruit and meat and vegetables from Landlord A’s. While wood from Landlord B’s copses kept the Communal Woodpile stocked with seasoned logs. Everyone was happy. The Landlords were both friends with a Banker. The Banker was richer than both the Landlords combined and in fact he owned their houses and their land and watched carefully what they did with them. And one day he invited them to a sumptuous dinner at his house and said “things could be better”.

“How could things be better, friend Banker?” asked Landlord B, “there is food in our granaries and money in our coffers, and everyone is happy”. “Your people are charged too little for too much luxury. They expect fuel for their stoves and food in their markets, and are never grateful enough to you for your kindness.” The two Landlords looked at each other and realized this might be true, for they rarely disagreed with the Banker. “Yes,” said Landlord A, sadly shaking his head, “our people are feckless children that never give enough thanks for our largesse, but alas, what can we do?”. “They need to be taught their place”, the Banker said. “They need to pay a proper price for what you provide and learn to be grateful. You should triple the price of food from your farms and fuel from the Communal Wood Pile”.

The two Landlords looked at each other in apprehension. They were greedy and liked the sound of this very much, but they were also cowards. “But”, said Landlord B, “but if we do that they may just become annoyed and might refuse to pay or break our windows or our bones and then we will be worse off not better!” This was true. And caused the Landlords to shake their heads regretfully. But the Banker was cleverer than either of them. He merely smiled. “They are children”, he said, “and children require stories in order to learn about life’s harsh truths. So, you will tell them a story”. The two Landlords looked at him, but did not understand.

“You will tell them there is a new and terrible plague which has broken the Supply Chain and consequently fuel and food are three times more expensive!” “But…but there is no new and terrible plague”, stammered Landlord A. “Of course there is”, smiled the Banker, “why else would hundreds of people be dying?” “But hundreds of people are not dying”, stammered Landlord B. “Of course they are,” smiled the Banker, “how could they not when there is a new and terrible plague?” They looked at him for a long time before gradual understanding dawned, and their puzzled frowns turned to smiles. “Of course!” they said in unison, “what would we do without the Banker to guide us!?”

Pierre Kory, MD MPA @PierreKory:

A high quality Sociology journal finally publishes the truth about what happened in Medical Science during Covid.
Phenomenal paper.
Cue censorship by mass media and social media.
Hope Chief Twit starts making changes fast.

• Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy (Springer)

Abstract: The emergence of COVID-19 has led to numerous controversies over COVID-related knowledge and policy. To counter the perceived threat from doctors and scientists who challenge the official position of governmental and intergovernmental health authorities, some supporters of this orthodoxy have moved to censor those who promote dissenting views. The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences and responses of highly accomplished doctors and research scientists from different countries who have been targets of suppression and/or censorship following their publications and statements in relation to COVID-19 that challenge official views.

Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures. In the effort to silence alternative voices, widespread use was made not only of censorship, but of tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position. In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health.

Ouch.

• Fatal Flaw: 42% False Discovery Rate for SARS-CoV-2 nonQ-RT-PCR Test (PR)

We have just published a new study that shows that nonQ-RT-PCR (non-quantitative RT-PCR testing as used to diagnose COVID-19 from 2020 to the present day suffers a flaw that ultimately draws into question all of what has been reported on COVID-19 by official channels, including the results of COVID-19. Specifically, assuming a 5% prevalence rate, the high false discovery rate (42%) of the use of nonQ-RT-PCR means

1. For every 50 true positives out of 1,000, a total of 86 people with or without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be reported. Of these, 36 of these will be false positives.
2. For every 50 true positives, 86 people without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be have to be isolated/quarantined. Of these, 36 will not be infected.
3. For every 50 true positives that are tested and found positive in-hospital, 86 people with or without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be told that they “have COVID-19”. If the 36 false positive patients are hospitalized with other COVID-19 patients, they will likely then contract a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
4. The number of “cases” via positive PCR has been overstated by a factor of 72% (the original post read “80:1” assuming a prevalence of 5%).
5. This is true for generic case reporting up until May 2021 when CDC decided to reduce the PCR cycle threshold value (Ct) for the vaccinated to less than 27, leaving the unvaccinated rate biased by high false discovery rate of arbitrarily high Ct, biasing all reported rates in these two groups favoring cases in the unvaccinated from that point on.
6. This +72% bias is true in any clinical trial or any study that used arbitrarily high Ct values, INCLUDING THE VACCINE STUDIES. As a direct result of this fatal flaw, combined with CDC’s gaff “PCR+ = COVID-19″? There are no credible COVID-19 vaccine trial data.

Rogan list

Where is the list? pic.twitter.com/W0dDdnnTdQ

— Ronald Kelly (@RonK3l) October 31, 2022

Malone

Dr. Robert Malone, co-inventor of mRNA tech, explained to me that US/UK intelligence agencies are actively using counter insurgency tactics, phycological warfare & blackmail operations against the organized health freedom movement.

FULL: https://t.co/kOoDyglSiY pic.twitter.com/YCIHbuNqdA

— Jeremy Loffredo (@loffredojeremy) October 31, 2022

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

Debt Rattle September 9 2020

Sep 092020

September 9, 2020 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:29 am Finance Tagged with: Assange, Atlantic, Covid19, Durham, Moria, Trump, vaccine, Vindman 23 Responses »

Pablo Picasso The Dream 1932

• Assange Legal Team Focuses On US Torture And War Crimes (Gosztola)

• Politics and Violence Go Hand in Hand (Knapp)

• Scott Adams: Trump Is The Most Successful Stand-Up Comic Ever (RCP)

• Biden Loses His Florida Lead As Latino Voters Shift To Trump (Week)

• Docs Show Former Officials “In Real Trouble” In Durham Probe – Meadows (ET)

• Vindman, Not Whistleblower, Was Driving Force Behind Impeachment (Fed.)

• On-the-Record Sources, Paper Trail Rebut Anonymous Atlantic Claims (JTN)

• AstraZeneca COVID19 Vaccine Trial Put On Hold Due To Adverse Reaction (STAT)

• England To Ban Gatherings Of More Than 6 People As Coronavirus Cases Spike (AP)

• Britons Scrambling To Get Back Home From Greek Islands On UK Red List (K.)

• Netherlands Puts All Greek Islands On Orange Travel List (K.)

• 35 Migrants In Moria Found Positive For Coronavirus (K.)

• 1,000s Flee Fire At Moria Migrant Camp On Virus Lockdown In Greece (K.)

CNN’s Zucker wanted to give Trump a show

As it turns out, @CNN's Jeff Zucker is a big fan of President Trump.

Here is the full segment from Tucker. pic.twitter.com/1Bl9yYxCBf

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 9, 2020

“Lewis insisted the U.S. government only charged Assange with documents that revealed the names of informants..”

Assange personally redacted out 10,000 names in one night after the journalists at the Guardian etc. refused to do it. He’s the only one who cared.

• Assange Legal Team Focuses On US Torture And War Crimes (Gosztola)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s legal team spent the second morning of a major extradition hearing focusing a magistrate court judge’s attention on United States torture and war crimes that Assange helped to expose. Defense attorney Mark Summers called Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights attorney who has represented prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, to the witness stand. He was asked about human rights cases he pursued, which were bolstered by revelations in documents WikiLeaks published. For example, Stafford Smith told Judge Vanessa Baraitser that U.S. State Department cables helped those impacted by U.S. drone killings in Pakistan. It contributed to “court findings that US drone strikes are criminal offenses and that criminal proceedings should be initiated against senior U.S. officials involved in such strikes.”

A high court in Pakistan ruled “drone strikes carried out by the CIA and U.S. authorities were a ‘blatant violation of basic human rights’ including ‘a blatant breach of the absolute right to life’ and ‘a war crime,’” Stafford Smith declared in a statement to the court. Due to the decision, drone strikes that caused many “innocent deaths” stopped “very rapidly.” None were reported in 2019. The defense had Stafford Smith testify in order to persuade the court that Assange “disclosed U.S. involvement in criminal activity.” Specifically, these were “public interest disclosures” of war crimes and torture. Some of the publications are currently the subject of a criminal investigation into the CIA that is before the International Criminal Court (ICC). In other words, the prosecution against Assange is retaliation for bringing increased scrutiny to U.S. actions throughout the world.

But James Lewis, the lawyer representing the Crown Prosecution Authority on behalf of the U.S. government, was irritated by the defense’s focus on documents that exposed torture and war crimes. Lewis insisted the U.S. government only charged Assange with documents that revealed the names of informants, and none of the materials Stafford Smith was asked about mattered in the extradition case. [..]

Word. But not sure I would say Power Corrupts. I think the people seeking power are already mentally corrupted.

• Politics and Violence Go Hand in Hand (Knapp)

“[W]e currently have an inferno of political violence to which the president of the United States adds fuel,” Jennifer Rubin thunders from her bully pulpit at the Washington Post. “[I]t is time for bipartisan voices, local and state leaders, police and other first responders, civic and religious leaders, and all responsible media outlets to try to quench the flames of violence.” Rubin is no lone voice in the wilderness. As America’s latest long hot summer drags into autumn, politicians and pundits are getting louder and more shrill in their denunciations of political violence. Considering the sources, those denunciations smack of hypocrisy. In another Post column published the very same day as her rant against political violence, Rubin tells us US Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) should be “revered and thanked for her courage and service to the country.”

Duckworth lost her legs co-piloting a helicopter during the US occupation of Iraq. That is, engaging in unambiguously political violence on behalf of the US government. Rubin denounces political violence out of one side of her mouth while lionizing it out of the other. Politics as we know it today is entirely based on violence and the threat of violence. That’s most obvious in the case of war, in which governments settle their political conflicts by sending forth their armed servants in large numbers to murder one another (and anyone else with the bad luck to get in the way), but don’t be fooled: Every government edict, at home and abroad, is backed by the credible threat of violence.

According to the Declaration of Independence, government exists to protect our rights. It may only legitimately use force to do so, and to bring to justice those who violate those rights. If government accomplished that mission and went no further, it might be an acceptable, even worthwhile institution. But it doesn’t accomplish that mission very well, and it inevitably turns the inch it’s given into miles. Why? Because the problem with power, as Lord Acton noted, is that it corrupts. Governments, and those who run and rely on them, always turn from the task of protecting our rights to increasing their power. At the far, not always visible, end of every government demand — a speed limit, a tax code, a drug prohibition, what have you — stand men and women with guns, waiting to cage or kill you for non-compliance or defiance.

As for democracy, as currently practiced it’s merely a contest to see who gives armed enforcers their marching orders. America’s two “major” political parties don’t want to end political violence; they merely want control of those they deem its “legitimate” combatants. The present conflagration — marches in the streets, clashes between protesters and police, cities on fire — shouldn’t surprise us. Sometimes the state’s victims fight back. And then the state pours on even more force, because that’s its nature. It’s a cycle that can only be broken by abolishing the state itself. Which means that only anarchists enjoy moral standing to denounce political violence.

“We’ve decided to call all our rallies peaceful protests.”

TRUMP: “We’ve decided to call all our rallies peaceful protests.”

pic.twitter.com/v3jvWFGgOS

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) September 8, 2020

Scott has his own way of looking at things. Is he that far off here?

• Scott Adams: Trump Is The Most Successful Stand-Up Comic Ever (RCP)

During Monday morning’s “Coffee With Scott Adams” podcast, the comedian and ‘Dilbert’ creator again discussed Joe Biden’s repeated references to what Adams calls the “fine people in Charlottesville” race hoax. Last week, Adams extensively explained how a simple edited video has convinced tens of millions of people that President Trump ever praised members of hate groups after the deadly clash in Charlottesville 2017. This week, he compared the “fine people” hoax to the newest outrage about the president, The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg’s “anonymous source” alleging that the president insulted those buried in an American war cemetery during a visit to France in 2018.

According to Adams, the common thread between why so many people believe these claims to be true without any evidence (or even in the face of counterevidence) could be that they simply have no sense of humor. People hate the president so much because they literally can’t recognize the difference between an off-color joke and violent hate speech. Adams described a conversation he had on Twitter with an actress who said she believed the claims in Goldberg’s article because of the joke Trump made in 2015 about John McCain not being a war hero because he was “captured.” “This is typical Trump, he is a dumb, hate-filled liar and misogynist!” Scott’s Twitter correspondent said. “When I saw that I commented back [that] Trump told a Chris Rock joke about McCain because Chris Rock actually did that same joke before Trump did,” Adams replied.

“And then I said, you literally want to overthrow the government because you don’t recognize a joke. That’s actually what happened, this is someone who wants to get rid of Trump at any cost in part because she doesn’t recognize a joke. So, I said maybe the problem’s on your end.” She responded: “B.S. Circus with Trump’s trained Monkeys defending his stupidities. What’s wrong with you people? Who cares if Chris Rock made a joke?” “See where this is going?” Scott asked, holding back a laugh. “She has now acknowledged that the president told a joke. She did not know until I explained it that it was a joke. So now she has to change her objection from being a horrible thing he said, to ‘Yeah, it was a joke but it was still horrible, and here’s why.'” She responded: “A president must know better than to say something like that! There are better things to quote as president, how do you fall for this crap?”

“Now, she also said earlier that Trump had no sense of humor, therefore it couldn’t be a joke. To which I pointed out that he is the most successful stand-up comedian in the history of humanity. His rallies with gigantic audiences are literally stand-up comedy. He does it to entertain. He literally says funny things and his audience laughs. And they go because he will say funny things that will make them laugh. He’s literally the most successful stand-up comedian in the history of civilization if you look at the numbers of people who go in person,” Adams revealed. “You have to admit the reason the crowd is so big is because he brings entertainment and humor.”

Chris Rock

Uh-oh.

• Biden Loses His Florida Lead As Latino Voters Shift To Trump (Week)

The sun may be setting on Democrats’ hopes of picking up Florida. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has seemingly lost his advantage over President Trump in the crucial swing state of Florida, an NBC News/Marist poll released Tuesday found. A lot of that shift seemingly stems from Florida’s Latino voters, who have gone from resoundingly supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 to actually tipping in Trump’s favor this time around, the poll showed. Less than two months before election day, Biden and Trump are tied in Florida with 48 percent support among likely Florida voters. Biden had previously pulled as much as a 13-point lead over Trump in Florida. That dip comes as a majority of Latino respondents say they’re voting for Trump over Biden, 50-46 percent; Latino voters went for Clinton 62-35 in 2016.

A poll from the Miami Herald and Bendixen & Amandi International backed up NBC News’ findings, at least in Miami-Dade County. Biden still has a strong advantage, 55-38 percent, in the heavily Democratic part of the state, the Tuesday poll found. But it’s not the best news considering Clinton won that county by 30 points in 2016 and still lost the state by 1.2 points. In addition, the Miami Herald poll found Trump and Biden are splitting Hispanic voters, 47-46, though there’s a larger margin of error among that smaller subset. NBC News/Marist surveyed 766 likely Florida voters from Aug. 31–Sept. 6, with a 4.5 percentage point margin of error. The Miami Herald poll surveyed 500 likely Miami-Dade voters from Sept. 1–4, with a margin of error of 4.4 points.

Wonder if the Durham report will ever come out.

• Docs Show Former Officials “In Real Trouble” In Durham Probe – Meadows (ET)

Newly reviewed documents show that former FBI agent Peter Strzok and other officials involved in the counter-intelligence probe against Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign are in trouble, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said. U.S. Attorney John Durham is reviewing the origins of that investigation and landed his first guilty plea last month. While he doesn’t have visibility into the timeline of Durham’s probe, Meadows said he’s reviewed additional documents that “say that a number of the players, the Peter Strzoks, the Andy McCabes, the James Comeys – and even others in the administration previously – are in real trouble because of their willingness to participate in an unlawful act.”

“And I use the word unlawful at best, it broke all kinds of protocols and at worst people should go to jail as I mentioned previously,” Meadows said during a virtual appearance on Fox Business’ “Mornings With Maria” on Monday. Strzok, McCabe, and Comey are former high-level FBI officials. Strzok, best known for exchanging biased text messages about Trump with an FBI lawyer he was having an affair with, was fired by FBI officials in 2018. The former agent sat down for an interview with CBS that ran over the weekend. He insisted that the counter-intelligence probe, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane, was opened on a legitimate basis. Meadows said it was easy for Strzok to make claims when not under oath.

“In all of his interview, I can tell you this: It’s not backed up by the facts. It’s not backed up by documents that I’ve seen. And ultimately his house of cards will come falling down,” Meadows said. The facts that have come out show that officials treated Trump “very differently, in an inappropriate way, and they must be held accountable,” he added. Durham’s criminal investigation is being kept under tight wraps, prompting much speculation about when another development will come, or even if any other people will be charged. Trey Gowdy, a Fox News contributor who used to serve in the House of Representatives, said over the weekend that there’s concern that Durham “is dragging his feet.” Durham, he said, “is going to access documents that the FBI never shared with Congress and he’ll write the definitive accounting of what happened.”

“Whether or not there’ll be more indictments or not, I don’t know and I like to assume that there will not be,” he said, adding: “That puts me in a small minority, but I’m assuming that the Clinesmith indictment will be the only one.” Kevin Clinesmith recently pleaded guilty to altering an email to say Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, was not a CIA asset when the CIA had said the exact opposite. The altered email was used to obtain spy warrants against Page, enabling the FBI to conduct surveillance against Page and people he was linked to in the future and past. Meadows, meanwhile, said Trump supports the declassification of all documents, along with full transparency. “He has nothing to hide,” he said.

New book. Vindman was the whistleblower, but nobody knew it. That allowed him to be a witness – twice.

• Vindman, Not Whistleblower, Was Driving Force Behind Impeachment (Fed.)

The most interesting thing about Byron York’s exhaustively reported and richly detailed new impeachment book, “Obsession: Inside the Washington Establishment’s Never-Ending War on Trump,” is that the whistleblower who filed the official complaint that got impeachment rolling isn’t ever identified. It turns out that the heated discussion over the whistleblower, who was previously identified by Real Clear Investigations as the CIA’s Eric Ciaramella, was a diversion from allowing the American people to understand who was the actual instigator of the failed effort to oust President Donald Trump from office.

Rather than being a witness who independently supported the claims of the whistleblower, the National Security Council’s Lt. Col Alex Vindman was the driving force behind the entire operation, according to the book’s interviews with key figures in the impeachment probe and other evidence. The whistleblower’s information came directly from Vindman, investigators determined. “Vindman was the person on the call who went to the whistleblower after the call, to give the whistleblower the information he needed to file his complaint,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y. “For all intents and purposes, Vindman is the whistleblower here, but he was able to get somebody else to do his dirty work for him,” explained one senior congressional aide.

[..] In his complaint, the whistleblower claimed “multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call” described to him the contents of the conversation. It is unclear if he was sourcing his knowledge just to multiple Vindmans or any other White House officials. The description of the call appeared to come from the White House’s rough transcript, which Vindman helped prepare. It repeated Vindman’s unique interpretation of the call as seeking foreign interference in a campaign. It mentioned that lawyers had been informed, and Vindman had done just that. The complaint also included information from public news reports.

At first Schiff publicly promised that the whistleblower would testify and that any attempt by the White House to thwart that would be fought vigorously. But then news broke that Schiff’s office had worked with the whistleblower prior to him filing his complaint. Schiff switched his stance to refusing to allow the whistleblower to testify. What’s more, he refused to allow any investigation into how the Ukraine investigation began. [..] Vindman repeatedly said that he viewed Trump’s phone call with Zelensky as “wrong,” but he was unable to articulate precisely why. He expressed frustration that the elected president was pushing a foreign policy at odds from the “interagency consensus” of the bureaucracy that he felt should control foreign policy.

I count 15. That does not include Bolton. But it doesn’t matter, the story is out there, it’s doing its damage, and who cares if it’s true? Because what are the odds the Atlantic will be sued over it?

• On-the-Record Sources, Paper Trail Rebut Anonymous Atlantic Claims (JTN)

Trump advisor Derek Lyons: “I was with the President the morning after the scheduled visit. He was extremely disappointed that arrangements could not be made to get him to the site and that the trip had been canceled. I have worked for the President for his entire administration. One of my responsibilities is working with him on the many letters he signs to the families of our nation’s fallen heroes. In all my time at the White House, I have never heard him utter a disparaging remark, of any kind, about our troops. In my view, he holds the brave men and women of our armed forces in the highest regard.”

U.S. Ambassador to France and Monaco Jamie McCourt: “In my presence, POTUS has NEVER denigrated any member of the U.S. military or anyone in service to our country. And he certainly did not that day, either. Let me add, he was devastated to not be able to go to the cemetery at Belleau Wood. In fact, the next day, he attended and spoke at the ceremony in Suresnes in the pouring rain.” Trump Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino: “I was with POTUS in France, with Sarah, and have been at his side throughout it all. Complete lies by ‘anonymous sources’…” Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller: “The President deeply wanted to attend the memorial event in question and was deeply displeased by the bad weather call.” Former presidential advisor Johnny DeStefano: “I was on this trip. The Atlantic bit is not true. Period.”

Former Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Walsh: “I can attest to the fact that there was a bad weather call in France and that the helicopters were unable to safely make the flight. Overall, the President’s support and respect for our American troops, past and present, is unquestionable.” Former White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders: “I was actually there and one of the people part of the discussion — this never happened.” Former Deputy Chief of Staff Zach Fuentes: “I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather.” Maj. General (Ret.) William Matz: “No one has done more for our veterans than President Trump, and he enjoys a relationship of mutual affection and honor with those who wear and have worn the uniform of the United States military and their families. Those who know President Trump know that the anonymous smears peddled by The Atlantic have no basis in fact or reality, and do a terrible disservice to journalism and to our veterans, living and deceased.”

Secretary Of Defense Mark Esper: “President Trump has the highest respect and admiration for our nation’s military members, veterans and families. That is why he has fought for greater pay and more funding for our armed forces.” Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo: “I’ve been with this president now for coming on four years. I’ve never heard the president use the language that assertively is said in that article.” Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie: Denied ever hearing President Trump make such remarks: “Absolutely not.” Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato: Denied the Atlantic’s story.

Lt. General and National Security Advisor to Vice President Pence Keith Kellogg: “The Atlantic story is completely false. Absolutely lacks merit. I’ve been by the President’s side. He has always shown the highest respect to our active duty troops and veterans with utmost respect paid to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice and those wounded in battle.” Former Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney: “I never heard the President disparage our war dead or wounded. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I was with him at the 75th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion in Normandy. As we flew over the beaches by helicopter he was outwardly in awe of the accomplishments of the Allied Forces, and the sacrifices they paid.”

So surprised.

• AstraZeneca Covid19 Vaccine Trial Put On Hold Due To Adverse Reaction (STAT)

A large, Phase 3 study testing a Covid-19 vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford at dozens of sites across the U.S. has been put on hold due to a suspected serious adverse reaction in a participant in the United Kingdom. A spokesperson for AstraZeneca, a frontrunner in the race for a Covid-19 vaccine, said in a statement that the company’s “standard review process triggered a pause to vaccination to allow review of safety data.” In a follow-up statement, AstraZeneca said it initiated the study hold. The nature of the adverse reaction and when it happened were not immediately known, though the participant is expected to recover, according to an individual familiar with the matter.

The spokesperson described the pause as “a routine action which has to happen whenever there is a potentially unexplained illness in one of the trials, while it is investigated, ensuring we maintain the integrity of the trials.” The spokesperson also said that the company is “working to expedite the review of the single event to minimize any potential impact on the trial timeline.” An individual familiar with the development said researchers had been told the hold was placed on the trial out of “an abundance of caution.” A second individual familiar with the matter, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the finding is having an impact on other AstraZeneca vaccine trials underway — as well as on the clinical trials being conducted by other vaccine manufacturers.

Boy, what a mess that country is. I can see the experts brainstorming for hours: 5, no 7, how about 8? Raise your hand for 6!

• England To Ban Gatherings Of More Than 6 People As Coronavirus Cases Spike (AP)

Britain’s government is banning gatherings of more than six people in England, as officials try to keep a lid on daily new coronavirus infections after a sharp spike across the U.K. that has been largely blamed on party-going young adults disregarding social distancing rules. Downing Street said urgent action was needed after the number of daily laboratory-confirmed positive cases hit nearly 3,000 on Sunday. The figure dipped Tuesday to 2,460. Officials said that starting Monday, the legal limit on all social gatherings in England will be reduced from the current 30 people to six. The new law applies both indoors and outdoors, including private homes, restaurants and parks. Failure to comply could result in a 100-pound ($130) fine.

Weddings, school, funerals and organized team sports are exempt, and larger gatherings will also be allowed if the household or “support bubble” is larger than six. Government ministers and scientists took to the airways to urge Britons not to let down their guard. “We’ve been able to relax a bit over the summer … but these latest figures really show us that much as people might like to say ‘Oh well, it’s gone away’ — this hasn’t gone away,” said Dr. Jonathan Van-Tam, the government’s deputy chief medical officer. He said while the rise in infections is “much more marked” among people between 17 and 21, he was concerned about a “more general and creeping geographic trend” across the U.K. “People have relaxed too much,” he said. “Now is the time for us to re-engage and realize that this is a continuing threat.”

[..] Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government has faced strong criticism for its mixed messages since it started easing the coronavirus lockdown in late spring. It spent much of the summer encouraging people to eat out to help the hard-pressed hospitality sector and is now urging workers to return to their offices to help hard-hit businesses in city centers. John Edmunds, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said cases are rising, though “not spectacularly,” but he’s worried about what will happen following the reopening of schools and universities. “There are big movements afoot in the country and these will inevitably accelerate transmission,” he told Sky News. “I’m not sure we have to go back to work when we can work from home.”

The government has also been criticized for testing problems, prompting an apology from Sarah-Jane Marsh, director for the National Health Service’s Test and Trace program. “All of our testing sites have capacity, which is why they don’t look overcrowded. It’s our laboratory processing that is the critical pinch point,” she said. “We are doing all we can to expand quickly.” “The testing team work on this 18 hours a day, seven days a week,” she said.

60,000 people told from one day to the next that they must quarantine when they return home. Good for the airlines: ticket prices triple. Bad for the airlines: tons of cancellations.

• Britons Scrambling To Get Back Home From Greek Islands On UK Red List (K.)

Some 60,000 Britons are scrambling to get back home from seven Greek islands that were recently added to the UK’s quarantine list, before restrictions take effect at 4 a.m. on Wednesday, the Daily Mail reported on Tuesday. According to the British newspaper, holidaymakers were blindsided by the announcement on Monday by UK Transport Secretary Grant Shapps that the Greek islands of Crete, Lesvos, Mykonos, Santorini, Serifos, Tinos and Zakynthos have been put on the government’s red list of destinations from which arrivals would have to spend 14 days in quarantine once returning to the UK.

The measure was announced in response to a spike in coronavirus infections, particularly in Crete, Mykonos and Zakynthos. “I don’t understand it because if anything it seems safer here than in the UK. It’s been very quiet, there’s barely anyone on the beaches, all the staff wear masks and there are hand-sanitizers on every table,” Julie Frew, who is holidaying on Crete, told the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail also said that holidaymakers have seen ticket prices for return flights almost treble since the measure was announced.

The Brits do 7 islands, the Dutch do them all, including many that have never had one case.

But what’s even funnier: it’s the UK and Holland that have large outbreaks, Greece is nothing compared to that. And now they want to claim that their outbreaks come from Greece?

• Netherlands Puts All Greek Islands On Orange Travel List (K.)

The Dutch government has placed Greece’s islands on its orange list of destinations approved for essential travel only, just a day after Britain said that people returning from seven Greek holiday islands would be quarantined for two weeks after arrival to check for symptoms of coronavirus. According to the directive, citizens of The Netherlands are “strongly discouraged” from traveling to the Greek islands and those who do will be subjected to 10 days of self-isolation on their return. The Foreign Ministry directive also advises that while citizens planning to travel to mainland Greece and the Peloponnese recreationally should not cancel their plans, they should exercise caution and abide by health safety regulations.

Well, they don’t have to worry about infections in the camp anymore, because it burned down. See below

• 35 Migrants In Moria Found Positive For Coronavirus (K.)

A total of 35 migrants and refugees living in the Moria identification and registration centre on the island of Lesvos have been infected with the novel coronavirus, the Migration Ministry said in a press release on Tuesday, announcing the completion of the checks. The ministry said health teams from the National Organization of Public Health (EODY) conducted a total of 2,000 tests, of which 100 were done on employees and 1,900 on residents. Those infected have been transferred to a separate section of the camp, according to official procedure. Only one of the 35 patients has so far shown any symptoms of the illness, the ministry said. The overcrowded identification and registration centre has been placed on lockdown since last Wednesday (Sept. 2) after a 40-year-old Somalian national tested positive for the virus. During this time, residents are not allowed to enter of exit the camp.

It’s all gone, the entire camp.

I know there are fires in California., but this is such a human tragedy, visited upon people who already were at the bottom of every ladder you can imagine.

What the EU going to do? Finance a new extra-secure camp? Moria was emant for 3,000 people But still in 2020 there were 15,000 or so living there.

“Some 12,500 people were living at the Moria camp” [..] now “more than 12,000 migrants being guarded by police on a highway..”

• 1,000s Flee Fire At Moria Migrant Camp On Virus Lockdown In Greece (K.)

Thousands of migrants fled a camp under COVID-19 lockdown after multiple fires gutted much of the site on the Greek island of Lesvos, authorities said early Wednesday. Some 12,500 people were living at the Moria camp and the surrounding area, where additional restrictions have been imposed over the past week after a Somali resident tested positive for the coronavirus. “The fire spread inside and outside of the camp and has destroyed it … There are more than 12,000 migrants being guarded by police on a highway,” Stratos Kytelis, mayor of the island’s main town, Mylinene, told private Skai radio. “It is a very difficult situation because some of those who are outside will include people who are positive (for the coronavirus).” There were no reports of injuries.

The fires broke out overnight, police and fire officials on the island told The Associated Press, adding the cause of the blazes, as well as the full extent of the damage, remained unclear. They did not confirm local reports that the fires had been set deliberately in protest at the lockdown measures but said firefighters had “met resistance” from some camp residents. Health authorities on Tuesday said 35 people had been confirmed infected with the virus so far after a major testing drive was ordered at the overcrowded facility. They were being kept in isolation at a separate site that was not affected by the fire, officials said. Early Wednesday, riot police were deployed along the highway that connects the camp to Mytilene, some 5 kilometers (3 miles) to the south.

Moria fire

„The whole camp is burning away. It‘s all dust now“, tells me an Afghan boy who lives in the jungle of #Moria pic.twitter.com/UUlFxuGskW

— Steffen Lüdke (@stluedke) September 8, 2020

https://twitter.com/i/status/1303554698083995650

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, your support is now an integral part of the process.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

A comprehensive list from Professor Mark Feldstein, witness who testified on Day 1 of Assange hearing about frequency of published leaks in journalism. The list includes over 20 examples from 1844-2018.

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime.

Debt Rattle September 8 2020

Sep 082020

September 8, 2020 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:57 am Finance Tagged with: Assange, Atlantic, Calcifediol, Covid19, extradition, ICU, Rubberhose Cryptography, Vitamin D 17 Responses »

Todd Webb Rue des Plantes, Paris 1950

• Vitamin D Reduces risk of ICU Admission 97% – Study (Covid.US.org)

• Rubberhose Cryptography And The Idea Behind WikiKeaks (Niraj Lal)

• Julian Assange Re-Arrested Over 18 New Allegations (Sky)

• Julian Assange Lays Out His Case Against US Extradition

• Media Freedom? Which MSM Journalist Opposes the Torture of Assange? (Murray)

• Tommy Robinson Appeals to President Donald Trump: “Free Julian Assange!“ (GP)

• Trump and The Press Destroyed The Public’s Ability To Judge Scandals (Turley)

• The Ghost in the Machine (Jim Kunstler)

Lots of Assange stories today, can’t be helped. Read them and you will understand much more much better of what’s happening.

I thought Trump’s remarks vs military brass were interesting, but couldn’t find a decent write-up of them. There’s video though.

Global new cases below 200,000. Lowest since July 13. US new cases lowest since June 14. But much of Europe appears to have a genuine second wave.

Trump on MIC
https://twitter.com/i/status/1303026442435993603

Trump press conference 2

President Trump: "They spied on my campaign and that includes Biden and Obama… If we did what they did, you would have many people in jail right now." pic.twitter.com/1pINNwgImr

— The Hill (@thehill) September 7, 2020

Hope you got yours. And zinc. Note: you can take your vitamin D supplement in a once-a-week dosage, instead of daily.

• Vitamin D Reduces risk of ICU Admission 97% – Study (Covid.US.org)

This is a peer-reviewed, randomized, controlled study of hospitalized Covid-19 patients. So it is an “RCT”. [Correction: no placebo was used. The intervention group received calcifediol and the control group did not. Both groups received BAT, best available treatment.] This is the type of study that the press and various online critics demand. Some persons unwisely reject all other types of studies, which is not reasonable or scientific. But this is the type of study we’ve been waiting for, to confirm the other 20 studies here. The study took place in a university hospital setting: Reina Sofia University Hospital, in Cordoba, Spain. The 76 patients were all hospitalized for confirmed cases of Covid-19. So these are not the mild to moderate, stay-at-home types of patients. The intervention group was 50 patients and the control group was 26 patients.

The intervention group received calcifediol, which is a type of vitamin D found in the blood. It is not the usual type of vitamin D found in supplements. Calcifediol is also known as 25(OH)D or 25-hydroxyvitamin D. The reason for giving this type of vitamin D is that the usual supplement type takes about 7 days to turn into calcifediol, so by giving patients calcifediol itself, you get the good effects without having to wait 7 or so days [per Wikipedia]. The dosage of calcifediol converts to IU (international units at a ratio of 200 to 1). So 10 micrograms of calcifediol is 2000 IU of vitamin D, whereas 10 micrograms of vitamin D3 is 400 IU (a 40:1 ratio).

The dosage given to the patients, in IUs, was:
Day one: 106,400 IU of vitamin D
Day three: 53,200 IU
Day seven: 53,200 IU
Once-a-week thereafter: 53,200 IU

This is equivalent to about 30,000 IU per day for the first week, and 7,600 IU per day thereafter. Yes, you can take your vitamin D supplement in a once-a-week dosage, instead of daily. The results were astounding (and highly statistically significant). “Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50%)”. Would you rather have a 50% risk of needing ICU care, or a 2% risk? Almost all hospitalized Covid-19 patients who die, die in the ICU. That is where the most severe cases are sent. So this study shows that vitamin D reduces the severity of Covid-19.

In the statistically adjusted results, vitamin D reduced the odds of ICU admission by 97%. The RR (risk reduction) for ICU admission in hospitalized Covid-19 patients was 0.03 as compared to the control, which is given the value of 1.00. The odds of Covid-19 patients in general, as compared to hospitalized Covid-19 patients, needing ICU care would be even lower, as you would first need to be hospitalized to enter that risk ratio, and vitamin D has been shown by other studies to reduce risk of hospitalization. So taking a vitamin D supplement has tremendous benefits.

Great piece -long- on the origins of what became WikiLeaks.

• Rubberhose Cryptography And The Idea Behind WikiKeaks (Niraj Lal)

“There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy.” — Joseph Pulitzer

The last dinner that Julian Assange had in relative freedom, 18 June 2012, was takeaway pizza and cheap red wine with a couple of the Wikileaks team and myself in a small flat in London, discussing possible trajectories of American politics for the coming decade. The next morning he walked into the Ecuadorian Embassy to claim political asylum; he hasn’t seen sunlight unguarded since. I first met Julian in the Redmond Barry Physics Lecture Theatre ten years earlier, in 2002, on our first day at the University of Melbourne. The lecturer, the affable Professor Geoff Opat with curly hair and thick-rimmed glasses, in that first hour transformed the topic of ‘units’ — of length, time, and mass — into the powerful concept of ‘dimensional analysis’, a method of answering physics problems simply by determining the underlying units involved. It was a technique later applied to understanding structural opposition to government transparency.

The Melbourne University 1st year Advanced Physics Class, 2002. Photo: Niraj Lal

Julian took two other subjects in addition to physics that first semester of 2002 — Advanced Maths and a first-year philosophy course titled “Critical Thinking — the Art of Reasoning”. We shared all three classes, but it was during a lunchtime discussion after the philosophy course, sitting on the sandstone steps of Melbourne Uni’s Old Quad, that I first heard him speak about the application of critical thinking to political questions. He was working on a project he called ‘Rubberhose Cryptography’ — a method to allow anyone with valuable digital information to have “plausible deniability” of not having it if someone was standing behind them with a length of thick rubber hose. Julian asked the question: if a journalist with leaked information stored on a USB thumb drive was being interrogated about its contents by a foreign intelligence agency, is there a way that cryptography could enable the journalist to not surrender it?

Even if the intelligence agency were using a thick rubber hose to beat it out of them? The answer, of course, is that agencies have varied means of extracting information that are almost always successful given enough time; rubber hoses are only a crude initial measure before more persuasive techniques can be employed. But Julian found that cryptography can have a role in supporting resistance. Rubberhose Cryptography formed the kernel of TrueCrypt — a program where folders on a drive can be protected by a password, but where the folders are themselves able to contain hidden folders which are only revealed by another password — but where (and here’s the kicker) there isn’t a way of determining whether all folders have been uncovered.

Such a program allows the possibility of “plausible deniability” — where a journalist could reveal one password to a small portion of sensitive information with it being plausible (and unverifiable) that that was all she had to reveal (even if the folder were hiding much larger amounts of sensitive information). Rubberhose and subsequently Truecrypt formed the basis of On-The-Fly-Encryption programs that are used by intelligence communities around the world to this day.

[..] In 2004 Julian competed in the inaugural Australian National Physics Competition held at the ANU, where I was now studying. He stayed with me with his girlfriend at the time, a mathematics PhD student at the ANU, and he mentioned that in addition to physics and maths, he was learning neuroscience and the emerging empirical analytical tools being applied to explore the physiological underpinnings of consciousness, as well as exploring practical examples of cryptography for journalism. In 2005 I received a broadcast email from him outlining the idea behind Wikileaks. It was clear even then that a revolutionary idea had been born.

Julian Assange on the Woomera Missile Test Area, South Australia, 2002. Photo: Niraj Lal

The old charges weren’t going anywhere, so he’s presented with new ones right as he enters the court. That means neither he nor his lawyers, whom he’s not talked to for 6 months, can prepare any defense.

• Julian Assange Re-Arrested Over 18 New Allegations (Sky)

Julian Assange has failed to get new allegations against him thrown out as he battles extradition to the US. The WikiLeaks founder, 49, appeared at the Old Bailey in London after being held for months on remand at high-security Belmarsh Prison. He was re-arrested in the court’s cells on Monday over new charges contained in a US indictment. It details a further 18 charges, lodged in June, which accuse him of plotting to hack computers and obtain and disclose national defence information. They allege that he conspired with army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a scrambled password, known as “hash”, to a classified US defence department computer. The charges also offer further details of alleged hacking plotters that Assange and his WikiLeaks colleagues are said to have recruited. The 49-year-old spoke only to state he “does not consent to extradition” and confirm his name. [..]

His lawyer, Mark Summers QC, said the “fresh allegations at the 11th hour” were brought without warning or explanation, which meant they had no time to prepare a response. He highlighted the difficulties Assange faced in speaking to his lawyers in the midst of ongoing restrictions. “It would be an impossible task for the defence to deal with these fresh allegations in any meaningful way in the time that has been afforded to them, and that time is a matter of weeks in respect of which we are provided absolutely no explanation for the late arrival of these matters.” He added: “What is happening is abnormal, unfair and liable to create injustice if allowed to continue.” But District Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected the defence’s bid to “excise” the allegations, saying: “These are issues which must take place in the context of considering the extradition request and not before it.”

Jennifer Robinson

18/. Assange ‘s lawyer, @suigenerisjen, sets out “serious procedural concerns” with:

* the barring of legal monitors inclding @amnesty. Judge said licenses issued “by mistake”

* restricted access to lawyers who Assange hadn’t seen for 6 months

* new US indictment being issued pic.twitter.com/nildpBGN1Q

— Stefan Simanowitz (@StefSimanowitz) September 7, 2020

The risk of suicide is palpable.

• Julian Assange Lays Out His Case Against US Extradition

Fifteen long months have passed since Julian Assange was physically pulled out of London’s Ecuadorean embassy and taken to the United Kingdom’s Belmarsh prison. There, he’s since awaited an even grimmer prospect: Extradition to the US to face charges of a criminal hacking conspiracy and violations of the Espionage Act. Now his lawyers have laid out a preview of their full case against that extradition—from the argument that the charges pose an unprecedented threat to press freedom to what his doctors describe as evidence that Assange is at high risk of self-harm if he ends up incarcerated in America.

Ahead of Assange’s extradition hearing, which began in London today and is expected to last for several weeks, both prosecutors and the WikiLeaks founder’s defense lawyers submitted “skeleton arguments” to the court that lay out in new detail the central arguments they plan to make in Assange’s extradition case. The defense document in particular reveals Assange’s most complete response yet to the US indictments against him, expanding on an opening statement his attorneys released in February and including snippets of still-unpublished written testimony from a long list of witnesses, from free speech advocates and media scholars to four doctors who have assessed Assange’s mental health.

Assange’s lawyers point to what they describe as flaws in the US indictment against their client and the political nature of the prosecution. The document also includes the warnings of psychiatrists who have diagnosed Assange with Asperger’s, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, all of which they say could lead him to harm himself if he’s extradited into the American judicial system. “I think they have a lot of ammunition,” says Tor Ekeland, a well-known hacker defense attorney who has followed Assange’s case and helped to successfully defend British hacker Lauri Love from extradition in 2018. “The most salient things for me are the freedom of speech and the right to publish information that is critical to the public’s ability to understand and evaluate what the government is doing in their name.”

On top of those free speech arguments, the newest details in the defense’s argument serve as evidence of Assange’s declining mental health. Michael Kopelman, a psychiatrist who interviewed Assange several times last year, testified that he observed in Assange signs of suicidal risk including “loss of sleep, loss of weight, a sense of pre-occupation and helplessness as a result of threats to his life, the concealment of a razor blade as a means to self-harm and obsessive ruminations on ways of killing himself.” He writes at one point that Assange expressed having suicidal thoughts “hundreds” of times a day, and that multiple potential suicide implements were confiscated from Assange in prison.

The defense goes on to quote Kopelman pointing out that the WikiLeaks founder has shown signs of preparing for the end of his life, such as seeking Catholic absolution and creating a will. “I reiterate again that I am as certain as a psychiatrist ever can be that, in the event of imminent extradition, Mr. Assange would indeed find a way to commit suicide,” Kopelman writes. Sondra Crosby, another psychiatrist who saw Assange during his time in the Ecuadorean embassy adds, “It is my strong medical opinion that extradition of Mr. Assange to the United States will further damage his current fragile state of health and very likely cause his death. This opinion is not given lightly.”

A third psychiatrist diagnosed Assange with Asperger’s syndrome, noting that the condition would make it more difficult for him to manage life in a US prison. But the prosecutors counter that yet another doctor who interviewed Assange twice while in prison came to the conclusion that he was not a significant suicide risk. The prosecution writes that “neither mental health problems, nor Asperger syndrome prevented Assange’s solicitation of, and orchestration of, the leaking of materials from the highest levels of government and state agencies, apparently on a global scale.”

Craig Murray somehow made it into the courtroom. Scores of others couldn’t even follow proceedings on a TV screen. 40 observers, invited just days before, were told the invitations were a “mistake”. The UK does NOT have a justice system.

• Media Freedom? Which MSM Journalist Opposes the Torture of Assange? (Murray)

Julian Assange has been a light in this darkness. Wikileaks have opened a window into the secret world of war crime, murder and corruption that underlies so much of the governance we live under throughout the “free” world. Coming in the wake of the public realisation that we had been blatantly lied into the destruction of Iraq, there was a time when it seemed Assange would lead us into a new age where whistleblowers, citizen journalists and a democratic internet would revolutionise public information, with the billionaire stranglehold shattered. That seems less hopeful today, as the internet world itself corporatised. Julian is in jail and continuing today is an extradition hearing that has been one long abuse of process.

The appalling conditions of solitary confinement in which he has been kept in the high security Belmarsh Prison, with no access to his legal team or a working computer, to his papers or to his mail, have taken a huge toll on his physical and mental health. The UN Special Representative has declared he is subject to torture. A media which is up in arms about the very dubious attack on Navalny, has no emotion for state torture victim Assange other than contempt. It is constantly asked by Julian’s supporters why the media do not see the assault on a publisher and journalist as a threat to themselves. The answer is that the state and corporate media are confident in their firm alliance with the powers that be. They have no intention of challenging the status quo; their protection from those kicking Assange lies in joining in with the kicking.

I hope to be in court today, and throughout the extradition hearing. The public gallery of 80 has been reduced to 9 “due to Covid”. 5 seats are reserved for Julian’s family and friends, and I have one of these today, but not guaranteed beyond that. There are just 4 seats for the general public. Journalists and NGO’s will be following the hearing online – but only “approved” journalists and NGO’s, selected by the Orwelian Ministry of Justice. I had dinner last night with Assange supporters from a number of registered NGO’s, not one of which had been “approved”. I had applied myself as a representative of Hope Over Fear, and was turned down. It is the same story for those who applied for online access as journalists. Only the officially “approved” will be allowed to watch.

This is supposed to be a public hearing, to which in normal times anybody should be able to walk in off the street into the large public gallery, and anyone with a press card into the press gallery. What is the justification for the political selection of those permitted to watch? An extraordinary online system has been set up, with the state favoured observers given online “rooms” in which only the identified individual will be allowed. Even with approved organisations, it is not the case that an organisation will have a login anyone can use, not even one at a time. Only specifically nominated individuals have to login before proceedings start, and if their connection breaks at any point they will not be readmitted that day.

Given these restrictions, I was very conscious I may need to queue from 5am tomorrow, to get one of the 4 public places, if I drop off the family list. So I went this morning at 6am to the Old Bailey to check out the queue and work out the system. The first six people in the queue were all people who, entirely off their own bat, without my knowledge and with no coordination between them, had arrived while London slept just to reserve a place for me. I was swept up by their goodness, their trust in me and by their sheer humanitarian concern about Julian and the whole miscarriage of justice. I chatted cheerily with them for a while, then came back to write this, but just got round the corner when I burst into floods of tears, overwhelmed by all this kindness.

Tommy Robinson -yeah, that one- is of the few people Assange has had contact with while in Belmarsh.

• Tommy Robinson Appeals to President Donald Trump: “Free Julian Assange!“ (GP)

British patriotic activist Tommy Robinson has issued a dramatic appeal to President Donald Trump on the eve of Julian Assange‘s extradition hearing, which begins on Monday in Old Bailey Central Criminal Court in London. German politician and frequent Gateway Pundit interview partner Petr Bystron (AfD foreign policy speaker) traveled to the UK Friday ahead of the Assange hearing and interviewed Tommy Robinson outside Belmarsh prison, the same maximum security prison where Robinson was held last year on trumped-up charges of “disturbing the peace” for reporting on a “Grooming Gang” mass rape trial. “Between when I was brought into this prison and left this prison I only saw one other person: Julian Assange”, Robinson said.

“I spent three months in total isolation, seeing no one. I know the damaging effect that had on me for just three months. Julian Assange has been here over a year.” Belmarsh is the UK’s top Maximum Security Prison, where only the highest level of murderers and terrorists are usually held. Islam critic Robinson, who has survived several attempts on his life by Muslims while in prison on various trumped-up misdemeanors such as mortgage fraud or immigration violations, was kept in solitary confinement for his own safety: “I was totally separated. I had my own wing. I had an exercise yard, where I could walk around for 30 minutes a day. And Julian Assange’s window was there, so we could talk.” Assange was on the health care wing at the time, where he wasn’t allowed to exercise, or to do the things other prisoners are, Robinson said.

His mental state had suffered, according to Robinson: “We had good discussions, but after speaking to staff and shouting, I saw how his mental health has deteriorated. He was a mess. A total mess. Breakdown, crying. But that’s totally to be expected. I only spent three months in total isolation. Isolation may sound easy, but they know it’s not. It’s a medical fact that solitary confinement is mental torture.” Robinson pointed out Julian Assange is being held without charges, on extradition to the US only: “This man’s committed no violence. He’s not in here for a violent crime. He’s not even proven to have committed a crime. He spent over a year. I hate to think of the long-lasting effect his sentence would have had on that man. He wouldn’t be a human if he hadn’t already been broken.”

Tommy Robinson and Petr Bystron directed a dramatic appeal to President Donald Trump: “I watched what happened to his case and I expected Donald Trump to pardon him,” Robinson said. “I think a lot of people expected it. Free Julian Assange!” Bystron agreed: “This is an appeal to Donald Trump. Free Julian Assange!” Tommy called Assange “a political prisoner” in a UK jail: “What has happened to him in that prison is not right. It’s mental torture. And he’s been forgotten.” [..] “I know the amount of mail he must receive – the prison guards told me he has his own room for the support he gets,” Robinson said. “But it’s no good getting support when you’re locked in a cell. He saw no way out. That’s what he was saying. They don’t ever want him to see daylight again.”

I like Turley, it’s good to see the law laid out, but he overextends himself hugely here. Like he’s afraid to criticize the Atlantic’s story. There are now 10 named(!) sources who were present and say Trump never made those remarks.

• Trump and The Press Destroyed The Public’s Ability To Judge Scandals (Turley)

Trump has reached a point where there is nothing that most of us would rule out in terms of shocking or offensive statements. He often refers to people as “losers” and allegedly once said that of those who fought in Vietnam instead of getting a deferment or medical exclusion, as he did. If an article included such an alleged statement by either President Bush, it would have been dismissed instantly as ridiculous. Over the past three years Trump has made himself vulnerable to such allegations, due to his history of outrageous remarks. Yet the same is true of the media. Three years ago, a story of this kind would have been devastating for any president — but the media has rendered itself as unbelievable as the subject of its current ire.

While denouncing Trump as a pathological liar, the media has been pathologically biased. Polls consistently show the media racing Trump to the bottom on trustworthiness. Most of the media now feeds a steady diet of unrelentingly negative stories to a shrinking audience of true believers. As a result, the media has hit a historic low, with less than half of the populace finding it credible. Some polls show that the only group deemed less trustworthy than Trump is the media. The Knight Foundation has found that three-fourths of the public believe the media is too biased; some 54 percent believe reporters regularly misrepresent facts, and 28 percent believe reporters make things up entirely. There is a reason for this view of bias: It’s true. Many journalists do not attempt to hide their anti-Trump agendas.

In the age of “echo-journalism,” it is even viewed as an essential commitment on some networks. False stories about Trump or Trump aides have been published regularly, only to be quietly withdrawn or “corrected” after the news cycle has run. Indeed, as reporters pummeled the White House with angry questions over the Atlantic story, a press conference held by Democratic nominee Joe Biden was the very image of deference and decorum. Reporters seemed to go out of their way to confirm months of criticism over the softball treatment given to Biden. Atlantic staff writer Edward Isaac Dovere asked Biden: “When you hear these remarks — ‘suckers,’ ‘losers,’ recoiling from amputees — what does it tell you about President Trump’s soul and the life he leads?”

There was a time when a statement in a major publication was taken as true. My children, however, have no such presumption about any news source. Even more disturbing, neither do I these days. The Atlantic article embodies the discomfort with movement journalism. It has been the repository of all things anti-Trump, with such articles as “Donald Trump, the Most Unmanly President” and “Donald Trump is a Broken Man.” Past claims in the Atlantic on the Trump campaign, like former Attorney General Jeff Sessions colluding with Russians, were debunked by the special counsel investigation. In an age of echo chamber journalism, The Atlantic is deafening.

[..] The real story this week is not whether Trump or The Atlantic are lying but why either possibility is viewed as equally plausible. The public is left with an incredible tale told by two equally noncredible sources. That is the real story — and a truly sad one.

WH campaign director on Atlantic story

“Journalism was abandoned” — Trump campaign’s @ErinMPerrine doubles down against The Atlantic pic.twitter.com/cAYpThCdym

— TV News HQ (@TVNewsHQ) September 6, 2020

“..it will bring on a years’ long quasi civil war sure to finish off the institutions of a federal republic and also whatever remains of the US economy.”

• The Ghost in the Machine (Jim Kunstler)

The abiding mystery of the 2020 election is how come the Democratic Party, wishing so zealously to win back power, took pains to nominate a candidate weaker than the ghost of Millard Fillmore. Resorting to Occam’s Razor, one might have to conclude that Joe Biden was simply the best they had — a surefire case for the party’s necessary extinction. The Labor Day starting-gun kicks off the high campaign season and Ol’ White Joe wobbles forth from his lair under a rock somewhere to dazzle audiences of six or eight sympathetic journos posed in “social distancing” formation while the party’s Antifa and BLM shock troops soften up voters elsewhere across the land with vote-winning riots, arson, and looting. There’s a recipe for political success!

You have to wonder how the claque of DC deep state players behind this fiasco could come up with a game-plan so stupidly inept… but there it is! Apparently, they’re laying further plans now to bum-rush Ol’ Joe into the White House by main force with a “color revolution” — that is, an orchestrated fake popular revolt as in the Ukraine Maidan regime change operation of 2014. In fact, as Revolver News reports, the same wrecking crew of US State Department officials, intel spooks, contract insurrectionists, and George Soros-sponsored NGO intriguers is behind the US 2020 “Transition Integrity Project” aimed at launching a US post-election coup against Mr. Trump, no matter how the election actually goes.

The plan was all over the web wires this holiday weekend. Everybody knows exactly what to expect now: a November 3 Trump election victory followed by a king-tide of post-election write-in votes for Ol’ Joe… a long, drawn-out, and surely inconclusive battle trying to validate scores of millions of postmarks and signatures… and a skein of Lawfare-managed shenanigans conducted in battleground state legislatures to change-out electoral college slates. And any objections by Mr. Trump and his party will be labeled as Putin-backed fascist treason. Will that result in Mr. Biden actually gliding into the oval office? No, it will bring on a years’ long quasi civil war sure to finish off the institutions of a federal republic and also whatever remains of the US economy.

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, your support is now an integral part of the process.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime.

Debt Rattle September 6 2020

Sep 062020

September 6, 2020 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:54 am Finance Tagged with: Atlantic, Biden, Covid19, face masks, FBI, founders, inflation, monetary velocity, PCR, Strzok, Trump, vaccine 9 Responses »

Vincenzo Camuccini La Morte Di Cesare 1804

• Trump and Biden Could Face Dramatic Post-Election Battle (Yoo)

• Russia COVID19 Vaccine Effective Against Any Dose Of Virus (RT)

• Total COVID19 Deaths Projected To Double In US, Triple in World By Jan. 1 (R.)

• PCR Tests ‘Could Be Picking Up Dead Coronavirus’ (BBC)

• Italian Mayor Wants Penalties For Wearing A Face Mask When Unnecessary (RT)

• New Media Propaganda Tool: Use “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite (Greenwald)

• The Stunning Synergy of The Atlantic’s Anonymous Attack on Trump (Pollak)

• Strzok Joins Weissmann, Doubts NYT story on FBI’s Trump-Russia Inquiry (WE)

• The Fed’s New Policy Won’t Get Inflation (Roberts)

• Majority Of US Young Adults Live With Parents For The 1st Time In 80 Years (Pew)

We’re full speed ahead into absolute election mayhem, and nobody’s even thinking of pulling the brakes. Throw in a second and third corona wave, more lockdowns, more riots.

Today’s numbers gain in importance because of a model (see below) that predicts that before January 1, US total deaths will more than double to 410,000, and the world’s will triple to 2.8 million. A bold prediction.

I suggest you read this well. You’ll understand how this really works, and come away thinking you don’t understand a thing.

• Trump and Biden Could Face Dramatic Post-Election Battle (Yoo)

The Constitution requires the winner of the presidential election to garner a majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College. Hillary Clinton won about 3 million more popular votes than Trump four years ago, but Trump won a clear Electoral College majority of 306-232. But if the election is close this year — as many prognosticators predict — and a few battleground states fail to report their votes on time, then neither President Trump nor former Vice President Biden might be able to assemble the required 270 electoral votes needed to become president. If such a stalemate occurs, a constitutional fail-safe would throw the election into the House of Representatives. Our nation barely avoided that outcome 20 years ago and has only used it twice in our history.

But even though the House will likely remain under Democratic control after the election, the Constitution’s process for resolving disputed elections should still bode well for Trump’s reelection. How could control of the White House end up in the domain of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.? It depends on the decisions made 230 years ago. America’s founders rejected the idea that Congress should pick the president, which they believed would rob the chief executive of independence, responsibility and energy. They wanted the American people to have the primary hand in choosing the president. But the founders wanted the choice mediated through the states, because they also feared direct democracy.

In a compromise that binds us still, the founders allowed state legislatures to pick electors for the president, based on their number of senators and members of the House combined. The state-based organization of the Electoral College and its slight advantage for states with small populations (which receive two extra Electoral College votes no matter their population, since every state has two senators) underscore the founders’ desire to give federalism a say in the choice of the president. The founders went further in designing their constitutional backup. They realized that the Electoral College might yield no majority winner. They expected that regions might support their favorite sons instead.

In Article II of the Constitution, as modified by the 12th Amendment, the framers established that if no one won a majority of Electoral College votes, the House would pick the president from the top three vote-getters. But Pelosi and the Democrats — assuming that they hold onto their majority in the House — still won’t pick the president. Rather than allowing a simple majority vote in the House to select the president, the Constitution requires that the House choose the president by voting as state delegations. That means that California (represented by 53 House members) and Delaware (represented by 1 House member) would each get a single vote to pick the president. Once again, the founders decided to amplify the voice of the states in the presidential selection process, rather than defaulting to pure democracy.

And that is how Trump could win the presidency again. If the Electoral College votes yield no majority winner Dec. 14, the Constitution sends the vote to the House. Thanks to Republican advantages among the states, rather than the cities, the current balance of state delegations in the House favors Republicans, with 26 delegations controlled by Republicans and 23 controlled by Democrats (Pennsylvania is tied). If today’s House chose the president by voting by state delegations, Trump would win. But there is one more twist. The 20th Amendment to the Constitution seats a new Congress on Jan. 3, but does not begin the term of a new president until noon on Jan. 20. That means the new House chosen in the November election, rather than the current House, would choose the president if neither Trump nor Biden wins an Electoral College majority.

Even though Republicans currently have a majority of House delegations, Democrats have narrowed the gap. After the 2016 elections, Republicans had held a 32-17 advantage in House delegations. If Democrats can win one more congressional seat in Pennsylvania and then flip one more delegation, they could achieve a 25-25 tie in the House in January. Under this scenario, the election would require political bargaining of the most extreme kind for the House to resolve a disputed presidential election. But suppose the House can’t agree, which could well be likely given the polarization of our politics. The Constitution even provides for this. If the House splits 25-25 between Trump and Biden, then the 20th Amendment elevates the vice president-elect to the presidency. Under the 20th Amendment, when the Electoral College fails, the Senate chooses the vice president.

But unlike the House procedure, the senators each have an individual vote, meaning that under the current balance in the upper chamber, 53 Republicans would choose Mike Pence to effectively become the next president. But one-third of the seats in the Senate will be filled in the November election, meaning control of the chamber could flip to the Democrats. Under this scenario, Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., could wind up as our next president and make history as the first woman to hold the office in American history. All of this is as complicated as it sounds. Election Day could be just the start of a new phase in a prolonged fight for control of the White House, rather than the conclusion of a long campaign.

Vaccination to start as early as October. What if it is a huge success, what will the west do?

• Russia COVID19 Vaccine Effective Against Any Dose Of Virus (RT)

The leader of the team behind Sputnik V said on Friday that the immune response documented among volunteers taking the world’s first registered coronavirus vaccine is sufficient to fight any level of Covid-19 infection. Alexander Gintsburg, head of Moscow’s Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, was speaking on the same day that The Lancet reported on trials confirming that every patient who received the vaccine had developed antibodies without any significant side-effects. The British publication, one of the oldest and best-respected medical journals in the world, confirmed that the Sputnik V vaccine had successfully produced antibodies in all 76 participants in early-stage trials.

“The vaccine’s immune response documented currently among volunteers is enough to counter any dose of Covid-19 that you could imagine,” Gintsburg said. Meanwhile, Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin has revealed that post-registration clinical trials of Sputnik V in the capital could last from two to six months. He also confirmed that mass vaccination is likely to start in late 2020 or early 2021. “Some batches will arrive as early as this year,” he told Russia’s Channel One TV in an interview shown on Saturday. “There’s every likelihood that they will be used to vaccinate risk groups. These are healthcare, education, trade, the housing and utilities sectors, law enforcement agencies and some others – perhaps journalists.”

We need more models than just this one. But scary it is.

• Total COVID19 Deaths Projected To Double In US, Triple in World By Jan. 1 (R.)

U.S. deaths from the coronavirus will reach 410,000 by the end of the year, more than double the current death toll, and deaths could soar to 3,000 per day in December, the University of Washington’s health institute forecast on Friday. Deaths could be reduced by 30% if more Americans wore face masks as epidemiologists have advised, but mask-wearing is declining, the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation said. The U.S. death rate projected by the IHME model, which has been cited by the White House Coronavirus Task Force, would more than triple the current death rate of some 850 per day.

“We expect the daily death rate in the United States, because of seasonality and declining vigilance of the public, to reach nearly 3,000 a day in December,” the institute, which bills itself as an independent research center, said in an update of its periodic forecasts. “Cumulative deaths expected by January 1 are 410,000; this is 225,000 deaths from now until the end of the year,” the institute said. It previously projected 317,697 deaths by Dec. 1. The model’s outlook for the world was even more dire, with deaths projected to triple to 2.8 million by Jan. 1, 2021.

Why have we been focusing on PCR as much as we have? It is so far from perfect it’s not funny anymore.

• PCR Tests ‘Could Be Picking Up Dead Coronavirus’ (BBC)

The main test used to diagnose coronavirus is so sensitive it could be picking up fragments of dead virus from old infections, scientists say. Most people are infectious only for about a week, but could test positive weeks afterwards. Researchers say this could be leading to an over-estimate of the current scale of the pandemic. But some experts say it is uncertain how a reliable test can be produced that doesn’t risk missing cases. Prof Carl Heneghan, one of the study’s authors, said instead of giving a “yes/no” result based on whether any virus is detected, tests should have a cut-off point so that very small amounts of virus do not trigger a positive result. He believes the detection of traces of old virus could partly explain why the number of cases is rising while hospital admissions remain stable.

[..] The PCR swab test – the standard diagnostic method – uses chemicals to amplify the virus’s genetic material so that it can be studied. Your test sample has to go through a number of “cycles” in the lab before enough virus is recovered. Just how many can indicate how much of the virus is there – whether it’s tiny fragments or lots of whole virus. This in turn appears to be linked to how likely the virus is to be infectious – tests that have to go through more cycles are less likely to reproduce when cultured in the lab. But when you take a coronavirus test, you get a “yes” or “no” answer. There is no indication of how much virus was in the sample, or how likely it is to be an active infection.

A person shedding a large amount of active virus, and a person with leftover fragments from an infection that’s already been cleared, would receive the same – positive – test result. But Prof Heneghan, the academic who spotted a quirk in how deaths were being recorded, which led Public Health England to reform its system, says evidence suggests coronavirus “infectivity appears to decline after about a week”. He added that while it would not be possible to check every test to see whether there was active virus, the likelihood of false positive results could be reduced if scientists could work out where the cut-off point should be. This could prevent people being given a positive result based on an old infection.

And Prof Heneghan said that would stop people quarantining or being contact-traced unnecessarily, and give a better understanding of the current scale of the pandemic. Public Health England agreed viral cultures were a useful way of assessing the results of coronavirus tests and said it had recently undertaken analysis along these lines. It said it was working with labs to reduce the risk of false positives, including looking at where the “cycle threshold”, or cut-off point, should be set. But it said there were many different test kits in use, with different thresholds and ways of being read, which made providing a range of cut-off points difficult.

Hear hear. It’s important to avoid unneeded pressure. Already, renewed lockdowns lead to a lot of protest. As predicted: you need to get the first one right, or trouble’s on the way.

• Italian Mayor Wants Penalties For Wearing A Face Mask When Unnecessary (RT)

These days, going out without wearing a face mask is considered poor form – and, in some places, an offense. But the mayor of an Italian town says fines should be slapped on those wearing a mask in an “inappropriate” situation. In the same way global health authorities insist masks contain the spread of coronavirus, Vittorio Sgarbi, the mayor of Sutri, is confident his unorthodox initiative will help stem the spread of “pandemic-related hysteria,” as he put it, according to the TASS news agency. The lingering Covid-19 pandemic has so far infected close to 275,000 people in Italy and killed more than 35,500 – almost seven times the entire population of Sutri. Yet, for Sgarbi, mandatory mask-wearing should have its limits, particularly when public safety is at stake.

Sgarbi, who is also a renowned art historian, cultural commentator, and television personality, told TASS he had issued a decree – yet to be approved by the Italian government – calling for imposition of a fine for wearing a mask in a situation when it’s not needed. “My decree has been issued under the current terrorism prevention laws,” he told the Russian media outlet. The legislation in question says people shouldn’t have their faces covered in a public place. Breaching this law can result in a one or two-year prison sentence or a fine of up to €2,000 (around $2,365). Sgarbi made it clear that anyone breaking his ban wouldn’t incur such a harsh penalty, but that people should wear a mask only when the occasion requires. “Wearing a mask at dinner is absurd,” he clarified. The mayor is no stranger to going against the mainstream. Ahead of the pandemic, he reportedly dismissed coronavirus as “a flu” and ridiculed those raising concerns about the looming crisis. He later made a formal apology when the death toll surged.

The story stinks.

• New Media Propaganda Tool: Use “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite (Greenwald)

It seems the same misleading tactic is now driving the supremely dumb but all-consuming news cycle centered on whether President Trump, as first reported by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, made disparaging comments about The Troops. Goldberg claims that “four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day” — whom the magazine refuses to name because they fear “angry tweets” — told him that Trump made these comments. Trump, as well as former aides who were present that day (including Sarah Huckabee Sanders and John Bolton), deny that the report is accurate. So we have anonymous sources making claims on one side, and Trump and former aides (including Bolton, now a harsh Trump critic) insisting that the story is inaccurate.

Beyond deciding whether or not to believe Goldberg’s story based on what best advances one’s political interests, how can one resolve the factual dispute? If other media outlets could confirm the original claims from Goldberg, that would obviously be a significant advancement of the story. Other media outlets — including Associated Press and Fox News — now claim that they did exactly that: “confirmed” the Atlantic story. But if one looks at what they actually did, at what this “confirmation” consists of, it is the opposite of what that word would mean, or should mean, in any minimally responsible sense. AP, for instance, merely claims that “a senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press,” while Fox merely said “a former senior Trump administration official who was in France traveling with the president in November 2018 did confirm other details surrounding that trip.”

In other words, all that likely happened is that the same sources who claimed to Jeffrey Goldberg, with no evidence, that Trump said this went to other outlets and repeated the same claims — the same tactic that enabled MSNBC and CBS to claim they had “confirmed” the fundamentally false CNN story about Trump Jr. receiving advanced access to the WikiLeaks archive. Or perhaps it was different sources aligned with those original sources and sharing their agenda who repeated these claims. Given that none of the sources making these claims have the courage to identify themselves, due to their fear of mean tweets, it is impossible to know. But whatever happened, neither AP nor Fox obtained anything resembling “confirmation.”

They just heard the same assertions that Goldberg heard, likely from the same circles if not the same people, and are now abusing the term “confirmation” to mean “unproven assertions” or “unverifiable claims” (indeed, Fox now says that “two sources who were on the trip in question with Trump refuted the main thesis of The Atlantic’s reporting”). It should go without saying that none of this means that Trump did not utter these remarks or ones similar to them. He has made public statements in the past that are at least in the same universe as the ones reported by the Atlantic, and it is quite believable that he would have said something like this (though the absolute last person who should be trusted with anything, particularly interpreting claims from anonymous sources, is Jeffrey Goldberg, who has risen to one of the most important perches in journalism despite (or, more accurately because of) one of the most disgraceful and damaging records of spreading disinformation in service of the Pentagon and intelligence community’s agenda).

An across the board set-up. And yes, there will be more.

• The Stunning Synergy of The Atlantic’s Anonymous Attack on Trump (Pollak)

The Atlantic published a story Thursday evening that claimed President Donald Trump called the fallen American soldiers in a World War I cemetery “suckers” and “losers” in 2018. The author, Jeffrey Goldberg, cited four anonymous sources. Nearly a dozen current and former Trump administration officials disputed the story. One, notably, was John Bolton, the former national security adviser who says he will not vote for Trump. “I was there,” he said, and “I didn’t hear that.” Other claims in The Atlantic story are refuted by documentary evidence. The article claims, for instance, that Trump refused to visit the cemetery because the rain would ruin his hair. Bolton’s tell-all book said otherwise; so do official documents.

What is more interesting than the details of the story is how it was produced, and how it was rolled out. It has the appearance of a well-coordinated, well-executed campaign of disinformation, utilizing the full toolbox available to the Democratic Party. The article was published Thursday evening. By Friday morning, a left-wing group called Vote Vets had not only produced an ad based on the article, but had aired it on Morning Joe — MSNBC’s early-morning flagship news and opinion show. Meanwhile, the article spread across social media like a brush fire in a derecho. It trended at the top of Twitter; it was shared widely on Facebook, all without any of the “fact checks” that typically accompany disputed news reports on such platforms.

The Biden campaign issued a statement Thursday night — “If the revelations in today’s Atlantic article are true” — and held a press call Friday morning. The call featured, among others, Khizr Khan — the Gold Star father who attacked Trump in 2016. A short time later, Biden himself held a press briefing on the U.S. economy. Though he was expected to discuss the August jobs report — which came in better than expected, at 1.4 million jobs added — he led with an angry tirade about the article. At the end of his presentation, Biden turned to his campaign staff, who chose which reporters would be allowed to ask questions, and in what order. The first question went to Edward-Isaac Dovere, who writes for — surprise! — The Atlantic.

Dovere asked, “When you hear these remarks — ‘suckers,’ ‘losers,’ recoiling from amputees — what does it tell you about President Trump’s soul, and the life he leads?” It was a setup for Biden to attack Trump over The Atlantic allegations again. None of the other questions asked were challenging in any way; all appeared to be setup questions for Biden to attack Trump or to clarify some lingering problem — whether he had been tested for coronavirus (yes), where his running mate was (busy). No one asked Biden whether it was appropriate to attack Trump based on an unconfirmed report. No one even asked Biden about his economic policies.

What we witnessed Thursday night into Friday morning was the deployment of the Death Star — the full Democrat-media complex on display, coordinating journalists, outside political organizations, tech platforms, and unnamed military sources. It may be no coincidence that retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal — who was fired, ironically, because he had disparaged President Barack Obama and Biden — now advises a firm using military technology to help Democrats produce propaganda. It took weapons-grade skill to produce a story that, while unprovable, had the ring of truth to those eager to believe it (it “resonates,” said NBC’s Peter Alexander, whether it was true or not) and to make it the dominant story of the news cycle — on a day when the jobs market rebounded and Trump brokered a historic deal between Israel and Muslim-majority Kosovo.

Goldberg — the unofficial stenographer of the Obama White House — was just a vehicle. The real story is much bigger. The same machine that created and promoted The Atlantic piece will be sure to produce others.

He doubts Rosenstein frustrated the inquiry. Strzok has a book out, you’ll hear a lot about it soon. It argues there were tons of reasons for the inquiry.

• Strzok Joins Weissmann, Doubts NYT story on FBI’s Trump-Russia Inquiry (WE)

Controversial FBI agent Peter Strzok cast further doubt on a New York Times story that claimed the Justice Department secretly blocked special counsel Robert Mueller’s team from conducting a Trump-Russia counterintelligence investigation without informing the FBI. Strzok, who was a key member in the FBI’s investigation into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s improper private email server and Crossfire Hurricane’s Trump-Russia inquiry, said he “didn’t feel such a limitation” during his time on Mueller’s team when asked about a piece by New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt, whose article was adapted from his new book, Donald Trump v. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President.

Mueller’s “pitbull,” Andrew Weissmann, also cast doubt on the story a few days ago, and Mueller’s report and testimony also seem to contradict some claims made by the New York Times. “The Justice Department secretly took steps in 2017 to narrow the investigation into Russian election interference and any links to the Trump campaign, according to former law enforcement officials, keeping investigators from completing an examination of President Trump’s decades-long personal and business ties to Russia,” the New York Times reported on Sunday, adding the FBI opened the counterintelligence investigation in May 2017, but “within days,” former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “curtailed the investigation without telling the bureau, all but ensuring it would go nowhere.”

Anne Applebaum of the Atlantic asked Strzok during an interview published Friday about the report, which she said, “suggests that the Justice Department secretly took steps in 2017 to narrow the investigation, precisely so that it would not touch on the president’s long-standing relationship with Russia.” Strzok cast doubt on that. “During the time I worked at the Special Counsel’s Office, I didn’t feel such a limitation,” Strzok replied. “When I discussed this with Mueller and others, it was agreed that FBI personnel attached to the Special Counsel’s Office would do the counterintelligence work, which necessarily included the president. But that’s an extraordinarily complex task, one of the most difficult counterintelligence investigations in the FBI’s history.”

Strzok added that “perhaps the FBI is somehow carrying out a comprehensive survey, with the full involvement of the CIA and NSA and the entire U.S. intelligence community” but said he worried that the inquiry “largely died on the vine.” Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team when numerous anti-Trump texts he’d exchanged with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair, were unearthed, and he was fired in 2018. Strzok is currently suing the Justice Department. Weissmann also said the New York Times was wrong about its FBI counterintelligence story, tweeting, “NYT story today is wrong re: alleged secret DOJ order prohibiting a counterintelligence investigation by Mueller, ‘without telling the bureau.’ Dozens of FBI agents/analysts were embedded in Special Counsel’s Office and we were never told to keep anything from them.”

Lance Roberts lists 5 reasons why, I picked my per peeve: monetary velocity. That alone does the trick.

• 5 Reasons The Fed’s New Policy Won’t Get Inflation (Roberts)

What the Federal Reserve has failed to grasp is that monetary policy is “deflationary” when “debt” is required to fund it. How do we know this? Monetary velocity tells the story. What is “monetary velocity?” “The velocity of money is important for measuring the rate at which money in circulation is used for purchasing goods and services. Velocity is useful in gauging the health and vitality of the economy. High money velocity is usually associated with a healthy, expanding economy. Low money velocity is usually associated with recessions and contractions.” – Investopedia. With each monetary policy intervention, the velocity of money has slowed along with the breadth and strength of economic activity.

However, it isn’t just the expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet which is undermining the strength of the economy. It is also the ongoing suppression of interest rates to try and stimulate economic activity. In 2000, the Fed “crossed the Rubicon,” whereby lowering interest rates did not stimulate economic activity. Instead, the “debt burden” detracted from it.

To illustrate the last point, we can compare monetary velocity to the deficit. To no surprise, monetary velocity increases when the deficit reverses to a surplus. Such allows revenues to move into productive investments rather than debt service. The problem for the Fed is the misunderstanding of the derivation of organic economic inflation.

[..] in order to generate “real inflation,” economic growth must be strong enough to support employment that exceeds the rate of population growth. That employment must ALSO be productive (manufacturing based) employment which leads to higher wages. (Service jobs are deflationary as they go to the lower cost of labor.) Higher wages lead to increased consumption which allows producers to increase prices (inflation) over time. This has not been the case for nearly 40-years as technology continues to reduce the demand for labor by increasing productivity. This is the “dark side” of technology that no one wants to talk about. However, this cannot be achieved in an economy saddled by $75 Trillion in debt which diverts income from consumption to debt service. This is why “monetary velocity” began to decline as total debt passed the point of being “productive” to become “destructive.”

Virus, income and a few shut dorms.

• Majority Of US Young Adults Live With Parents For The 1st Time In 80 Years (Pew)

In July, 52% of young adults resided with one or both of their parents, up from 47% in February, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of monthly Census Bureau data. The number living with parents grew to 26.6 million, an increase of 2.6 million from February. The number and share of young adults living with their parents grew across the board for all major racial and ethnic groups, men and women, and metropolitan and rural residents, as well as in all four main census regions. Growth was sharpest for the youngest adults (ages 18 to 24) and for White young adults. The share of young adults living with their parents is higher than in any previous measurement (based on current surveys and decennial censuses).

Before 2020, the highest measured value was in the 1940 census at the end of the Great Depression, when 48% of young adults lived with their parents. The peak may have been higher during the worst of the Great Depression in the 1930s, but there is no data for that period. The share of young adults living with parents declined in the 1950 and 1960 censuses before rising again. The monthly share in the Current Population Survey has been above 50% since April of this year, reaching and maintaining this level for the first time since CPS data on young adults’ living arrangements became available in 1976.

Young adults have been particularly hard hit by this year’s pandemic and economic downturn, and have been more likely to move than other age groups, according to a Pew Research Center survey. About one-in-ten young adults (9%) say they relocated temporarily or permanently due to the coronavirus outbreak, and about the same share (10%) had somebody move into their household. Among all adults who moved due to the pandemic, 23% said the most important reason was because their college campus had closed, and 18% said it was due to job loss or other financial reasons.

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, your support is now an integral part of the process.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

Gettysburg Address. All of 272 words.