John French Sloan Backyards, Greenwich Village 1926
https://twitter.com/RL9631/status/1961119941412749546
China has now SOLD or allowed to mature, a total of $324 Billion in US Securities since Feb of 2023.
This is the biggest story in the world, but most people in Washington are unaware. They don’t know what will hit them when there’s a massive stock market collapse.
— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) August 29, 2025
https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1961583394669699542
RFK
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1961515566876742124
And while NOBODY was watching…
…Russian research ships discovered the biggest oil field EVER.
Location: the Weddell Sea in the Antarctic.
Estimated reserves: 511 billion barrels.
That's double Saudi reserves & over 10 TIMES the North Sea output for half a century.… pic.twitter.com/DUR1o3LUUF
— Pepe Escobar (@RealPepeEscobar) August 29, 2025
https://twitter.com/Chicago1Ray/status/1961079159020503373
“Zelenskyy is avoiding real steps toward resolving the conflict with Russia for a number of reasons [..] out of his personal belief or fear for his life or corruption or other motivations..”
• Zelensky May Slow Down Peace Process Due to Corruption – Jeffrey Sachs (Sp.)
Volodymyr Zelenskyy is avoiding real steps toward resolving the conflict with Russia for a number of reasons, including corruption, well-known US economist and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University Jeffrey Sachs said. The interview happened ahead of the Eastern Economic Forum, which will be held in Vladivostok from September 3–6. The economist is going to participate in a session “UN Development Agenda Beyond 2030.” “Zelensky, for whatever reason, out of his personal belief or fear for his life or corruption or other motivations, does not even make one inch towards the reality of the settlement; the Europeans, [French President Emmanuel] Macron, [German Chancellor Friedrich] Merz and [UK Prime Minister Keir] Starmer, the same way,” Sachs said.
The economist noted that his intransigence had left many issues unresolved following the Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. “So in this sense, the only thing that was clarified in Alaska is that the United States is not going to pay for the Ukraine war, but everything else remains unsettled,” he added. After meeting with Zelensky and European leaders in the White House and a phone call with Putin, Trump announced preparations for a meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, after which a trilateral meeting with his participation may take place.
You’re losing. Defining ‘Security Guarantees’ is not up to you. Not much is.
• Zelensky Claims Ukraine ‘Security Guarantees’ Will Be Ready Next Week (RT)
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has claimed that a complete framework of “security guarantees” for Kiev in case of a ceasefire or peace deal with Russia will be ready as early as next week. In a Telegram post on Thursday, Zelensky said he had spoken with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, adding that they had “discussed the next diplomatic steps” to settle the conflict. “There has been a lot of talk about security guarantees. National security advisers are currently working on the development of each specific component, and next week the entire configuration will be on paper,” Zelensky added. According to the Ukrainian leader, Erdogan involved his defense minister in the process to examine “how Türkiye can help guarantee security, including in the Black Sea.”
Erdogan’s office confirmed the call, saying Ankara would continue efforts to secure a “lasting peace” and stood ready to contribute to Ukraine’s security once hostilities end. Last week, Ukrainian First Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Kislitsa said Western officials were working on security guarantees, promising that a first draft would be prepared by the end of August. He stressed, however, that Kiev “is categorically against trading our land for peace,” although earlier media reports suggested that Ukraine could agree to concede territories to Moscow. This week, Politico reported that European leaders were eyeing a proposal for a 40km buffer zone between Russian and Ukrainian lines in a ceasefire scenario, potentially patrolled by Western troops. Another discussion reportedly revolved around involving a neutral third country to oversee the enforcement of a truce.
Russia has said it is not against the concept of security guarantees for Ukraine, but stressed that any framework must involve UN Security Council members. Moscow has categorically opposed the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine in any form, reiterating that it seeks to address the root causes of the conflict, including the bloc’s expansion toward Russian borders. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has also criticized Western plans to limit the number of guarantor states to key NATO countries, adding that “the options proposed by the ‘collective West’ are one-sided and clearly aimed at containing Russia.”
“..secure Kiev’s role as a strategic provocateur on Russia’s borders.”
• Ukraine Security Guarantees Only After Peace Deal – Moscow (RT)
Security guarantees for Ukraine must be the result of a settlement of the conflict with Russia, not a precondition for negotiations, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. Kiev has demanded security guarantees from its Western backers as a prerequisite to a peace deal. Moscow has not ruled out guarantees in principle, but opposes efforts to design them without Russia’s participation. At a press briefing on Friday, Zakharova said any guarantees must be based on an “understanding that takes into account the security interests of Russia.” She added that a settlement must ensure Ukraine’s demilitarization, denazification, neutral and non-nuclear status, and recognition of the territorial realities.
“It is necessary to understand that providing security guarantees is not a condition, but a result of a peaceful settlement based on eliminating the root causes of the conflict in Ukraine, which, in turn, will guarantee the security of our country,” she said. Zakharova criticized the Western proposals put forward so far, warning they would only “lead to destabilization.” “The options proposed by the Collective West are one-sided, built with the obvious expectation of containing Russia… they increase the risk of NATO being drawn into an armed conflict with our country,” she said, adding that they would “secure Kiev’s role as a strategic provocateur on Russia’s borders.”
Kiev earlier pushed for NATO membership as a security guarantee, but US President Donald Trump has ruled this out. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and his European backers have also called for “Article 5-like guarantees” obligating the US-led military bloc to act if Ukraine is attacked. European policymakers have also considered sending troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers and creating a buffer zone with Western patrols. Moscow has rejected the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine, whether as peacekeepers or otherwise. Moscow and Kiev have held three rounds of talks in the past three months, leading to major prisoner swaps. While a breakthrough has not been reached, US envoy Steve Witkoff said this week that Washington hopes to settle the conflict by the end of 2025, citing a “peace proposal on the table” and ongoing contact with Russian and Ukrainian officials.
NATO ‘peacekeepers’ in Ukriane doesn’t fly. But it would if they’re only in a DMZ buffer zone?
• EU ‘Grasping For Straws’ With Ukraine Buffer Zone Plan – Politico (RT)
European policymakers are considering the creation of a 40km “buffer zone” between Russian and Ukrainian forces as part of a ceasefire or peace deal in a “desperate” attempt to end the conflict, Politico reported on Thursday, citing sources. Under the plan, Western troops would take on a “dual role” – patrolling the demilitarized area and training Ukrainian soldiers, two unnamed diplomats claimed. France and Britain are expected to provide the bulk of the force, a move deemed unacceptable by Moscow. Paris and London are reportedly lobbying other NATO states for contributions, although few have publicly said they are ready to send troops to Ukraine. The outlet claimed the plan could have “historical significance,” with officials likening it to Germany’s partition during the Cold War.
“They’re grasping for straws,” Jim Townsend, a former Pentagon official, told the outlet, warning that a lightly staffed buffer zone would not deter Russia. The idea is one of several scenarios under discussion for a possible truce or post-conflict arrangement, according to five European diplomats cited by the outlet. However Western officials are divided over the eventual size of the zone and whether Kiev would accept it, since it would likely require it to agree to territorial concessions. Proposals also reportedly detail a range from 4,000 to as many as 60,000 troops. US President Donald Trump earlier said Washington would not deploy ground troops to Ukraine, but did not rule out other types of support.
Politico earlier reported that EU leaders have also floated the idea of involving a neutral third country to help enforce any ceasefire. Neither Russia nor Ukraine has commented on the report, although Moscow has consistently opposed any NATO troop presence in Ukraine, citing the bloc’s expansion towards Russian borders as one of the root causes of the conflict. At the same time, Russia has not ruled out security guarantees for Kiev from the West in principle.
“..in his full remarks [British diplomat Jonathan Powell] dismissed the “snobbery in diplomacy” and explained at length why Witkoff was “exactly the kind” of independent negotiator who succeeds where others fail.”
• Vance Accuses Politico of ‘Foreign Influence Operation’ Against Witkoff (RT)
US Vice President J.D. Vance has accused Politico of running a “foreign influence operation” against special envoy Steve Witkoff, blasting the outlet’s reporting as “journalistic malpractice” for relying on anonymous officials while excluding on-the-record statements from senior figures who defended him. The article, published Friday by Politico correspondent Felicia Schwartz under the headline “’His inexperience shines through’: Steve Witkoff struggles to manage Russia as Trump peace envoy,” cited 13 anonymous American and foreign officials who alleged that Witkoff lacked diplomatic skill and had caused confusion in ongoing negotiations with Moscow. “This story from Politico is journalistic malpractice. But it’s more than that: it’s a foreign influence operation meant to hurt the administration and one of our most effective members,” Vance wrote on X.
The only people Politico mentioned by name were those actually defending Witkoff. Vance said Schwartz omitted his own full statement as well as quotes from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former White House adviser Jared Kushner, and British diplomat Jonathan Powell. “The person who wrote this garbage… They have an agenda to blow up the president’s efforts to make peace, and they saw her as a useful vessel to launder garbage into the conversation, truth be damned,” Vance added. Powell, the UK’s former chief negotiator in Northern Ireland, was quoted briefly as saying Witkoff had “opened doors no one else could.” However, in his full remarks he dismissed the “snobbery in diplomacy” and explained at length why Witkoff was “exactly the kind” of independent negotiator who succeeds where others fail.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also accused Politico of deliberately cherry-picking quotes to fit a narrative. Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair went further, calling the article “a foreign influence operation run through a German-controlled online media outlet.” Witkoff has led the Trump administration’s back-channel talks with Russia and held multiple meetings with President Vladimir Putin and other top officials as part of Washington’s efforts to negotiate an end to the Ukraine conflict. Politico also claimed, citing another anonymous “person familiar,” that the Russians in touch with Witkoff were allegedly “frustrated” by his supposed “inability to properly convey Putin’s messages and red lines to Trump.” Russian officials, however, have spoken warmly of him, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov previously saying “we are always glad to see Mr. Witkoff in Moscow,” and calling the meetings “important, meaningful, and very useful.”
X thread.
“..discredit Ukrainian nationalism by the hands of the very ultranationalists who took their nation to war in the first place.”
• A Dark Theory For The Evening (Armchair Warlord)
Looking at developments lately, specifically: (1) the Ukrainian casualty leak showing an astronomical 1.7M KIA/MIA; and (2) the Ukrainian collapse north of Pokrovsk – I thought should revisit a dark thought I had a while ago, namely that, “maybe the killing itself is the point of all of this.”
I’ve said before that the Russians have fought an extraordinarily clean war in Ukraine, but it should be understood that there is a very legalistic shade on that assessment. They’ve killed very few civilians, and Ukrainian propagandists are perpetually beclowning themselves trying to pretend that the usual single-digit handful of injured civilians that accompany the latest attack using hundreds of standoff weapons fired into city centers (producing secondary explosions visible from outer space as military targets hidden among civilian infrastructure are destroyed with surgical precision) somehow constitute gEnOCiDe rather than some of the most well-controlled warfighting in the history of the business. There is another and far darker side to Russia’s “clean” war, however.
Let us consider the fate of the Armed Forces of Ukraine – legal combatants all, whom the Russians can and do target and kill without limit. I mentioned the casualty leak earlier, but I feel this needs to have a line drawn under it – one point seven million personnel killed or missing in action in the AFU, over the course of the war. 1.7 MILLION. Seven or eight percent of Ukraine’s prewar population, probably something like a quarter of the entire national cohort of military-aged males, dead or missing. Casualties on the scale of a genocide, sufficient to permanently cripple any postwar Ukrainian nation. Casualties multiple times that which I assessed two years ago as sufficient to shatter the AFU based on the experience of Nazi Germany.
This brings me to the Ukrainian collapse north of Pokrovsk two weeks ago, in which a run-of-the-mill Russian attack walked through twenty kilometers of Ukrainian defensive belts and into open country. The Ukrainian propagandists coped by whining about how the single most important front sector for the AFU had somehow “run out of infantry.” But did the Russians throw in a mobile reserve to collapse the front and chase the AFU back to the Dniper, despite doubtless knowing full well what was going on? No, they did not – they consolidated in the breach and awaited the inevitable, panicked Ukrainian counterattack, in which they would have the opportunity to destroy Ukraine’s remaining elite troops.
Which brings me to my conclusion. The Russians have had countless opportunities to make large advances in this war, especially recently – the Ukrainian front line is an absolute shambles and their “drone wall” tactic will falter against any serious attack. So ineffectual is the AFU that very few Russian moves at the front even face serious opposition these days, with most geolocations of Russian advances showing them already established in place and dealing with harassment by kill drones after having seized positions bloodlessly. The Russians have in fact consistently foregone breaking the front and taking swathes of ground in favor of killing the largest possible number of Ukrainian soldiers on the existing front line under the existing attritional combat dynamic.
This “tactical directive” held true even during the Battle of Sudzha-Korenevo, fought in prewar Russia. Rather than counterattacking aggressively to evict the AFU, the Russians saw the opportunity to kill gigantic numbers of Ukrainians in a trap the enemy wouldn’t be able to extract themselves from for ideological reasons, and they took it. That battle ended up being nine months of hideously lopsided butchery that broke the back of the AFU. All of this makes observing the war more than a little maddening, but it’s a consistent pattern of behavior that begs for explanation. So here’s my theory.
The Russian government has consistently sought to end the war via peace treaty with the existing Ukrainian government, not via regime change, outright conquest, or even killing enough of that government to find a more flexible interlocutor among the Maidanites. Putin apparently wants a treaty with Zelensky. The Russians have also consistently made demands of the Ukrainian government – and its NATO sponsors – that are absolute political nonstarters for the Maidan-era regime and which that regime, by its very nature, simply cannot accept. Russian language rights, Orthodox religious rights, demilitarization, large territorial concessions which would see the AFU surrender vast urban areas without a shot fired. And yet the Russians insist, and they’re going to continue killing Ukrainian soldiers at ever-more lopsided ratios until they get their way.
Which leads me to the brutal conclusion: Putin doesn’t want to see Ukraine conquered. He’s never publicly expressed any desire for that. The consistent Russian policy is instead to see Ukraine – a “free” and “independent” Ukraine, having come to this impasse of its own sovereign will – utterly humiliated. Putin wants to make Zelensky put on a suit, come groveling to the Kremlin, and sign a treaty that will see the Maidanite government surrender its arms, disgorge huge amounts of territory, and reverse every single anti-Russian policy position it ever had. Ukrainian nationalism will be discredited overnight by the hands of those very nationalists, and the economically irrelevant, demographically shattered rump state will be sucked back into Russia’s political orbit in a matter of days.
So of course the Russians are only advancing in the most leisurely way possible. Their goal is to place the Ukrainian government into a militarily untenable situation so as to force a flamboyantly humiliating peace treaty upon them that includes large territorial concessions beyond the line of control – the ultimate Ukrainian taboo – so as to discredit Ukrainian nationalism by the hands of the very ultranationalists who took their nation to war in the first place.
A dark theory for the evening. Let's talk about Russian strategy in Ukraine.⬇️
Looking at developments lately, specifically: (1) the Ukrainian casualty leak showing an astronomical 1.7M KIA/MIA; and (2) the Ukrainian collapse north of Pokrovsk – I thought should revisit a dark… pic.twitter.com/uOvB2gJEvX
— Armchair Warlord (@ArmchairW) August 29, 2025
“..the bloc had “plunged into a Russophobic frenzy, and its militarization is becoming uncontrolled.”
• Von der Leyen Calls Putin A ‘Predator’ (RT)
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has escalated her anti-Russia rhetoric, calling President Vladimir Putin a “predator” and reciting NATO’s familiar talking point about a looming Russian threat to justify the EU’s push for accelerated militarization. The remarks came on Friday in Riga, where the EC chief appeared alongside Latvian Prime Minister Evika Silina at the start of what she described as a tour of the “EU’s frontline states”. The route includes Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland -all bordering Russia or Belarus- as well as Bulgaria and Romania. “Putin is a predator,” von der Leyen claimed, accusing his mysterious “proxies” of targeting European societies “for years with hybrid attacks, with cyberattacks.”
She went as far as to accuse Moscow of engaging in the “weaponization of migrants,” without providing specifics and omitting the bloc’s own controversial open-door policies, which have fueled internal backlash for over a decade. She argued that the alleged Russian threat warranted the EU’s rearmament plan. “So, as we strengthen Ukraine’s defence, we must also take greater responsibility for our own defence,” she said. In March, von der Leyen floated a plan to raise €800 billion ($934 billion) through debt and tax incentives to re-arm the EU. The European Council later approved a €150 billion borrowing mechanism to fund the initiative. Moscow has repeatedly condemned what it calls the West’s “reckless militarization,” while dismissing allegations of any intent to attack NATO or EU states as “nonsense.” Russian officials, including President Putin, have accused Western leaders of fearmongering to justify inflated military budgets and cover up economic failures.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently accused the EU of sliding into what he described as a “Fourth Reich,” saying the bloc had “plunged into a Russophobic frenzy, and its militarization is becoming uncontrolled.” After US President Donald Trump ruled out any prospect of NATO membership for Kiev, European backers of Ukraine shifted to discussing “Article 5-like guarantees.” Policymakers have also considered sending troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers and creating a buffer zone with Western patrols. Russia has rejected the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine, in any form. Moscow insists that any peace settlement must ensure Ukraine’s demilitarization, denazification, neutral and non-nuclear status, and recognition of the territorial realities.
You must ask Zelensky if you can protest Zelensky. Winning!
• Kiev Restricts Mass Gatherings After Anti-Government Protests (RT)
The Ukrainian authorities have introduced a requirement that all mass gatherings receive prior approval from the military, according to local media and an official. The move comes weeks after Vladimir Zelensky faced widespread protests over his attempt to curtail the independence of anti-corruption agencies. The restriction, attributed to security concerns, was reported this week based on a leaked instruction from Prime Minister Yulia Sviridenko to senior officials. The document outlined a general regulation for mass gatherings under martial law and stated that in Kiev, organizers must obtain permission directly from the General Staff.
On Friday, Nikolay Kalashnik, the head of the Kiev Region administration, confirmed the policy in comments about a recent event – a small concert that he said sparked complaints from residents and had not been approved by the military. Last month, the Ukrainian parliament passed legislation placing the prosecutor general in charge of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), both previously independent watchdogs. The change was widely seen at home and abroad as an attempt by Zelensky to shield his allies from investigation.
Kiev’s explanation that the reform was needed to root out alleged Russian influence within the agencies failed to convince critics. The decision triggered mass protests reminiscent of anti-government demonstrations prior to the 2022 escalation of the conflict with Russia and prompted Western officials to cut some funding, reportedly warning of a full freeze in aid. The government reversed course under pressure. The controversy coincided with a decline in Zelensky’s approval ratings and renewed Western interest in potential successors. Retired General Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s former top military commander and now ambassador to the UK, is viewed as the leading alternative. Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year, but he has remained in office under martial law, refusing to transfer power as required by Ukraine’s Constitution.
“..$1.5 million to promote the artwork of Ukrainian women, $3.9 million to support LGBT communities in the western Balkans, and $24.6 million for “climate resilience” in Honduras..”
• Trump Asks Congress To Cut Cash For Ukrainian Painters and Balkan Gays (RT)
Art by Ukrainian women and LGBT organizations in the Balkans are among a series of projects funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) targeted for cancelation by the administration of US President Donald Trump, the New York Post has reported. A White House request to US lawmakers to rescind unwanted spending includes $3.2 billion allocated to USAID, which the administration has pledged to dismantle. The programs to be axed include $1.5 million to promote the artwork of Ukrainian women, $3.9 million to support LGBT communities in the western Balkans, and $24.6 million for “climate resilience” in Honduras, according to the report. nThe move followed a ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that lifted an injunction on Trump’s efforts, clearing the way for the request to proceed.
The Trump administration has accused USAID of furthering “woke” initiatives around the world instead of using taxpayer money on furthering national interests. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared an end to the “era of government-sanctioned inefficiency” when he confirmed in July the takeover of the agency’s mandate by his department. Trump ordered the crackdown on USAID just after taking office in January, claiming it was run by “radical lunatics.” Among the initiatives the White House marked as wasteful were the production of a “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion musical” in Ireland and a “transgender opera” in Peru, the manufacturing of “personalized” contraceptives for developing nations, and agriculture development in Afghanistan that the US concluded fueled illegal drug production. Many critics of the agency outside the country have accused it of serving as a regime change tool that covertly serves the agenda of US foreign policy.
Her lawyers seem to argue that mortgage fraud has nothing to do with working at the Fed. You sure?
• Fireworks Ensue During Cook Vs. Trump Courtroom Showdown (ZH)
Update (1220ET): It was fireworks in federal court Friday morning as lawyers for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook squared off against the Trump administration after Trump fired her on Monday over mortgage malarkey. Cook (who was busted in 2024 for plagiarism and only got her job because Kamala Harris was the tiebreaker vote during her confirmation) responded by filing a lawsuit – asking a judge to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) which would allow her to keep her job, for now. The drama kicked off at 9:30 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, where Cook’s lawyer accused the White House of mounting a politically motivated power grab over claims of mortgage fraud as cover to oust Cook and stack the Fed with Trump loyalists. “This is nothing more than a smear campaign,” insisted Abbe Lowell, Cook’s attorney. “Cause for the president means she won’t go along with the interest rate drop.”
The courtroom drama unfolded amid the backdrop of Federal Housing Finance Authority Chief Bill Pulte having dropped a Thursday night bombshell: a second “criminal referral” accusing Cook of “misrepresentations” about properties she owns – specifically that she claimed a second residence as an investment property, which follows Pulte’s initial criminal referral over Cook simultaneously claiming two properties as her ‘primary residence.’ Lowell torched the move as a desperate stunt: “Nothing in these vague, unsubstantiated allegations has any relevance to Gov. Cook’s role at the Federal Reserve, and they in no way justify her removal from the Board.” Apparently actual documents bearing Cook’s signature, which she hasn’t refuted, are now ‘unsubstantiated.’ What’s more, while Cook has denied any wrongdoing, she has yet to publicly explain her defense.
[..] The Justice Department has filed a response to Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s lawsuit over her Monday firing – claiming that the President was within his right to boot her over allegations of mortgage fraud (with a third property disclosed by Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte last night), and that Cook is “highly unlikely to prevail on the merits.” Trump’s legal team argues that the Federal Reserve Act (FRA) gives the President “broad discretion” to remove governors “for cause” and that courts cannot second-guess that judgment: “The Federal Reserve Act (FRA) empowers the President of the United States to appoint (by and with the advice and consent of the Senate) the members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 12 U.S.C. § 241. Those Governors serve for fixed terms, “unless sooner removed for cause by the President.” Id. § 242. The statute thus expressly contemplates that, even setting aside his Article II authority over principal officers, the President retains broad discretion to remove a Governor for “cause.”
Citing Reagan v. United States (1901) and Dalton v. Specter (1994), they write “Where a statute commits decisionmaking to the discretion of the President, judicial review of the President’s decision is not available,” therefore Cook cannot get a temporary restraining order allowing her to stay in her job. The filing claims the “cause” for Cook’s removal comes from allegedly false statements in two 2021 mortgage applications: “In both agreements – entered within just weeks of each other – Dr. Cook represented that she would occupy each property as her ‘principal residence.’” Trump’s legal team frames this as potential mortgage fraud: “It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how Dr. Cook could possibly have honestly represented that she intended to occupy and use both a property in Michigan and a condominium in Atlanta as her ‘principal residence’ during the same period.”
They stress that criminal prosecution is not required: “The President need not prove criminal acts beyond a reasonable doubt to remove a principal officer.” To wit, “And under any standard, making facially contradictory statements in financial documents – whether a criminal burden of proof could be sustained or not – is more than sufficient ground for removing a senior financial regulator from office.”She Never Denied It The DOJ argues that Cook never rebutted the substance of the FHFA referral: “Dr. Cook does not try to claim that the contradictory representations were somehow truthful, or maintain that she acted without scienter.” Instead, she issued a statement: “I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet”
The filing claims this refusal to provide an explanation justifies removal: “Dr. Cook’s refusal even to offer an explanation or defense makes it all the more impossible to conclude that the ‘cause’ standard is unsatisfied.” In response to Cook’s claims that she was ‘deprived of notice’ and an opportunity to respond to the President’s concern over allegations of mortgage fraud, the DOJ notes that “no court has ever extended those due-process protections for employees to principal officers of the United States. Nor does the FRA purport to do so.” The Trump admin also argues that principal officers like Federal Reserve governors have no property interest in their office. “Dr. Cook had no property interest in her public office and was thus owed no notice or opportunity to be heard”
“Public office is not property’ and ‘the nature of the relation of a public officer to the public is inconsistent with either a property or a contract right.'” Trump’s filing also argues that Cook did receive notice:”The President gave Dr. Cook notice when he publicized the FHFA referral on August 20—and only acted to terminate her five days later, after it was clear that no adequate response was forthcoming.” The DOJ also notes that Cook has no explanation for the allegations. Incredibly, Dr. Cook even now hazards no explanation for her conduct and points to nothing she would say or prove in any “hearing” that would conceivably alter the President’s determination that the perception of financial misconduct alone is intolerable in this role. Under these circumstances, there is certainly no equitable basis for a reinstatement injunction.
Addressing Cook’s request for an injunction on her filing, the response asserts that recent decisions from the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit leave no doubt that reinstatement injunctions are improper. Cook hinted her firing stemmed from policy disagreements on Fed independence and interest rates. Trump’s filing denies this: “The President did not invoke a policy disagreement as the cause for Dr. Cook’s removal. Rather, his letter … made clear that he was acting based on her ‘deceitful and potentially criminal conduct’ in connection with the mortgage agreements.” Cook claimed she’d suffer irreparable harm if not reinstated. Trump disputes this: “Loss of employment does not constitute irreparable injury.” They also argue that the next Fed board meeting isn’t until September 16, 2025, meaning there’s no urgent harm justifying a TRO.
“..she is methodically removing the corrupt people within the system who participate. In short, she’s doing the thing we wanted her to do – and that’s a problem for the system.“
• IC Leakers Target DNI Tulsi Gabbard Again (CTH)
The Wall Street Journal wrote the hit piece against DNI Tulsi Gabbard, sourced to two “people familiar with the matter,” and “three other people with knowledge of the situation.” They all needed to coordinate with the WSJ. Think about it. The substance of the story is that among the 37 current and former Intelligence Community officials Tulsi Gabbard recently stripped of their security clearances, was an “undercover CIA agent” located within one of those agencies. The story is written to say DNI Tulsi Gabbard should have vetted the list with the CIA for a longer period of time before she took action. Therefore, she is not doing her job correctly, or something. The CIA was compromised by Tulsi Gabbard removing the security clearance of one of their hidden agents within the U.S. Government.
Before getting to the story at hand, just stop and think of what the story is selling. The article says the placement of CIA agents throughout the administration’s agencies is commonplace. The CIA Director is not necessarily aware of these CIA operatives or operations that are taking place within the government. That point is one well worth thinking about. However, there’s another larger point that will fly past most casual observers. The Intelligence Community (IC), and let’s accept this one is likely the CIA (directorate of analysis) from the structure of the political hit, is leaking against DNI Tulsi Gabbard. Again, think. The issue at the heart of the CIA complaint is null and void unless the CIA publicly complains about it. If there was a valid, genuine, legitimate and valuable CIA asset within the 37 names who lost their security clearances, the issue would be quickly and quietly resolved by just not taking the action against that person.
Saying nothing, doing nothing, makes the “mistake” (if that’s what it was) disappear. The CIA complaining about it to the Wall Street Journal is what makes the issue a problem. That’s how you can identify this story as an organized Intelligence Community political hit against Tulsi Gabbard. Increasingly, it is becoming more and more clear that Tulsi Gabbard is factually doing what the Intelligence Community feared she would be doing. DNI Gabbard is targeting all of the political weaponization within the Intelligence Community, and she is methodically removing the corrupt people within the system who participate. In short, she’s doing the thing we wanted her to do – and that’s a problem for the system.
“Wall Street Journal – Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, surprised Central Intelligence Agency officials last week when she included an undercover senior CIA officer on a roster of 37 current and former officials she stripped of security clearances. Most of the 37 people had either participated in intelligence assessments related to Russia’s attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election or had signed a 2019 letter calling for President Trump’s impeachment. Gabbard didn’t know the CIA officer had been working undercover, according to a person familiar with the fallout from the list’s release. Three other people with knowledge of the situation said that Gabbard’s office didn’t meaningfully consult with the CIA before releasing the list.
Gabbard’s office delivered the list of 37 people to the CIA the evening before the list’s release, according to three people familiar with the communications and emails read to The Wall Street Journal. The national intelligence office didn’t seek the CIA’s input about the composition of the list, and the CIA had no foreknowledge of Gabbard’s posting on X the following day that revealed the names, including that of the covered CIA officer, according to two of the people familiar with the events. In a memo announcing the revocations, Gabbard said she had acted on Trump’s orders. “Director of National Intelligence Gabbard directed the revocations to ensure individuals who have violated the trust placed in them by weaponizing, politicizing, manipulating, or leaking classified intelligence are no longer allowed to do so,” a spokeswoman in Gabbard’s office said.
[…] The CIA official whose clearance was revoked last week is a longtime Russia hand at the agency. The officer has held intelligence posts for more than 20 years and worked from 2014 to 2017 as an expert on Russia and Eurasia on the National Intelligence Council, according to a publicly listed biography. Earlier this year, the CIA officer spoke at a classified intelligence conference and was described as a senior executive manager in the CIA’s Europe and Eurasia mission center. […] It is a felony to reveal the identity of a covert intelligence officer or agent, though it is unclear if the statute could be applied to a government disclosure, or if including her on the list constitutes a disclosure.
Did ya’ll catch that little slip-up “her” inside the last sentence? Apparently, the person on the list, the hidden CIA operative that lost their security clearance, was a “her.” I watch the minutia closely, and this is one of those very rare instances where I can say, I find zero reason to doubt the intents and integrity goals of DNI Tulsi Gabbard. FTA: “The CIA officer spoke at a classified intelligence conference and was described as a senior executive manager in the CIA’s Europe and Eurasia mission center”… AFCEA Spring Intelligence Symposium: Ms. Julia Gurganus, Senior Executive Manager – Europe and Eurasia Mission Center, Central Intelligence Agency.
“By calling Julia Gurganus an active and covert CIA operative, the scheme team within the directorate knew Gabbard would be unable to defend herself publicly. Discussing the identity of an active/covert CIA operative is against the law.”
• The CIA -vs- DNI Tulsi Gabbard (CTH)
If there is one key takeaway from what you are about to read, it would be this. DNI Tulsi Gabbard needs our support. DNI Gabbard is working deep within a massive silo system that manufacturers the illusion of isolation as a strategy to protect itself. “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” Tulsi Gabbard and her team need to hear, see and feel our support. Yesterday, the CIA Directorate of Analysis purposefully framed a hit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) by leaking a manufactured story that DNI Tulsi Gabbard had exposed an “undercover” agent when she removed the security clearances of 37 former and current intelligence embeds.
In reality, the CIA attempted to block Tulsi Gabbard from exposing how the CIA manipulated the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment claiming Russian interference in the 2016 election. Ms. Julia Gurganus was the CIA analyst who organized the ICA. As Tulsi Gabbard began to drill down onto the issue, and as the current CIA analysts within the former National Intelligence Council (NIC) and CIA Directorate of Analysis began to notice she was going to reveal the fraud, the CIA embeds changed the status of Julia Gurganus in June in an effort to protect her. The CIA changed the status of Julia Gurganus in June, reclassifying her as ‘covert’ specifically because the ODNI’s public statements of intent to reveal the fraud within the 2016 Russia election investigation. This, they schemed, would stop DNI Gabbard from exposing Gurganus and taking action.
The CIA scheme didn’t work. DNI Gabbard declassified and released the CIA work product, and then later removed Gurganus security clearance. The CIA embeds at the directorate of analysis were furious and leaked the false story to the Wall Street Journal using the familiar ploy that has worked for them in the past. By calling Julia Gurganus an active and covert CIA operative, the scheme team within the directorate knew Gabbard would be unable to defend herself publicly. Discussing the identity of an active/covert CIA operative is against the law. The CIA weaponized the law within their attack against the ODNI; leaking a false story they knew Tulsi couldn’t defend against. However, we the people are not stupid. It did not take long to figure out the identity of the asset from the curriculum vitae used in the Wall Street Journal story, and from that point it was clear Julia Gurganus was NOT previously a covert CIA operative. Gurganus was public in her position within the CIA; public, until the CIA changed her status in June.
This is ultimately an example of the weaponized intelligence system DNI Gabbard is fighting against. The current actions by the directorate of analysis inside the CIA is also an example of why DNI Gabbard removed the National Intelligence Council from the agency, fired Chairman Mike Collins (friend of Mike Morrell) and Deputy Chair Maria Langan-Riekhof, and also took control over the Presidential Daily Briefing material the fraudsters were in control of.
Remember, by design the CIA is a one-way information system. Information (intelligence) goes into the agency, the black hole where things can be linguistically modified and shaped to fit a particular viewpoint, yet there is no substantive mechanism for the CIA head to challenge the outflow of information if it is fraudulent. The intel bureaucrats run the machinery, and if the boss does something they don’t like they leak to the media. Silos exist, like the NIC or directorate of analysis, within the larger silo of the CIA. DNI Tulsi Gabbard is taking the lid off these sub-silos and exposing the activity that takes place within them. Cochroaches cower and run from sunlight.
The awesome thing about what they tried yesterday was a factual reveal to the American public that CIA operations are also domestic in nature. Most people believe the Schoolhouse Rock construct of government where the CIA is not allowed to operate domestically. The story surrounding Julia Gurganus active and covert status completely eviscerates that perspective. If covert CIA operatives are not permitted to engage in domestic governance, then why was covert CIA agent Julia Gurganus operating in government? The shield the CIA attempted to deploy becomes a weapon for us to expose their fraud. As this battle continues, and make no mistake this battle will continue, we will closely support the efforts of DNI Tulsi Gabbard to bring the weaponized IC to heel. Gabbard is the truth warrior we need and the Deep State is not happy about it.
.@DNIGabbard: "We are the greatest nation in the world because of our people — rooted in the principles of freedom and liberty that are enshrined in our Constitution. And it's both our opportunity, our challenge, and our responsibility… to continue that mission for as long as… pic.twitter.com/550Ifq9tlp
— Office of the DNI (@ODNIgov) August 29, 2025
“We are the greatest nation in the world because of our people — rooted in the principles of freedom and liberty that are enshrined in our Constitution. And it’s both our opportunity, our challenge, and our responsibility… to continue that mission for as long as we live.”
Small packages valued at less than $800 are duty free. There were 1.36million of them in 2024. That’s not grandma sending birthday greetings. It’s industry. if the average value is half of $800, you’re talkng half a $trillion.
• Trump Closes De Minimis Loophole As Dark Chapter In Trade Ends (ZH)
The long-standing “de minimis” exemption, which allowed small packages valued less than $800 to enter the U.S. duty-free, officially ended Friday. This closes the dark chapter on an era when China flooded America with cheap junk (think $10 Bluetooth wireless speakers) and, according to many in the America First movement inside the White House, helped flood the nation with fentanyl precursor chemicals – if not fentanyl itself – and fueled the drug-death crisis unlike anything this nation has ever seen. Think of it as a modern-day reverse Opium War (hybrid warfare by the CCP). For those with a background in Latin, “de minimis” translates to “too small to matter.”
But that’s certainly not the case. Since 2015, the number of packages entering the U.S. under this exemption has surged from 134 million packages per year to 1.36 billion by 2024. Much of this flood originated from Chinese e-commerce giants, including SheIn Group and Temu. The decade-long tsunami of small packages flooding the U.S. didn’t just undercut domestic small businesses. It also created a backdoor for illegal drugs and fentanyl precursor chemicals from China to slip in undetected, fueling the drug-death crisis now killing more than 100,000 Americans every year.
Source: Heritage Foundation“The de minimis exemption has been abused, with shippers sending illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, precursors, and paraphernalia into the United States in reliance on the lower security measures applied to de minimis shipments, killing Americans,” the White House stated in late July. Washington-based Greg Husisian, head of the international trade practice at Foley & Lardner, told Bloomberg that President Trump “actually had bipartisan support” in tackling the de minimis exemption mess. “This was intended for grandma sending over an $80 package of toys, not like a huge Chinese company sending tens of thousands of packages every single day of $12 T-shirts,” Husisian pointed out.
Under the new rules enforced today via Trump’s executive order signed in July, all foreign shipments, except verified gifts under $100, will face new duties. We pointed out last week (read the report) that several global postal office services warned about emerging bottlenecks in U.S. inbound shipping lines over confusion about duty collections:
• Asia: Korea Post and SingPost are halting standard parcel services, while Japan warns of delays.
• Europe: Norway, Finland, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, and the UK are suspending or limiting services; Deutsche Post/DHL halted business parcels via postal networks.
• Australia: Transit shipments through Australia to the U.S. are paused, though direct U.S. deliveries remain.Multinational logistics company DHL warned customers one week ago about mounting confusion over how duties would be collected. “Key questions remain unresolved, particularly regarding how and by whom customs duties will be collected in the future, what additional data will be required, and how the data transmission to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be carried out,” DHL stated in the letter. Millions of low-value packages today will lose their duty-free treatment and be subject to standard tariff rates or temporary flat fees of $80 to $200 per item for a period of six months. For more details on rates. Customs and Border Protection outlined earlier this month in a bulletin how the flat fees would be calculated, corresponding to the countries’ tariff rates. “It is a real concern that the dominoes are falling and there will be a ripple effect where more and more posts announce that they will be suspending packages to the US,” warned Kate Muth, executive director of the International Mailers Advisory Group, which represents the U.S. international mailing and shipping industry, quoted by Bloomberg last week.
The Appeals Court appears to say: the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is the wrong law. Find a better one before you face SCOTUS.
• Trump’s Global Tariffs Ruled Illegal By Washington Appeals Court, But… (ZH)
On the same day that President Trump flipped the switch on ‘de minimis’ exemptions, a US Appeals court has ruled that most of his global tariffs are illegal, finding that he exceeded his authority in imposing them. In May 2025, a lower court deemed them unlawful for exceeding presidential authority under a 1977 law, but the appeals court paused that ruling. And now, a panel of judges in Washington on Friday upheld an earlier ruling by the Court of International Trade that Trump wrongfully invoked an emergency law to issue the tariffs. But the appellate judges sent the case back to the lower court to determine if it applied to everyone affected by tariffs or just the parties involved in the case. However, this is not the end by a long way as the court also ruled that Trump’s tariffs can remain in effect pending appeals. Friday’s ruling extends the suspense over whether Trump’s tariffs will ultimately stand. The case had been expected to next go to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1961568436762390560
“..one of the shooter’s magazines bore the chilling message “kill Donald Trump.” However, ABC News reduced the violent intention behind those words, reporting vaguely that the shooter had written “the name of President Trump” on the firearms. It was as if they deliberately obscured the hostile meaning, almost insinuating the shooter was somehow a Trump supporter..”
• This May Be the Worst Media Gaslighting About Minneapolis Yet (Margolis)
The horrendous mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis reveals something far more insidious than just violence; it exposes the media’s relentless drive to distort reality when an event clashes with their preferred narrative. This wasn’t just a random tragedy. It was a brutal attack during a mass marking the start of the school year at a Catholic school, in which two children lost their lives and 17 other people, including 14 students, were wounded. The assailant was a transgender individual named Robert “Robin” Westman, who had direct ties to the school: His mother retired from working there just a few years ago. Westman came armed with a manifesto and a cache of weapons. Yet, the coverage was anything but straightforward. It’s been a case study of how the media gaslights the public when a big story doesn’t fit their preferred narrative.
PJ Media previously reported that one of the shooter’s magazines bore the chilling message “kill Donald Trump.” However, ABC News reduced the violent intention behind those words, reporting vaguely that the shooter had written “the name of President Trump” on the firearms. It was as if they deliberately obscured the hostile meaning, almost insinuating the shooter was somehow a Trump supporter. Then there’s the baffling narrative spun by MSNBC, which bizarrely suggested the shooter was not radicalized by his documented hatred of Christians and conservatives but by his upbringing, the aftereffects of COVID, and even video games. But USA Today’s coverage truly takes the cake for its shameless gaslighting.
Not only did the paper not mention the attacker’s identity or his transgender status — a detail central to understanding the complexity of this case — it pivoted hard to link the shooting to motives that better fit the preferred left-wing narrative: A Voice of America report found that mass shootings at places of worship have grown in frequency since the mid-2000s – committed, it said, “by perpetrators with a history of racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity and Islamophobia, with ties to white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups.” Some of those attacks have been among the country’s most shocking: In 2015, a White supremacist shot and killed nine people gathered for Bible study at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina; in 2017, an assailant killed 26 people at First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs in rural Texas; and in 2018, a right-wing extremist killed 11 worshippers at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue in the deadliest antisemitic attack on U.S. soil.
And then, apropos of nothing, they even dragged in an unrelated allegation about ICE supposedly causing attacks on churches. Nonetheless, some faith leaders have felt compelled to respond to threatened or actual violence around the country. “Religious denominations are really being pushed to decide how open these spaces are going to be when you have threats of random violence or an ICE raid,” Schmalz said. “Are churches really open spaces anymore? Or do they have to be protected from a society where there seem to be threats all around?”
They presented it as if it were part of the same fabric, despite none of this being connected to the Minneapolis shooting. The Minneapolis shooting wasn’t random. A transgender-identifying man who openly despised Christians and conservatives was responsible. Yet instead of reporting the truth, the media twisted itself into knots to protect its preferred narrative. That’s not journalism; it’s propaganda. By censoring facts and shielding the public from uncomfortable realities, these outlets aren’t simply betraying trust; they’re fueling more violence and confusion. Until they tell the full story, the cycle will only get worse.
“Putin in Beijing on the Chinese Victory Day parade is a mirror image of Xi in Red Square on May 9..”
• Russia-China: From The Memory of WWII to BRICS/SCO Synergy (Pepe Escobar)
Three – interlocked – dates ahead of us could not be more crucial in shaping the next configuration of the currently incandescent geopolitical chessboard.
1) August 31/September 1st. Tianjin – half-an-hour by high-speed rail (120 km, roughly $8) from Beijing. The annual summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), with all 10 member-states, two observers (Afghanistan and Mongolia) and 14 dialogue partners (plenty from Southeast Asia). Crucially, Putin, Xi and Modi (his first visit to China in 7 years) will be on the same table, as well as Iran’s Pezeshkian. That’s a compounded BRICS/SCO heavyweight show. This summit may be a turning point for the SCO as much as the summit in Kazan last year was for BRICS.2.) September 3. The Victory Day Parade in Tian’anmen Square, officially celebrating the 80th anniversary of “the Victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War”. No less than 26 heads of state will be present, including Putin (on a 4-day state visit). They come from all over the Global South, but none from the Global North.
3.) September 3. Vladivostok. The start of the 10th Eastern Economic Forum (EEF), a must-go to understand the finer points of the Russian national strategic priority to develop the Arctic and the Russian Far East, including vast tracts of Siberia; that’s a mirror policy of the Chinese effort to “Go West”, which started in 1999, to develop Tibet and Xinjiang. A who’s who of corporate and business circles from all latitudes across Eurasia will be present in Vladivostok. Putin addresses the plenary session right after his return from China. Taken together, these three dates span the whole spectrum of the Russia-China strategic partnership; the increasingly interlocked geopolitical and geoeconomic aspects of Eurasia integration and Global South solidarity; and the concerted push by Eurasia actors to accelerate the drive towards a multi-nodal, equanimous system of international relations.
It’s impossible to overstate how important the Victory Day parade is for the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese in a thousand years – and more – will never accept WWII American revisionism such as “the US and Japan jointly ended a war 80 years ago”. And much less European revisionism: “Europe’s commemorations of the Normandy Landings also involved a shocking rewriting of the history of the Eastern Front. These actions remind us that the September 3rd military parade’s attendance list has become a criterion for identifying which countries remain steadfast in their anti-fascist stance.” So Putin in Beijing on the Chinese Victory Day parade is a mirror image of Xi in Red Square on May 9, when Russia officially celebrated the 80th anniversary of the USSR victory in the Great Patriotic War.
No wonder the Chinese Foreign Ministry is adamant: the historical victory of WWII cannot be distorted. And this shared historical memory – vehemently against Nazi-fascism and its resurgence in the West – is a guiding light for the Russia-China multilateral, multipolar, and multi-nodal coordination, from the UN – unfortunately sliding towards irrelevancy – to the dynamic BRICS and SCO. Modi talking directly to Xi on Sunday, on the sidelines of the SCO summit, seals the sorry fate of the tariff war on India – part and parcel of the Empire of Chaos Hybrid War on BRICS, and for that matter, a great deal of the Global Majority. The latest mantra spun by Trump 2.0 circles is that New Delhi is supporting Moscow’s war on Ukraine by buying Russian oil, thus helping to enrich Putin even more. End result: the original RIC (Russia-India-China), all of them sanctioned/tariffed, locked up in a tight embrace.
Vladivostok may carry a few surprises – but on the US-Russia business front. First of all, speculation is rife on whether Trump might have decided to turn the planned EU theft of Russian foreign assets upside down, and instead force the funds to be invested in the American economy. If that would be the case – after all Trump himself proclaims “I can do anything I want” – there’s absolutely nothing the chihuahua EUrocracy can do to prevent it. Then there’s the enticing possibility of US-Russia deals being discussed. One option would be ExxonMobil returning to the Sakhalin-1 mega gas project. There’s also immense American oil industry interest in re-starting the sale of equipment for LNG projects, including the Arctic LNG-2; and the US purchasing Russian nuclear icebreakers.
This should be a wake-up call for US policymakers: pic.twitter.com/Q2QZoRvfeC
— Alec Stapp (@AlecStapp) August 29, 2025
The Mangshan cliff road in Chenzhou, China, captured by a drone.pic.twitter.com/lYRxNOBKxu
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 29, 2025
Dragonfly
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1961311603380346904
Donkey
Donkey mistakes street art for its own kind and stops to interactpic.twitter.com/g54av6205W
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 29, 2025
Penguin
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1961305134094241958
Twins
A Rare Sighting Of Elephant Twins.
Elephant twins occur in only 1% of births. These majestic creatures defy the odds, with twin births standing out as exceptional events in the
animal kingdom.Elephant twins often form a close bond. They are playful They are playful and… pic.twitter.com/4iJ22Sos7h
— PROTECT ALL WILDLIFE (@Protect_Wldlife) August 29, 2025
Baby
https://twitter.com/SueSpurgin/status/1961332549709422629
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
