Menu Icon

Debt Rattle October 14 2026

Oct 142026
 
 October 14, 2026  Posted by at 9:29 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  31 Responses »


Vincent van Gogh Women Picking Olives 1889


• Russia’s Offensive Ability Is Broken – Kyiv’s Former Top General (BBC)
• UK and Poland Accuse Russia of “Mayhem” (CTH)
• Europe’s Diesel Shortage Is a Problem Created by Political Design (Lacalle)
• Zelenskyy Requests His Own “Diesel Deal” with the United States (CTH)
• German Opposition Demands Trump-style Diesel Deal With Russia (RT)
• Ramifications of the Trump-Putin Energy Deal (CTH)
• President Trump is Making Chopper Pressers Great Again (CTH)
• Jack Smith Could Track Phone Contacts, but What About the Lawyers? (Manney)
• Trump Might Not Be as Bad as He Appears (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Trump Suggests Ilhan Omar’s Money Came From Fraud (Catherine Salgado)
• Corporate Islamification (Stefan Padfield)
• The Midterm Polling Is Absolutely, Positively, 100% Wrong. (Maybe.) (Pinsker)

 

 

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2109616355825569987?s=20

 

 


I want to ask for your help.

When this special operation started in 2022, military experts Douglas MacGregor and Scott Ritter both said Ukraine was losing 7-8 times more men than Russia.

That difference is now supposed to be the other way around, according to a Ukrainian voice.

Which means some 50 times more Russian victims than 4 years ago, compared to Ukrainian victims.

I don’t see how that could have happened.

Do you guys think that is credible?

“Ukraine has stabilised the front line and “broken Russia’s ability to advance” by killing so many of its men, Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief has said in an interview with the BBC.”

• Russia’s Offensive Ability Is Broken – Kyiv’s Former Top General (BBC)


Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi

Ukraine has stabilised the front line and “broken Russia’s ability to advance” by killing so many of its men, Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief has said in an interview with the BBC. Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi made the comments in an exclusive interview, his first since he was dramatically forced from his post in the summer. He addressed his sacking, disagreeing with his critics who declared him too “old school” to command Ukraine’s new, technologically advanced forces.


He also pushed back against allegations made by soldiers who previously served under him, who told the BBC they were ordered to remain at their positions even when they were almost surrounded by Russians, leading to high losses. Syrskyi said that Moscow’s overall losses in the war were six times higher than Ukraine’s. “If you count only dead, then it’s up to 11 times,” he added. Neither Russia nor Ukraine officially release the numbers of their dead. Ukraine’s military says it inflicted record losses this year on Russian soldiers in September, although that cannot be verified.

UK intelligence chiefs estimate Russia has lost around half a million men killed in Ukraine since launching its full-scale invasion in 2022. The US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies meanwhile believes Ukraine has lost up to 150,000 troops killed by June 2026.. He says this difference in death toll – as well as technological advances, and a strategy of attacking weak points in Russia’s lines while containing their advances in other parts – accounts for the current stalemate at the front.

In the first six months of 2026, Russia managed overall to seize 61 sq km, the general said. “It’s an indication that the front line has been stabilised.” The Institute for Study of War (ISW) has also confirmed this trend. One of its recent reports says that in September 2026, Moscow lost more territory than it took.


Syrskyi was appointed Ukraine’s commander-in-chief in 2024. He had previously won praise for defending Kyiv at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, and for leading the successful counteroffensive east of Kharkiv in the autumn of that year. But President Volodymyr Zelensky fired Syrskyi this summer, amid a major disagreement with then-defence minister Mykhailo Fedorov.

Fedorov had said that instead of adapting to the realities of the changing war, the army under Syrskyi had blocked his initiatives. Zelensky initially fired Fedorov, as tensions burst into the open between the two men. But mass street protests then forced the president to also fire Syrskyi, replacing him with Maj Gen Mykhailo Drapatyi, 43.

Syrskyi told the BBC that he had “disagreements” with Fedorov because the latter “didn’t take into consideration the interests of the army” when procuring weapons and supplies. Fedorov had created an “imbalance” in supplies, Syrskyi said. He had prioritised drones while overlooking key front-line kit such as unmanned ground vehicles, pick-up trucks and motorbikes. Even with drones, Syrskyi said, there were shortages as the army got only half of what they needed.

Fedorov was a popular young minister who was known for his digital and technological initiatives. Many contrasted him with Syrskyi, who critics thought was not fit to lead the new technological arms race with Russia. But Syrskyi disagrees with such criticism. It was during his time the use of drones reached this new, unprecedented level, including deep strikes more than 2,000km (1,200 miles) behind enemy lines, he said.

Ukraine was the first country to create the Unmanned Systems Forces as a separate branch of armed forces, under his command: now, he said, drones account for 80% of Russia’s losses. Under his military leadership, however, Ukrainian troops undertook chaotic withdrawals from the eastern cities of Avdiivka and Vuhledar, and from around Pokrovsk. Soldiers who spoke to the BBC in the past complained that they were ordered to remain at their positions at any costs. By the time they were told to pull back, it was often too late as they were almost surrounded by Russian troops.

Syrskyi does not deny that such situations occur on the front line. But he told the BBC that Ukraine was fighting against a far more powerful army. In 2025, the ratio of jets and bombs was 18 to one in Moscow’s favour, he said. In the same year, Russia had two-and-a-half times more artillery pieces and shells than Ukraine. And with four million militarily trained men who they can mobilise, Russian forces can create chances to push through, he argued.

One of Syrskyi’s most famous operations was an incursion into Russia’s Kursk region that started in August 2024. It ended with a dramatic retreat the following spring, which some soldiers described as “catastrophic”. Syrskyi, however, insisted that the Kursk operation was “a necessity”.

“In the summer 2024, Russian forces were pushing along all main directions on the front line with up to six times more troops than we had,” he explained. The Kursk incursion disrupted Russia’s offensive and forced Moscow to redirect troops, giving Ukraine a respite and a chance for its stretched brigades in the east and south to recover, Syrskyi said.

He also had strong words for European allies who doubt that Russia may have territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. He advised European partners to start preparing for the war now and “drop all illusions that [it] will not come”. He also said he believed Ukraine’s war was going to become even more technological. There will be more robots, automated systems and artificial intelligence (AI). “Even ordinary weapons now get an AI-based control system to enhance their capabilities,” he said.

Such technologies can give a new life to conventional weapons like tanks. Both Russia and Ukraine were now racing to develop “active systems of defence” to protect armoured vehicles, Syrskyi said. But he insisted that “the human role will remain definitive [on the battlefield] because [people] will need to control those systems”.

Read more …

“UK Prime Minister Says Russia Interfered in Brexit Vote, Polish Prime Minister Says Russia Sabotaged Starlink System ..”

The UK still hasn’t gottten over Brexit?!

And look, of course Russia targets Starlink. it’s used against them in battle.

• UK and Poland Accuse Russia of “Mayhem” (CTH)

As President Trump continues to confront the EU-NATO antagonists who demand increased conflict with Russia, the primary voices of the EU-NATO group shout panic about Putin’s nefarious espionage, mayhem, general mischief and other heinous activity. All of it with the ever-present ‘just trust us‘ evidence. Yesterday, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham blamed Russia for the 2016 Brexit referendum vote that took the U.K out of the European Union.


UK NEWS – […] “The prime minister told The Rest is Politics podcast that upon arriving in No 10, he had asked about possible Russian interference in the 2016 vote, adding: “I’ve had the clear answer that, yes, there was.” […] Burnham did not provide further details about the type or extent of Moscow’s activity during the Brexit referendum.mBritain Unbound, a pro-Brexit campaign group, said Burnham’s comments were “another crude attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the decision that the British people made in 2016”. (read more)

Today, Poland Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a man of notoriously intemperate disposition, said that two Turkish fellows who sabotaged the Starlink satellite station near Warsaw were operating on behalf of Putin.WARSAW, Poland — Poland is blaming Russia for an arson attack on a Starlink satellite station in September and two Turkish citizens have been arrested in connection with the suspected act of sabotage, authorities said.

The suspects, whose names were not released in line with Polish privacy rules, were arrested in Germany, Polish officials said Monday. They are accused of deliberately setting fire to Starlink infrastructure on Sept. 23 in Wola Krobowska, Poland, about 40 kilometres (25 miles) south of Warsaw.[…] Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, in a post on X, called the incident “another act of hybrid warfare.” (read more)

Meanwhile the head of British Intelligence, MI5 chief Sir Ken McCallum, warned Prime Minister Burham that promoting Russian conspiracies without solid evidence to support his claim may lead to an erosion of confidence in the U.K government. Apparently, like the German people, the British are laughing at government leadership.

[He] suggested Russian trolls would be “delighted” to be front page news again, “despite the comparative unimpressiveness” of their efforts. He added: “There is a really important difference between interference attempted and outcome swayed. There are diabolical plots afoot, and serious seriousness is demanded.


ZELENSKYY TODAY – “I spoke with Prime Minister Mark J Carney. Thank you, Canada! I briefed him on the latest Russian strike on Kyiv and no advance warning from our partners about the ballistic missile launch. This is the second time Ukraine has received no warning this week.

A rescue operation is underway – the strike damaged a residential building, and the fire engulfed apartments on the first through eighth floors. All emergency services are on the scene, and residents are being evacuated. So far, one person has been reported killed and six injured. My condolences to their families and loved ones. There was also a strike on the grounds of an energy facility – one of Kyiv’s main power plants. We are counting on our partners’ support.

We also discussed contacts with the United States and diplomatic developments that may take place this week. It is important that the world clearly supports an end to this war and real steps toward de-escalation – genuine steps that Russia will actually take to bring its war and its killings to an end.”

Read more …

Very much so.

• Europe’s Diesel Shortage Is a Problem Created by Political Design (Lacalle)

The diesel agreement between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will not solve the diesel shortage, considering the magnitude of the problem created by years of misguided, wrongly called “environmental policies.” Complaining about diesel prices and the US-Russia deal while eliminating domestic refining capacity and bombing refineries is just another example of bureaucratic hypocrisy.


Renewables are important, but they cannot substitute diesel, just as they have been unable to offset the importance of natural gas. Diesel is essential for every segment of the economy, from transport, manufacturing, and farming to distribution. Now, European politicians complain. However, governments cannot negotiate away years of lost refining capacity. Europe’s vulnerability is structural. Yes, war has intensified it, but policy choices helped create an energy system increasingly dependent on imported fuels, expensive infrastructure, and high taxation.

Furthermore, the risk is that—as happened in the past—oil and gasoline prices may fall, and the European businesses and families will still pay much higher energy and fuel prices. According to European Commission figures and comparisons based on official European and US data, Europe suffers an enormous energy-cost disadvantage after two decades of massive subsidies and renewable rollout.

Industrial electricity prices are more than twice those in the United States, while industrial natural gas prices reach four times US levels. At the pump, European consumers pay approximately 47% more for diesel and 70% more for gasoline. This is not simply an oil-price problem. It is an enormous competitiveness problem that permeates throughout the economy.


On October 9, Trump announced that Russia would release 300,000 tonnes of diesel immediately, followed by 500,000 tonnes in November, one million thereafter, and another three million, subject to refinery conditions. Washington temporarily authorized Russian diesel transactions until April 7, 2027. However, these are announced commitments, not confirmed deliveries. It may mitigate but not solve the diesel crisis.

The distinction is important. A sanctions exemption may permit trade, but it cannot repair damaged processing units. According to International Energy Agency estimates, Russian diesel production has suffered a temporary but significant blow, declining almost 30% following Ukrainian attacks. The important element is a policy choice, not a consequence of war.

Europe’s refining contraction is the key factor behind the structural diesel problem. It has lost more than 20% of refining capacity since 2009. At the end of 2025, the EU, Britain, Norway, and Switzerland had 72 mainstream refineries and an annual primary processing capacity of 625.4 million tonnes, down 167.6 million tonnes. Industry association FuelsEurope counts 35 closures since 2009.

The deterioration did not stop with the 2022 Ukraine war and has continued recently. Europe lost almost 400,000 barrels per day of refining capacity between 2024 and 2025, with five refineries closing over two years. This trend is a continuing reduction in the infrastructure needed to turn crude into usable fuel.

Environmental policy is part of this story, but taxation and policy choices have aggravated the problem. Governments made it uneconomical to upgrade aging facilities or build new units. Furthermore, at least five closed European facilities abandoned crude processing through conversion into biorefineries. These conversions worsened conventional refining capacity and did not offer a reliable and sustainable alternative.

The policy mistake is obvious and reminds us of the same errors committed with nuclear plants and natural gas supply. Eliminating capacity is a policy mistake without a credible path to reduce diesel’s importance. This move was not a transition but a jump into the void. Europe now relies more heavily on refined products from the Middle East, the United States, and India. Importing products is not an environmental policy success. “Not in my backyard” led to dependency and loss of competitiveness. The EU was the fourth-largest buyer of Russian fossil fuels, accounting for 8% (EUR 1.2 bn) of Russia’s export revenues from the top five importers in August 2026, according to CREA.


Ukraine’s refinery attacks have reduced fuel availability, and Russia has restricted diesel exports. While damaged refineries can be repaired, it will take months. War in the Middle East and disrupted Hormuz flows have compounded the shortage. The European Central Bank estimates reported in September put the refining-margin contribution to diesel prices at €0.41 per liter, approximately 19% of the pump price.

That is why watching Brent alone misses the problem, as crude and diesel are different markets. On September 21, EU diesel averaged €2.226 per liter, the highest reading in the European Commission’s series since 2005. Taxes accounted for €0.861, or 38.6% of the price. VAT applies on top of excise duties, effectively taxing the tax itself.

The EU minimum diesel excise is €0.33 per liter. America’s federal diesel tax is 24.4 cents per gallon, before state taxes and fees. European taxation adds a persistent cost wedge that cheaper crude cannot eliminate. This means that the average EU final diesel price is almost 50% higher than the US one. Thus, falling oil prices can provide relief without restoring competitiveness. Fixed duties remain, and scarce refining capacity may keep diesel expensive even when crude oil becomes cheaper.

Europe needs to abandon ideology in energy, provide solid investment conditions, eliminate regulation, and support an adequate refining system. Even though the European Commission’s newly announced “refinery dialogue” mentions these issues, it does not change the underlying ideological perspective or any of the existing regulations and misses the key measures to reduce the competitiveness gap, which come from lower taxes, more investment, and elimination of punitive regulations. Emergency Russian cargoes may help at the margin, even if European politicians complain about the US-Russia deal. However, none of this is going to repair Europe’s own policy-created vulnerabilities. The solution may take years, even if the changes are implemented today.

Read more …

He wants Russian diesel?!

• Zelenskyy Requests His Own “Diesel Deal” with the United States (CTH)

The people around Zelenskyy, his support network, are struggling trying to find solid footing for a counter narrative.


That’s why these remarks from Zelenskyy sound weird; in reality, they just don’t quite know how to respond because what President Trump is revealing in the “diesel deal” with Russia really doesn’t have much to do with diesel fuel supplies.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy (via X) – “I don’t believe the volume of diesel Russia will export will affect the price. Moreover, we see that they can export from 300,000 to 500,000 tons a month today. Meanwhile, global consumption stands at 120 million tons a month. What kind of impact can that have? I don’t think it would have any. If some people think otherwise, so be it.

So I believe there are entirely different reasons behind these actions. If this is the approach, then why isn’t America making a “diesel deal” with Ukraine? Let Ukraine propose a “diesel deal.” We do have influence over whether these ships can sail or not, whether these refineries can operate or not. If that’s the case, then let’s do it.

Electricity is what matters to us. That’s clear. If we can be guaranteed protection for our power system, then we will not strike Russia’s diesel infrastructure in response. Electricity is first and foremost about helping people – keeping their lights on. It also means helping Europe. Everyone knows that we are connected to the European power grid. And if our energy infrastructure is not being destroyed, we can help some countries that are facing shortages by supplying them with cheaper electricity.

So, yes, let’s sign a corresponding “diesel deal” with the President of the United States.”

Following the lengthy phone call with Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, President Trump noted during remarks on the way to Ohio that his administration was unsure of who exactly would be conducting strikes against Ukraine power infrastructure. The lights going out in Kiev has a similar appearance to the performative air raid sirens whenever a high-profile EU govt official pays a visit [World War Reddit].


The answer to the Zelenskyy question is most likely, because the Trump-Putin diesel deal isn’t just about diesel. Just like the Belarus potash deal was not just about potash. What both the Russian-diesel fuel and Belarusian-potash have in common is an agreed pricing system that is outside western commodity structures.

Whether he intends it or not, President Trump is revealing the banking and finance system that profits from control of how energy products are bought and sold. This is further evidenced when you look at the Ukraine support assembly through the prism of what nations and political interests promote the climate change agenda.

It is not accidental that every nation and political apparatus supporting Ukraine is part of the green energy, climate change, Paris Climate Treaty, Build Back Better advocacy group.

On the banking/finance side, the western control system tries to block funding for coal, oil and gas. Those who price the markets for these energy products operate directly inside the same institutions. Chairman Xi, President Putin, Crown Prince MbS and President Donald Trump represent the other side of that dynamic and support traditional low-price energy development.

Europe is simply Europe, acting hypocritically and trying to survive financially. Europe is governing itself inside a system they built that is unsustainable. They rail against cheap energy yet purchase cheap energy from Russia; all while accusing Vladimir Putin of aggression….. yet demanding their purchase prices flow through the western banking/finance systems they control.

President Trump must be looking at all of this and listening to the arguments by Putin, Xi, Modi et al, that suddenly take on an entirely new context as he watches how this same western control system is leveraging its power structures to diminish his political strength and weaken his office. It is fascinating to watch all of this play out with a context for understanding that is missed by most of our neighbors.

Read more …

Break the EU.

• German Opposition Demands Trump-style Diesel Deal With Russia (RT)

Two German opposition parties have called for restoring economic ties with Russia following US President Donald Trump’s example in striking a diesel deal with Moscow, challenging Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s sanctions policy as soaring fuel prices put further pressure on Europe’s largest economy.


The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the left-wing Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), which together command a majority in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt’s parliament, are preparing a joint resolution demanding an end to anti-Russia sanctions and financial support for Kiev amid growing frustration over Berlin’s foreign policy and its economic consequences. “Germany also needs a diesel deal with Russia,” Claudia Wittig, deputy leader of the BSW parliamentary group, said, according to German media.

Wittig described fuel prices at German filling stations as “a scandal,” arguing that sanctions against Moscow had “failed across the board” and were primarily hurting Germany itself. She insisted that Berlin should go further than a one-off fuel agreement and resume regular imports of Russian oil and gas to help rescue German industry. “We need policies that think more about Köthen than Kiev,” Wittig said earlier, referring to a German town in Saxony-Anhalt. “We can no longer afford this war.”

AfD co-leader Alice Weidel also hailed Trump’s deal with Moscow, accusing Merz of undermining Germany’s economy with sanctions and expensive liquefied natural gas imports. “That’s how it’s done!” she wrote on X on Saturday. “While Merz ruins Germany with sanctions and expensive LNG, Trump practices realpolitik. German interests instead of escalation!”

The initiative comes after Trump reached a surprise agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday to ease a global diesel shortage. Washington subsequently suspended sanctions on Russian diesel exports, allowing Moscow to release hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel onto international markets.

Trump has repeatedly blamed Vladimir Zelensky for exacerbating the global energy crisis by targeting Russian oil refineries despite Washington’s warnings. On Saturday, he suggested that Ukrainians should replace their leader, accusing Zelensky of rejecting numerous opportunities to settle the conflict.

The joint resolution is scheduled for a vote in the Saxony-Anhalt parliament in Magdeburg on October 14. AfD and BSW hold a combined majority following September’s regional elections, although the state legislature has no authority to lift federal or EU sanctions against Russia. The initiative also marks a further breach of Germany’s longstanding political “firewall” against the AfD, which mainstream parties have sought to exclude from power despite its growing electoral support.

Merz’s government flatly rejected any prospects of easing its anti-Russia stance and vowed to pursue even more sanctions against Moscow. Government spokesman Stefan Kornelius insisted on Saturday that Berlin’s support for Kiev remained “unwavering.” Meanwhile, Green Party co-leader Franziska Brantner blasted Trump’s agreement with Putin as the height of “unscrupulousness.”

The chancellor, whose popularity has sunk so low that he faces calls to resign from within his own party, has faced mounting criticism over the impact of his policies on Germany. Wagenknecht previously accused him of turning German citizens into “cash cows for Ukraine.” Moscow has likewise accused Merz of acting more like a “Ukrainian chancellor” than a German leader.

Read more …

“Trump and Putin have exposed the game being played by the City of London..”

• Ramifications of the Trump-Putin Energy Deal (CTH)

It is challenging to put the geopolitical perspective into an easily digestible format because the construct of western finance is the only reference point available for most Americans. We do not have solid references for what exists outside the western monetary constructs that have existed for generations. However, Barbara Boyd tries to expand our cognitive bubble to explore the potential ramifications of a Trump-Putin energy agreement.


I do not personally think President Trump engages these dynamics from a reference of London or the U.K. Instead, he simply seems to recognize the institutional financial constructs are no longer working to the benefit of American interests, and those constructs happen to be from the British Commonwealth financial system and the bank of financial settlements.

Promethean Action’s Barbara Boyd opens with President Trump’s Sunday announcement of an energy ceasefire in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and what led up to it: his remarks to the press that it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president, and Friday’s agreement for Russia to supply diesel to the United States and the world, with a Treasury license authorizing Russian diesel through April 2027.

She argues that Trump and Putin have exposed the game being played by the City of London: Ukraine’s drone strikes on Russia’s refineries, which the Washington Post examined, keep fuel prices high ahead of the November 3 midterms, while the Financial Times reports the administration threatened to cut off weapons and intelligence if the attacks continued, and members of Congress move against the deal.

After President Zelensky’s interview on ABC’s This Week blaming high prices on the war in the Middle East, the episode turns to the energy wars: Russia’s ban on fuel exports, U.S. diesel above $6 a gallon, no major new U.S. refinery since 1977, and Europe’s emergency diesel stocks, held mainly by Germany and France, until Trump’s export threat brought a G7 release of 100 million barrels of oil and diesel.

Her presentation closes with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Operation Economic Outcast against Iran’s regime, the petrodollar system and London’s commodity markets since the 1971 collapse of Bretton Woods, President Putin’s case for long-term contracts between producing and consuming nations, the Conservative Treehouse’s argument that the world’s biggest economy is aligning against the financial schemes of London while retaining the dollar, and Secretary Bessent’s chart on prices under Biden and Trump.


Read more …

“Trump hits on Ilhan Omar, Zelenskyy and Putin, Kimberly Guilfoile, the issues with Ukraine and Russia energy ceasefire.”

• President Trump is Making Chopper Pressers Great Again (CTH)

Chopper Pressers have always been the best pressers, but when there are headline events swirling that capture great attention, chopper pressers are always awesome. I really appreciate them for how Trump cuts through the nonsense.


President Trump gives brief remarks about a variety of headline grabbing events. The first two minutes are captivating in the rapid-fire honesty. Seriously, in just the first two non-pretending minutes Trump hits on Ilhan Omar, Zelenskyy and Putin, Kimberly Guilfoile, the issues with Ukraine and Russia energy ceasefire.

Ilhan Omar is a terrible complainer and sketchy, but I have nothing to do with that. Not sure who is targeting Ukraine energy infrastructure, “we’ll have to take a look at that.” Looking at possibly having to fire the Ambassador to Greece for being a sketchy grifter. Ukraine and Russia “agree to the energy ceasefire because I’m saying they agree.”


Read more …

Jack Smith thought he could do anything.

• Jack Smith Could Track Phone Contacts, but What About the Lawyers? (Manney)

Jack Smith’s investigators wanted to know whom one of President Donald Trump’s closest aides called and when. Newly unsealed court papers show how they got permission. The sharper question is what happened when those phone records led them to Trump’s lawyers.


Two applications filed in February and April 2023 sought permission to monitor a cellular number the Trump administration identified as belonging to Susie Wiles, who then worked with Trump’s political operation and is now White House chief of staff. The public filings redact the subscriber’s identity. Federal judges Beryl Howell and James Boasberg approved the respective requests.

Smith’s team investigated government records and classified documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago, as well as possible obstruction. Prosecutors gave the court an investigative reason to monitor the number. They wrote that AT&T records showed contacts with at least nine witnesses or subjects within two days of interviews or grand jury testimony.

Investigators suspected additional calls might reveal efforts to contact witnesses after federal agents approached them. The applications described that suspicion alone doesn’t establish intimidation, obstruction, or any other crime, even if a phone call occurs near a witness interview.

The government’s request went beyond a simple list of outgoing calls. The pen-register and trap-and-trace applications covered incoming and outgoing phone numbers, communication times and durations, email addresses, IP addresses, and device identifiers. Prosecutors also sought historical call-detail records, and each order authorized up to 60 days of monitoring.

The filings expressly excluded communication content. These orders provide no basis to claim investigators listened to conversations through this surveillance authority. But names, timing, and frequency still show investigators who were talking with whom, including who contacted a lawyer immediately after questioning.

Earlier declassified FBI communications show agents reviewing contacts involving 21 Trump-affiliated defense attorneys and at least five journalists. In a March 24, 2023 message, an agent noted that a lawyer had called Wiles, recorded the call, and compared its 41-second length with earlier contacts. Another note tracked her phone activity after an April 7 FBI interview.

From Just the News: The three-year probe of the ex-president — which put Joe Biden’s administration in charge of the legal fate of his GOP rival in the 2024 election — was approved at the highest levels of the Biden Justice Department, including by Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and FBI Director Christopher Wray, the memos show.

In March 2022, Wray sent a memo to Garland and Monaco, seeking the attorney general’s approval to open a “Sensitive Investigative Matter” that would become Plasmic Echo. “I recommend you approve,” Lisa Monaco wrote at the end of the memo, leaving her initials “LM.” Days later, Garland signed the memo with his initials, giving his approval.

The new applications don’t specifically alert the judges to possible monitoring of defense-attorney contacts. Investigators sought broad collection from the phone, so such contacts could appear whether or not prosecutors initially intended to focus on them. The critical unanswered question is what agents did after identifying those calls.

Federal law helps explain why the two judges approved the surveillance. Under 18 U.S.C. Sections 3122 and 3123, prosecutors must certify that the information is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. Unlike a traditional search warrant, the statute doesn’t require probable cause. Meeting that statutory threshold, however, can’t answer every question about how investigators used the information.

Communications between lawyers and clients receive special protections, but a telephone call alone isn’t automatically privileged. The released applications alone don’t demonstrate a violation of attorney-client privilege. They do raise the question of whether prosecutors identified defense-related contacts, restricted their review, or used patterns in those calls to guide further investigative steps.

Smith has defended his investigations and denied political motivation. The newly disclosed documents don’t establish that either judge knowingly approved improper collection, that investigators intercepted privileged conversations under these orders, or that the surveillance itself violated federal law.

From Just the News: Howell has been a central figure in Trump-related litigation for nearly a decade. As chief judge of the D.C. federal court from 2016 to 2023, she oversaw grand juries used by Russia collusion Special Counsel Robert Mueller and by investigators probing efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

In March 2023, she pierced the attorney-client privilege between Trump and one of his lawyers, Evan Corcoran. In that case, she relied on the crime-fraud exception, forcing more testimony in the classified documents vcase. She also enforced Smith’s warrant for Trump’s Twitter account and fined the company $350,000 for slow compliance.

A second application to extend the pen register and tap and trace monitoring of Wiles’s phone came in April and was approved by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, another Washington DC-based jurist famously critical of Trump, the court records show.

Americans deserve something more specific than assurances. Who reviewed the defense-attorney contacts? What safeguards applied? Were any call patterns used to anticipate legal strategy? Congress should seek those answers, and prosecutors should be prepared to supply them. Court approval explains how this monitoring began. The public still deserves to know how it was handled.

Read more …

“..if he is fighting to get out of the Establishment’s traps..”

Is that a caveat?

• Trump Might Not Be as Bad as He Appears (Paul Craig Roberts)

Yesterday Nima and I discussed the lies that are ricocheting around news events and how political figures think they can succeed with such obvious lies as the Strait of Hormuz is open, the US is in control of the Strait, and 20 million barrels of oil are being transported through the Strait daily. https://www.youtube.com/live/V2kwURVOV5Q


Nima was concerned with the latest claim from Trump that a deal has been reached with Russia in which Russia will provide 4.8 million tons of diesel fuel to the market in exchange for Trump removing the sanctions on Russia. To facilitate the deal Trump asked Zelensky to quit attacking Russian diesel facilities, and he asked Putin to stop attacking Kiev. Both Zelensky and Russia, according to reports, say they are unaware of this deal. The Russians say that they have no interest in a temporary ceasefire and that what Russia wants is a negotiated comprehensive end to the conflict with the West. Nima asked how could Trump announce an agreement that Zelensky and Putin didn’t know about.

NOTE: This morning, October 13, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the supply of Russian diesel fuel to the market “is a very mutually beneficial element of Russian-US cooperation,” but there is no direct link between the US decision on Russian diesel fuel and Russia’s position on Ukraine negotiations. Peskov goes on to say that Moscow has only read media reports about a US-European plan to resolve the situation in Ukraine: “No, we have not heard anything about it. We have seen reports in the media, but we have not heard anything about it,” Peskov told reporters. I replied that I could only speculate.

One possible answer, perhaps even a likely answer, is that Trump is putting out a narrative that if it takes hold could lead to a solution. One part of the solution is to protect the Republicans in the midterm elections from higher energy prices and the inflation that rising energy prices cause. Trump might also see that a deal in which sanctions are removed in exchange for more energy supply is a way to extract Washington from the conflict Washington started in Ukraine without it looking like an American defeat.

If sanctions are removed and energy is flowing, what is the point of a return to hostilities? I have always thought that Putin’s choice of Stanford and Harvard educated Kirill Dmitriev as Russia’s negotiator and Trump’s choice of business men Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law as Washington’s negotiators was crafted so as to produce a deal that would present a mutually profitable business arrangement more profitable than an unpopular military conflict.

I am a long time critic of Putin for ignoring Napolean’s important statement that “The reputation of one’s arms in war is everything, and equivalent to real forces.” I and Doctorow have concluded, correctly or incorrectly, that Putin’s refusal to use sufficient force to stop Ukraine’s ability to continue the military conflict has caused the conflict to greatly widen and that this widening implies eventually a nuclear conflict. We see many signs of this as the conflict is no longer limited to the Donbas battlefront but has expanded deep into Mother Russia as a result of long-range weapons supplied by the US and Europe and targeting information supplied by the US and MI6 to Ukraine.

Two more formerly neutral European countries have joined NATO and more NATO countries have agreed to host US nuclear missiles on their territory. Clearly the war has widened. Nevertheless, I understand Putin’s approach which does risk nuclear war when Russia has no further room to back away. Putin understands that if he ends the conflict by striking down Ukraine’s ability to continue the fight, which Russia could have done 4.5 years ago and could do tomorrow with conventional weapons alone, he will have obtained Russia’s aims but without Western acceptance. So in effect the conflict doesn’t end.

If Putin imposes a military solution, the West will say: “See, we told you. Putin intends to resurrect the Soviet Empire and spread it into Europe. Germany will be next.” Indeed, Germany seems already to think that Germany is going to be next as Germany prepares for war with Russia, an ill-advised enterprise.

The disagreement between Putin and myself is which of us has the best odds in the gamble on the table. My concern is that Putin’s sacrifice of a decisive military victory is resulting in more Western provocations that will result in nuclear war. Putin’s concern is that a Russian imposed military victory will not be a good victory because it will harden Western opposition to Russia, whose demonstration of strength would be regarded as a threat to all of Europe.

I cannot say that I am right and that Putin is wrong. I just hope he is aware of the risk. This concludes what Nima and I discussed, so you can save the time of listening to our discussion. Nima’s questions on occasions are provocative and push me into clarifying statements of how I view events as they unfold.

I will end with giving you important information. As a high level Reagan political appointee instrumental to President Reagan’s two important issues–the defeat of stagflation and the end of the Cold War, I can tell you that most presidential appointees are not in office to serve the President but to serve their own careers. It is not unusual for presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, dictators even, to have ministers working against the titular head in behalf of their own agendas and career. In my time in the Reagan administration my main opponents were Reagan’s appointments as his chief of staff, as his budget director, as his chairman of the council of economic advisors and their media whores who thrived on leaks against Reagan’s agenda.

For example the budget director, David Stockman had the intention of being the first budget director to balance the budget. From this achievement he would go on to become US Senator from Michigan or wherever it was he was from, and from there to the presidency. Stockman saw Reagan’s tax rate reduction as an obstacle to his career ambitions.

Murray Weidenbaum, chairman of the council of economic advisers, was busy reassuring conservative foundations that supported his situation at Washington University that he was against budget deficits and thus gave little if any support to Reagan’s economic policy.

Reagan’s chief of staff, Jim Baker, just wanted to reassure Wall Street and believed that a small tax rate reduction of 5%, which would be wiped out by inflation before it could be enacted, sufficed to show a Reagan victory in lowering taxes.

The facts which I had in my hands as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic policy had no influence against these agendas. I simply had to run over them, which meant no further government career. But that is what it took to get to get Reagan’s economic policy out of his own administration so that Congress could vote on it.

I prevailed because I was right, had Reagan’s support and support in Congress and was willing to take the hits. Today 45 years later only Elon Musk can afford to take the hits. Today not even the US Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., can prevail over Big Pharma’s influence over the FDA, CDC, NIH–all of which report to Secretary Kennedy and all of whom obey Big Pharma. Secretary Kennedy cannot even get the proven dangerous Covid-19 vaccines prohibited. Big Pharma’s political campaign contributions are more powerful than the Secretary of Health.

In my opinion, it is the inability of elected governments to prevail over powerful private interests, such as the Israel Lobby, the military-security complex that President Eisenhower warned us about as long ago as 1961, and Big Pharma, that has given rise to an ideological Democrat Party that sees the institutional structure of American society so corrupt that it must be overthrown. The US Supreme Court destroyed the accountability of the US government when it ruled that corporations had First Amendment rights to purchase the US government to serve their agendas.

I doubt that the US will have a French or Leninist revolution, but that is the intention of the new ideological Democrats, and I understand the frustrations that have led them to their war on existing society. There is no doubt whatsoever that the republic established by the Founding Fathers has been corrupted.

Where will redemptive American leadership come from? Trump was defeated by his captivity to the Israel Lobby. The Democrats are committed not to the restoration of America but to America’s overthrow.

It is a true statement that “Where there is no vision the people are lost.” In a world in which the only interests of peoples is in self-affirming narratives the people are doubly lost. A life in false narratives is a life in The Matrix.

Life in The Matrix is life in Western countries today. It is not a life worth living. The question is: In all of the world today do any people other than the Israelis and Zionist MAGA Americans believe in themselves, believe in their country?

Perhaps the Iranians?

Read more …

She supposedly arrived with nothing, just a few years ago.

• Trump Suggests Ilhan Omar’s Money Came From Fraud (Catherine Salgado)

President Donald Trump just implied that there could be evidence linking Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Somalia) to millions of dollars in lucrative fraud.


Early on October 12, federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security, in partnership with the Department of Justice, executed a search warrant at Omar’s D.C. home. Members of the Trump administration including Vice President JD Vance and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin have alleged that Omar did commit immigration fraud, including by faking a marriage with her own brother. But she and her family are also connected with the massive Somali fraud machine stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from Americans in Minnesota.

On Tuesday, Trump posted on Truth Social, “Why did Ilhan Omar report a Net Worth of up to 30 Million Dollars just a short time ago, and then immediately say, ‘Oh, I made a mistake! It’s really $100,000.’ Could it be that her highly paid accountant actually reported the money that was stolen from her fraudulent activities in Minnesota? Would something like that be possible?”

He pressed his speculative point home. “Do you think the accountant actually gave the right number the first time, 30 Million Dollars, and then she was forced to disavow because she never would have been able to report where that much money came from? She must have freaked out when she saw that money!”


Omar certainly lives a plutocratic life for an alleged refugee to America who supposedly subsists off her congressional salary. “Where did her house come from, where did her cars come from, and what about her lovely place in Washington, D.C.?” Trump asked. “I didn’t know that Congressmen and women made that kind of money, but I do know her husband, according to information and belief, makes almost nothing, so it couldn’t have come from him. How many people did she illegally bring into our Country from Somalia? America wants answers, and we want them, NOW!”

GOP lawmakers and the convicted mastermind of the $250 million “Feeding Our Future” scheme implicated Omar in the fraud. Fraudsters emailed each other about “Ilhan’s Office” and her sister is tentatively identified as one of the USAID fraudsters who registered at the same address as the “Feeding Our Future” criminals.

Sen. Ernst said “One of our spending bills making its way through Congress was a $1 million earmark from Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, which was an earmark that was supposedly going to a substance abuse clinic, which actually happened to be housed in a restaurant and run by three individuals that share the same residential address, according to their IRS paperwork.”

After all, Omar has said that she would prioritize Somalia’s interests and her father is reportedly one of the Somali officers responsible for the Isaaq genocide.

Read more …

The Islam doesn’t belong in the US. Or in Europe, but it may be too late there.

• Corporate Islamification (Stefan Padfield)

So, what is Islamification?


A recent documentary by former Virginia congressman Nick Freitas titled “The Immigration Crisis That Will Destroy the West” warns viewers about the risks created by the Islamification of Western civilization. The film focuses primarily on the negative impacts of cultural norms related to the treatment of women and girls, with a reviewer noting allegations of “a significant problem of organized, industrial-scale rapes being conducted by mostly Muslim men” in the UK.

Relatedly, another recent column noted that “seven of the top 10 countries with the highest prevalence of child marriage have a Muslim-majority,” and went on to ask: “Why does Islam appear so frequently in discussions surrounding religious persecution, terrorism, and certain forms of sexual violence?” Similar concerns have also been raised about the cultural roots of rampant fraud we’ve seen in places like Minneapolis.

And even more recent fiery riots in France have left some “pointing to second and third-generation immigrant youths–many from Muslim North African and sub-Saharan backgrounds–as the core of the violence.” Perhaps pulling all the foregoing together, Douglas Murray argues that “the West remain[s] at war with Islamic radicals.”Importantly, while conservatives cherish individual liberty and religious freedom, those commitments are perverted when it is claimed that only a nihilistic multiculturalism properly embodies those values.

To the contrary, in addition to individual liberty and religious freedom, conservatives also value truth and free speech in pursuit thereof, both of which demand acknowledgement of the fact that not all cultures or branches thereof are equal, that some cultures are better than others at the very least vis-a-vis a specific people in a specific place at a specific time, and that certain cultures can pose a threat to Western civilization if they are imported en masse without any expectations of assimilation.

Accordingly, the liberty and freedom of individuals to practice their religion should be respected and protected, and members of all religions who strive to assimilate should be embraced. However, the people who support terrorism in the name of Islam, or who promote cultural norms directly antithetical to Western civilization, such as undermining property rights or the rights of women and children, should not be ignored or empowered. Nor should asserted connections between those issues and Islam be handwaved away as exaggerating a “few bad apples” problem.

This brings us to the role corporations play in the Islamification of Western civilization, and what applicable fiduciary duties and expectations of good corporate governance have to say about that. Consider how the following corporate actions might increase the risk of immigration-related harms to the United States, including Islamification–which will be explained in more detail below.

First, corporations fighting restrictions on welfare benefits could be supporting incentives for problematic immigration. Second, corporations seeking to import cheap labor could be similarly promoting mass immigration with costs outweighing benefits. Third, corporations opposing ICE operations could be making it easier for illegal aliens who harm the United States to stay in the country.

Finally, H-1B visa abuse can exacerbate immigration-related strains on U.S. citizens. This applies both generally and specifically to risks related to Islamification because while discussion of demographic issues related to H-1B visa abuse can focus on beneficiaries from India, which is apparently 80% Hindu, it is highly unlikely that the H-1B beneficiary population excludes Muslims. For example, 14% of India’s population apparently identifies as Muslim.

Of course, the reputational and financial risks associated with a corporation creating the perception that it directly or indirectly supports the Islamification of the U.S. are not the only factors to be considered by corporate leaders in making related business decisions. But it is also arguably true that failing to become fully informed about these risks could constitute a breach of duty, including being found guilty of bad faith in relevant cases of willful blindness.

An argument could certainly be made that no corporate fiduciaries dealing with this issue can claim to be fully informed if the word “Islamification” never once appears on the board agenda.

Read more …

I’m not sure I understand this.

• The Midterm Polling Is Absolutely, Positively, 100% Wrong. (Maybe.) (Pinsker)

Our world runs on incentive structures: Your values and goals drive your decision-making. It’s a fundamental tenet of free market capitalism. Trouble is, our incentive structures can also lead us astray. Low-hanging fruit, socioeconomic pressures, and instant gratification cloud our judgment. Instead of striving for long-term accuracy, we’ll settle for short-term accolades.


Which takes us to the “science” of polling. Because it IS a real, legitimate science. And pollsters are real, legitimate scientists. Y’know, just like TV weathermen. It’s fascinating: When we crack the veneer of scientific-sounding stats, numbers, and probabilities, both weather forecasters and pollsters use the same exact language. It’s kind of eerie.

“Forecasting is both a science and an art,” wrote famed meteorologist Jeff Haby. “To be a great forecaster, the meteorologist needs to have skills in weather pattern recognition… [including] intuition (the 6th sense).” Because the numbers alone aren’t reliable. Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow, who served as a weather officer in World War II, quipped, “One thing I learned from meteorology is that being an actual science was no guarantee of exactness.” Which is why weathermen interject their own biases, experiences, and assumptions into weather forecasts. It’s where the “art” — and “intuition” — come in.

Wait: art and intuition? What the hell kind of “science” relies on artwork and ESP?! Actually, polling does, too.“Polls are the worst form of prediction ever, except for all the other kinds,” said pollster Nate Silver. “In some ways… it’s amazing that polls are as accurate as they are.” Because, when it comes to quantifying key factors, including an accurate, representative sample of likely voters, as fellow pollster John Zogby freely admitted, “This is where polling is an art.”

It’s subjective. There’s a near-infinite galaxy of competing, contradictory statistical projections, and each pollster is free to accentuate — or deemphasize — absolutely anything he or she wants. Just like TV weathermen. bPredicting the weather and predicting the midterms are both science-based without being scientific. Science is just the starting point: Yes, pollsters and weathermen use real numbers and real math to paint a picture, but their “art” is guided by their intuition.

And pleasing the paying customer. This is where the incentive structure comes in — and where TV weathermen and pollsters differ. TV weathermen, after all, are almost always employees of a TV station. It’s analogous to a tenured professor: The station has a vested interest in promoting ‘em, so unless they screw up spectacularly (or sink in the ratings), a likeable, “accurate enough” weatherman has a job for life.

It’s why TV weathermen are incentivized to play it safe, avoid major screwups, and make semi-reliable predictions. But pollsters (usually) aren’t employed by a TV station. They’re either contracted for a short time, or they work for an independent company and need the media to trumpet their results — or nobody will hear it.

Either way, the incentive structure is the same: When you’re on a contract, you’re incentivized to do whatever you can to earn a renewal. This means keeping your customer happy. And if you need media outlets to trumpet your results, you’re incentivized to tell them a story that they’re likely to run.

Weather forecasts and political polling projections aren’t science. They’re science-based — the same way pro wrestling is sports-based. There’s real athleticism, and the wrestlers are working hard, but c’mon, methinks someone has his thumb on the scales: Fun fact: Over the past eight years, about 70% of August polls have overestimated support for Democrats.

It seems someone has put his thumb on the pollsters’ scales, too. So it’s not remarkable that the 2026 polls point to a Democratic victory. The opposite is true: This is exactly what we’d expect the incentive structure to produce! And whattaya know, 70% of the time in the month of August, that’s what we get.

Which is an institutional problem: Left-wing reporters, at left-wing media outlets, favor left-wing news stories. That’s not a secret. It’s why Republican trust in the media has nosedived. And since most major media outlets are left-wing, most political polls lean to the left — because that’s the incentive structure of the media marketplace.

So yes, the midterm polling has been utterly abysmal for Republicans. And yes, we’ve heard the super-scary stats: One expert gives the Democrats an 84.5% chance of winning the House. Another expert gives the Democrats a 74.8% chance of winning the Senate. Those are VERY scientific-sounding numbers. Why, these scientists are so precise, they even used a decimal point!

But these numbers don’t mean anything. They’re not real. It’s science-inspired artwork. (Or science fiction.) They were guided by “intuition.” Y’know — ESP. Which means that the 2026 midterms aren’t anywhere close to over and Republicans shouldn’t be demoralized.

Because the God’s honest truth is, nobody knows nothin’. We don’t know which demos will show up and vote on Election Day, which ones won’t, and which ones were underrepresented in the polls. Nor do we know which issues will be top-of-mind on November 3, 2026. The election is still three weeks away. And that, dear reader, is the final caveat: If nobody knows nothin’, then, alas, we can’t disprove the media polls either. All we can do is note the systemic bias and the sky-high error rate.

So get out and vote like the midterms are still up for grabs — because they absolutely are.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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