Feb 202025
 


Pablo Picasso Nude on a beach 1929

 

Musk Says “Trump Is A Good Man” In Hannity Interview (ZH)
The Supreme Court’s Golden Opportunity to Restore Trump’s Authority (O’Neil)
Trump, Musk To Discuss Sending US Taxpayers $5,000 Checks Using DOGE Savings (ZH)
Can We Really Cut Half of The Military Budget? You Bet! (Ron Paul)
Trump Orders DOJ To Terminate All Remaining ‘Biden Era’ US Attorneys (NYP)
Trump Brands Zelensky ‘Dictator Without Elections’ (RT)
Zelensky Accuses Trump Of Repeating ‘Russian Disinformation’ (RT)
Musk Blames Zelensky For Death Of Gonzalo Lira (RT)
‘Good Prospects’ with US, ‘Hysterics’ in EU and Ukraine: Putin (RT)
US and Russia Move Closer – But Ukraine And The EU Stand In The Way (Ryumshin)
Riyadh Meeting May Be ‘Beginning of the End of NATO’ (Sp.)
Russia and US Will Have To ‘Clean Up’ After Biden – Lavrov (RT)
EU’s Military-Industrial Complex Wants to Prolong Lucrative Ukraine Crisis (Sp.)
The US Is Giving Its European Vassals What They’ve Been Asking For (Amar)
DOGE Poised To Strike Defense Department With Mass Layoffs (ZH)
Raskin Takes Premature Victory Lap Just Before a Slew of Court Losses (Turley)
19 State Attorneys General Signal Intent to Prosecute Fauci (PJM)
Back To Par: Musk’s X Eyes Fresh Funding Round At $44 Billion (ZH)

 

 

 

 

Yes

Leavitt

Apple

Library

RFK

Germany

No AI

MIller

 

 

Ever since Jan 20 I find it harder to keep the Debt Rattles limited to the 15 or so articles that I think are the ideal number. People need to be able to concentrate, and at 20 I find that’s already too hard. But it means I have to throw out ever more of what I read. A luxury problem that indicates things are changing for the better, and they do so rapidly.

I’ll open today with the interview Trump and Musk did wih Sean Hannity, because all three are in fine shape, and it gives a good impression of how much Trump and Musk appreciate each other. Completely different guys, who are also a whole generation apart, but they get along very well. I think what brought the entire dream team together is the realization that the country, and the world, were heading for an abyss. And that Trump realized that perhaps first of all, and was the only person fit to be the president who could turn the ship around.

Of course they also admired his fighting spirit, demonstrated not only when he was shot at and rose up, but perhaps even more through hour after hour after hour of lawfare sessions in courtrooms. Instead of retiring to Mar-a-Lago. Everyone he works with now has recognized that. Interview: highly recommended.

Musk Says “Trump Is A Good Man” In Hannity Interview (ZH)

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk discussed waste, fraud, abuse, and more in a joint interview with Sean Hannity that aired on Feb. 18. The world’s wealthiest man and the president of the United States defended the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), now facing political opposition and numerous lawsuits as it slashes government spending – including negative publicity for firing and then seeking to rehire key nuclear weapons workers. Setting the scene for the entire discussion, Musk described going to a dinner party before the election and how the reaction of other guests to him mentioning Trump’s name was “like they got shot with a dart in the jugular that contained, like, methamphetamine and rabies.” “You can’t have a normal conversation,” Musk added, saying that people become “completely irrational” when Trump is discussed.

Musk also sought to make it clear he stands with Trump and vice versa. “I think President Trump is a good man,” the tech entrepreneur said. Trump reciprocated, saying he “couldn’t find anyone smarter” than Musk to assist his administration. Musk, best known for his work with SpaceX, Tesla Motors, and other tech firms, publicly backed Trump after an attempt on his life at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024. But the tech titan’s support was apparently already in the cards. During the Feb. 18 joint interview, Musk said that he was “going to do it anyway.” The assassination attempt, which claimed the life of Corey Comperatore, simply accelerated Musk’s timeline. “I sped it up,” Musk said. The president said he “didn’t know that” about Musk’s endorsement. Musk went on to stump for the then-candidate. He also donated hundreds of millions to backing Trump.

Musk said his time with Trump deepened his appreciation of the president’s character—a point of contention for Trump’s critics, including some of the Republicans who contested him during the 2024 primary. “Not once have I seen him do something that was mean or cruel or wrong,” Musk said. The two men also talked about the publicity around their joint efforts, accusing the media of trying to fracture their relationship. As DOGE was taking shape after Election Day, some news outlets reported that Musk’s ascendance was elevating him to a quasi-presidential role, a line of argument advanced by some Democrats. Trump said Musk phoned him to say, “‘You know, they’re trying to drive us apart.’” “It’s just so obvious. They’re so bad at it. I used to think they were good at it. They’re actually bad at it, because if they were good at it, I’d never be president,” he added.

Musk also affirmed his commitment to advancing, and not usurping, the elected president. He pointed out that his T-shirt read, “Tech Support.” “I’m going to provide the president with technology support,” he said. “It’s a very important thing because the president will make these executive orders which are very sensible and good for the country, but then they don’t get implemented.” The interview also touched on potential conflicts of interest between Musk’s businesses and DOGE. Many of the entrepreneur’s firms have benefited from extensive government support, from subsidies for Tesla’s electric vehicles to Pentagon contracts with SpaceX. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a critic of DOGE and Musk, mentioned those possible conflicts in an interview with The Epoch Times earlier on Feb. 18, saying they “ought to deeply trouble progressives.”

Hannity asked Trump about how his administration would handle potential cuts to such areas. Trump said Musk would be kept away from them. Musk said he would steer clear of those minefields, too. “I’ll recuse myself,” he said. The wide-ranging interview repeatedly landed on the topic of DOGE’s employees, which include many engineers. The president said that Musk “attracts a young, very smart type of person—I call them high-IQ individuals.” “These guys are smart, and they love the country,” Trump added. Musk said DOGE’s software engineers “could be earning millions of dollars a year instead of earning a small fraction of that as federal employees.” Trump described the DOGErs as “very committed people.” One DOGE aide in the Treasury Department resigned after reporting revealed his history of controversial online posts. Vice President JD Vance and Trump supported his rehiring, after which Musk announced he would be reinstated.

The trio also discussed a plan to accelerate the rescue of NASA astronauts Sunita Williams and Butch Wilmore. Initially slated for an eight-day mission, the pair have been stuck on the International Space Station (ISS) since June due to mechanical issues with the Boeing Starliner spacecraft that would have taken them home. Trump, in January, said he asked SpaceX CEO Musk to expedite their return. NASA has since moved up a scheduled April return to March. Williams and Wilmore will come back to Earth after the SpaceX Crew-10 mission reaches the ISS. In the Feb. 18 broadcast, Trump said the two “got left in space,” blaming his predecessor, former President Joe Biden. Musk said the astronauts’ return “was postponed kind of to a ridiculous degree.” “We don’t want to be complacent, but we have brought astronauts back from the space station many times before, and always with success,” he said.

The pair also talked about just how much waste, fraud, and abuse they expect DOGE to identify. The president said DOGE was pinpointing “billions—and it will be hundreds of billions—of dollars worth of fraud.” He predicted Musk would identify $1 trillion in what Hannity called “waste, fraud, abuse, corruption,” adding that he believes that to be “a very small percentage” of that sort of suspect spending. Musk did not dispute the trillion-dollar figure. The technologist said that saving money for the American taxpayer “comes down to two things: competence and caring.” “It stands to reason that if you don’t have competence and you don’t have caring, you’re going to get a terrible deal,” he said. Trump said that government contracts are not whittled down by the kind of give-and-take common to private-sector negotiations. “Everybody expects to be cut,” he said.

Read more …

“It seems rather fitting that the test of whether Trump truly has presidential authority will come down to whether or not he can say, “You’re fired!”

The Supreme Court’s Golden Opportunity to Restore Trump’s Authority (O’Neil)

Is Donald Trump a president in name only? The very idea seems absurd, but federal judges have issued injunction after injunction after injunction, blocking the president’s ability to exercise executive authority—the very authority the Constitution clearly vests in him. Trump has appealed one of these injunctions to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to uphold his authority to fire bureaucrats who work in the executive branch. When Trump fired Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel, on Feb. 7, Dellinger responded by filing a lawsuit. After issuing an “administrative stay” on Feb. 10, a federal judge issued a two-week temporary restraining order on Feb. 12, blocking Trump from firing Dellinger. A panel of judges on the Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit upheld the restraining order.

Trump and key leaders in his administration appealed the case to the Supreme Court, allowing the justices an opportunity to vindicate the president—not only in this case but also as he faces a torrent of court orders blocking him from fulfilling his duties as president. As Sarah Harris, acting solicitor general, writes in the Supreme Court brief, “Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the president to retain an agency head whom the president believes should not be entrusted with executive power and to prevent the president from relying on his preferred replacement.” The Office of Special Counsel aims to protect whistleblowers within the federal government. Congress established the office as an “independent agency,” but Harris argues that its functions fall under the executive purview of the president.

Harris cites Trump v. U.S. (2024), in which the Supreme Court held that presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution for fulfilling their essential duties. “Investigative and prosecutorial decision-making is ‘the special province of the executive branch,’” the court ruled. The Office of Special Counsel describes itself as an “investigative and prosecutorial agency.” Harris also cites the court’s ruling that “Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the president’s actions on subjects within his ‘conclusive and preclusive’ constitutional authority”—including “the president’s ‘unrestricted power of removal’ with respect to ‘executive officers of the United States whom [the president] has appointed.’” She also cites two cases in which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional Congress’ attempts to insulate federal bureaucrats from the president’s ability to fire them: Selia Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021).

“Enjoining the president and preventing him from exercising these powers thus inflicts the gravest of injuries on the executive branch and the separation of powers,” she argues. Critics argue that if the president can fire anyone in the executive branch, that will create a “spoils system” in which the entire federal bureaucracy is replaced after every election, and newly elected presidents can bring in their cronies in a way that “politicizes” the administrative state. This will rid America of its “expert” and “scientific” bureaucratic class, bringing about some vague societal doom, to hear the critics say it. This is hogwash. The administrative state is inherently political, and beneath the bureaucratic veneer of scientific objectivity lies a set of worldview assumptions that usually align with the political Left.

As my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” reveals, left-wing pressure groups influenced the administrative state during the Biden administration, getting bureaucrats to write their preferred projects into the rules and regulations Americans must live by. President Trump is working overtime to excise woke ideology from the federal government for this very reason, and since the woke elites couldn’t stop him from winning the election, they’re trying to stop him in the courts. Unfortunately for this round of the Left’s lawfare campaign, the president’s authority over the executive branch is clearly established in the Constitution. The Supreme Court also ruled in Myers v. U.S. (1926) that presidents have the “unrestricted” power of “removing executive officers.” So, what do the federal judges give as an excuse for blocking Trump’s executive authority?

They often rely on the Supreme Court’s two exceptions to the president’s “general rule” of “unrestricted removal.” In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the court ruled that Congress can provide protection to “a multimember body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was said not to exercise any executive power.” This narrow exception to the president’s authority does not apply to Dellinger. The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress could protect “certain inferior officers with narrowly defined duties” in the cases Morrison v. Olson (1988) and United States v. Perkins (1886). This also does not apply to the case at hand. If the Supreme Court acts on this case, it wouldn’t just have ramifications for Dellinger. Lower court judges have issued restraining orders or injunctions blocking Trump’s orders and actions in at least 15 different cases, with more orders coming by the day.

For example, judges have ordered the administration to halt its freeze on federal spending, to restore deleted websites, to refrain from giving the Department of Government Efficiency access to federal records, and even to engage in a granular change—to reverse its move to slash to 15% the funding available for overhead expenses in National Institutes of Health research grants. The Supreme Court should take up the Dellinger case because it provides an opportunity to bring activist judges to heel. If the president cannot fire members of the executive branch who make rules under his authority, what can he do? If a president cannot fulfill his promises to the American people, what does that say about the impact of voters in an election? If a court can force a president to re-hire someone in the executive branch, is he truly the president at all? It seems rather fitting that the test of whether Trump truly has presidential authority will come down to whether or not he can say, “You’re fired!”

Read more …

Strong! Here’s the money back that the Dems took from you.

Trump, Musk To Discuss Sending US Taxpayers $5,000 Checks Using DOGE Savings (ZH)

Billionaire Elon Musk said on Feb. 18 that he will discuss with President Donald Trump a proposal to send U.S. taxpayers rebate checks representing a portion of the money saved by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk is spearheading the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the federal government and reduce wasteful spending. The DOGE leader took to his social media platform, X, to say he would check with Trump regarding the possibility of introducing a “DOGE Dividend.” The SpaceX and Tesla founder made the remarks in response to a suggestion from James Fishback, CEO of investment firm Azoria, that a “tax refund check” be sent out to Americans after DOGE completes its work in July 2026. The refund would be funded “exclusively with a portion of the total savings delivered by DOGE,” according to Fishback’s proposal.

As Katabella Roberts reports for The Epoch Times, DOGE aims to deliver $2 trillion in federal spending cuts during its 18-month lifespan. Fishback’s proposal calls for 20 percent of the $2 trillion in savings—approximately $400 billion—to be returned to 79 million tax-paying households via direct payments. That would amount to roughly $5,000 being returned to each of those 79 million households, according to Fishback. He said the rebate “compensates American taxpayers for the egregious misuse and abuse of their hard-earned tax dollars that DOGE has uncovered,” and encourages them to report “instances of waste, fraud, and abuse” to DOGE, thereby increasing the total amount that DOGE saves. In addition, Fishback said the rebate would help “restore public trust between taxpayers and their government” and increase “tax morale.”

It would also incentivize labor force participation, the investor said, noting that the rebate would be available only to net payers of federal income tax in 2025. Musk responded to Fishback’s proposal, saying he “will check with the president.” The entrepreneur also responded to another post on X regarding the potential tax refund, writing: “Obviously, the President is the Commander-in-Chief, so this is entirely up to him.” DOGE said its cost-cutting efforts across several federal agencies had saved an estimated $55 billion as of Feb. 17. The savings came from a combination of fraud detection and deletion, contract and lease cancellations and renegotiations, asset sales, grant cancellations, workforce reductions, programmatic changes, and regulatory savings that have been implemented across federal agencies, according to DOGE’s official website.

DOGE stated that contract cancellations alone accounted for approximately 20 percent of the overall savings amassed since the department was established by Trump in January. The top 10 agencies with the highest total contract savings include the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), responsible for administering U.S. foreign aid and development assistance; the Department of Education; the Office of Personnel Management; the Department of Health and Human Services; and the Department of Agriculture, according to the DOGE website. Many Republicans have long seen many of the agencies currently targeted by DOGE as pushing liberal agendas that are detrimental to U.S. interests. However, the agencies account for just a small fraction of the overall federal budget, which is projected to reach $7 trillion this fiscal year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

For example, USAID disbursed about $72 billion in aid in fiscal year 2023, Reuters reported, citing government figures. That amounted to about 1 percent of total federal outlays, according to the news agency. Musk is also facing criticism from Democrats and other groups over his role with DOGE and possible conflicts of interest. The White House has previously said that the Space X and Tesla founder is a “special government employee” under the Trump administration and acts as an adviser only. While speaking to reporters alongside Trump in the Oval Office on Feb. 11, Musk defended his position as an unelected official while vowing to remain transparent with the American public. “You can’t have an autonomous federal bureaucracy,” Musk said. “You have to have one that’s responsive to the people.”

Read more …

“We will be richer, safer, and happier.”

Can We Really Cut Half of The Military Budget? You Bet! (Ron Paul)

The wailing sound you heard last Thursday was the chorus of the Beltway warmongers shrieking in despair at President Trump’s suggestion that there was no reason for the United States to be spending one trillion dollars on “defense.” “…[O]ne of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia, and I want to say let’s cut our military budget in half. And we can do that, and I think we’ll be able to do that,” the President told reporters. With this statement, President Trump blew up one of the biggest myths of our time, particularly among Republicans, that spending more on the military is essential to keeping us safe. There is a vast and well-funded network of political and industrial interests that depend on maintaining that myth, from the weapons manufacturers to the mainstream media to the think tanks and beyond.

Why? Because most of what is called “defense spending” has little to do with defending this country and a lot to do with enriching the politically well-connected.Maintaining that global military empire has bankrupted the United States while making us less safe and less free. President Trump seems to understand this. But the military-industrial complex and its cheerleaders have for decades pushed the idea that we could not survive without continuously increasing their budgets. Thanks to the work of the “Department of Government Efficiency” we are learning that much of what has been sold as “essential spending” is nothing of the sort. Take USAID, for example. We were led to believe that this agency was feeding the poor while promoting the best kind of American values overseas.

Thanks to DOGE, we learned that the money was going to absurdities like funding transgender puppet shows in Peru. We are also learning that a great deal of USAID money was going to actually overthrow democratic governments overseas – as well as manipulate foreign media and promote censorship of “dissident” voices at home and abroad. Not only was USAID not helping countries overseas – it was actually harming them! Just as with USAID, when we are able to see just where that one trillion military budget is going Americans are going to fully realize that they have been lied to for decades. That is why we need a full audit of the Pentagon and full transparency of the results.

We also need a change in policy. Americans are beginning to understand the economic costs of maintaining a global military empire. US taxpayers are forced to cover more than half of the entire NATO budget while European countries rattle sabers at Russia and threaten war. If Europe feels so threatened by Russia, why don’t they cover the costs of their own defense? Why do poor Americans have to pay for the defense of rich Europeans? Haven’t we had enough of this? I very much hope that President Trump follows through with his plan to drastically reduce our bloated military budget. We can start by closing the hundreds of military bases overseas, bringing back our troops from foreign countries, and eliminating our massive commitments to NATO and other international organizations. We will be richer, safer, and happier.

Read more …

Sounds harsher than it maybe is: “..it is standard practice for US attorneys to resign after a new president takes office..”

Trump Orders DOJ To Terminate All Remaining ‘Biden Era’ US Attorneys (NYP)

President Trump on Tuesday announced that he instructed the Justice Department to terminate all US attorneys appointed under the Biden administration – claiming the federal agency has been “politicized like never before.” Trump, 78, who has repeatedly argued former President Joe Biden “weaponized” the DOJ to bring federal charges against him, said his latest slew of firings will restore confidence in the justice system. “Over the past four years, the Department of Justice has been politicized like never before,” the commander in chief wrote in a Truth Social post. “Therefore, I have instructed the termination of ALL remaining “Biden Era” U.S. Attorneys. We must “clean house” IMMEDIATELY, and restore confidence. America’s Golden Age must have a fair Justice System – THAT BEGINS TODAY!”

The announcement comes one week after the White House issued termination notices to multiple federal prosecutors appointed by the Biden Administration. While it is standard practice for US attorneys to resign after a new president takes office, current and former Justice Department lawyers noted it’s also customary for the incoming administration to request resignations instead of issuing hasty termination letters, Reuters reported. Just one month after Trump was sworn in as the 47th president, his administration fired dozens of federal prosecutors who were directly involved in the prosecution of more than 1,500 individuals who stormed the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. At least 15 career officials were reportedly reassigned at the agency, including one who pushed for the FBI raid of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, to roles with less influence on the department’s major decisions.

The Justice Department also axed a number of officials involved in former special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutions of Trump. Smith, 55, brought two criminal cases against Trump over his alleged efforts to subvert the 2020 election results and retain classified documents after his presidency. The classified documents case was dismissed by a federal judge in Florida last July, and the election interference case was dismissed by a Washington, DC, federal judge soon after Trump’s Election Day victory. Trump has long claimed that Smith’s efforts to prosecute him were a “witch hunt” and emblematic of the Biden administration’s “weaponization” of the Justice Department.

He pleaded not guilty to all charges brought against him by Smith, who resigned shortly before the president was sworn in. Trump has already tapped several new members to head the DOJ, including Judge Jason Reding, who the president nominated as the next US attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Nassau County Judge Joseph Nocella Jr. was chosen to lead the Eastern District of New York, in addition to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton as the US attorney for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. Trump also nominated Edward Martin, who oversaw the dismissal of all pending Jan. 6 rioter cases, to serve as the US attorney in Washington, DC.

Read more …

“Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left..”

Trump Brands Zelensky ‘Dictator Without Elections’ (RT)

US President Donald Trump has labeled Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky a “dictator without elections,” accusing him of mismanaging the conflict with Russia and misusing American financial aid. Tensions between Washington and Kiev have intensified following US-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia this week. Posting on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, Trump criticized Zelensky, stating that the Ukrainian leader had “talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won.” He further claimed that Zelensky “refuses to have Elections, is very low in Ukrainian Polls.” “A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left,” Trump warned.

Trump’s assertions follow high-level talks between US and Russian officials in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on Tuesday. The delegations discussed future Ukraine peace talks and a potential summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The discussions, which lasted 4.5 hours, did not include Ukrainian or other European representatives. The exclusion has drawn criticism from Kiev and its EU backers, with complaints that their interests are being sidelined in critical negotiations affecting regional security. In response to the US-Russia talks, Zelensky addressed the media, expressing surprise and concern over Kiev’s absence from the meeting. He emphasized the importance of Ukrainian participation in any peace negotiations, stating that decisions made without Ukraine could undermine the nation’s sovereignty and the prospects for a lasting peace.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1891971313624809484

Read more …

What irked him most is that Trump said he had a 4% approval rating. And he took the bait. Trump might as well have said that he was 4 feet tall, the reaction would have been the same.

Zelensky Accuses Trump Of Repeating ‘Russian Disinformation’ (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has rejected US President Donald Trump’s claim regarding his approval rating as Russian disinformation, saying that a majority of Ukrainians trust his leadership. During a press conference after a high-level meeting between American and Russian officials in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, Trump suggested that Zelensky’s approval rating in Ukraine is 4%. The Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KMIS) said on Wednesday, however, that in a survey in January, 57% of Ukrainians expressed trust in Zelensky, an increase from 54% the previous month. Zelensky referenced the Ukrainian pollster’s report as evidence against Trump’s skepticism about public support for him. He noted that Ukrainian officials “are aware of this disinformation and recognize that it is coming from Russia,” without providing specific sources. He stressed that “if anyone wants to replace me right now, it’s not going to happen.”

He also urged Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, who is currently visiting Kiev, to “speak to the people and ask them if they trust their president, whether they trust [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. Let him ask them about Trump” and his remarks. In his comments, Trump pointed to the absence of elections in Ukraine due to Zelensky’s declaration of martial law. “I hate to say it, but he’s down at 4% approval.” He characterized the situation in Ukraine as dire, saying it has been “blown to smithereens” and is nearly impossible to live in. Although Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year, he has not transferred authority to the parliament speaker, as mandated by the Ukrainian Constitution.

Zelensky has argued that holding an election under the current circumstances is both legally and technically infeasible, and that Ukrainians would oppose it amid the conflict with Russia. He also claimed that if an election were held, he would secure a second term. Recent opinion polls, however, suggest that he would lose to retired General Valery Zaluzhny in a runoff. Russian officials have expressed concern regarding Zelensky’s legitimacy, saying that any international treaties he signs could be challenged. Moscow has indicated a willingness to negotiate peace with Zelensky, yet remains skeptical of his ability to finalize any agreements.

Read more …

An American citizen.

Musk Blames Zelensky For Death Of Gonzalo Lira (RT)

Billionaire Elon Musk, a major ally of US President Donald Trump, has blamed Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky for the death of an American national who criticized his government. Chilean-American filmmaker and blogger Gonzalo Lira died in a Ukrainian jail in January 2024, while awaiting trial for “systematically justifying the Russian aggression.” “Zelensky killed an American journalist!” Musk wrote on his social media platform X on Wednesday. “Zelensky cannot claim to represent the will of the people of Ukraine unless he restores freedom of the press and stops canceling elections!” he added.

Lira, who moved to Ukraine in 2010, was covering the conflict with Russia on YouTube. The Security Service of Ukraine arrested him in 2023 after he jumped bail and attempted to seek asylum in Hungary. Lira claimed that he was tortured in custody. While his family accused Kiev of being complicit in his death, the Ukrainian authorities denied any wrongdoing. Lira’s father, Gonzalo Lira Sr., suggested in December 2023 that the Biden administration gave “at least tacit approval of Gonzalo’s arrest.” Musk attacked Zelensky in the middle of a public feud between the Ukrainian leader and Trump, which erupted when multiple Ukrainian and EU officials criticized the US president for launching direct negotiations with Russia without their approval.

Trump branded Zelensky a “dictator without elections” and claimed that he was deeply unpopular at home. Zelensky, for his part, suggested that the US president was trafficking in Russian “disinformation.” Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in May 2024, and no new elections were called due to martial law. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said repeatedly that he no longer considers Zelensky a legitimate leader. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed recently that Moscow wants the issue of Zelensky’s legitimacy to be addressed during future peace talks.

Read more …

“Does anyone want to act as an intermediary between Russia and the US? [..] Moscow and Washington do not require mediation…”

‘Good Prospects’ with US, ‘Hysterics’ in EU and Ukraine: Putin (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has shared his perspective on Tuesday’s high-level Russia-US talks held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Speaking to journalists in St. Petersburg on Wednesday, Putin described the discussions as “the first step” toward normalizing relations between Moscow and Washington, and expressed hope that the process will pave the way for cooperation in various areas, including arms control, space exploration, and energy. Putin also criticized the reaction from the EU and Kiev, calling it inappropriate and entirely unwarranted. He emphasized that the primary goal of the Riyadh meeting was to initiate the restoration of US-Russia relations, adding that the two countries do not need any “intermediaries” to resolve their differences.

Putin said he had been briefed on the talks in Riyadh and assessed them positively. He identified several areas of potential mutual interest for Moscow and Washington, including cooperation in the Middle East – particularly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the situation in Syria – as well as economic collaboration, joint efforts in international energy markets, and space exploration. He also acknowledged that the ongoing conflict in Ukraine remains a key focus for both nations. The primary goal of Tuesday’s meeting was to “restore US-Russian relations,” Putin stated, when asked to comment on why the absence of Ukrainian and European delegations in Riyadh had sparked “panic” in Kiev and Brussels. “Does anyone want to act as an intermediary between Russia and the US? Such demands are excessive,” the president said, emphasizing that Moscow and Washington do not require mediation.

He stressed that rebuilding trust between Russia and the US is essential for addressing “a number of pressing issues, including resolving the Ukraine conflict.” “There is no reason for such a reaction to the US-Russia meeting,” Putin added, stating that “hysteria is inappropriate” in this situation. “Russia has never refused contact with EU nations or withdrawn from negotiations with Ukraine,” Putin stated. He recalled that it was Kiev that pulled out of the Istanbul talks in the spring of 2022 and later banned its officials from engaging in any dialogue with Moscow. The Russian president reiterated that Moscow is ready to return to the peace process at any time, but the decision ultimately lies with Kiev and Brussels. “I’ve said this 100 times: if they are willing, they are free to engage in such talks. We are ready to return to the negotiating table,” he emphasized.

Putin also noted that Kiev is not being excluded from any potential peace talks, adding that both Washington and Moscow expect Ukraine to join the process at some point. Putin said he would be “glad” to meet with US President Donald Trump, recalling their past working relationship, where they were able to discuss bilateral relations and key issues in a calm and professional manner. However, the Russian leader stressed that a simple “coffee hour” would not be enough to mend US-Russia relations under the current circumstances. He emphasized that both sides must thoroughly prepare for the meeting and work toward “mutually acceptable solutions” to the most pressing issues on their agendas. While Putin did not specify a potential date for the talks, he reiterated Russia’s willingness to hold such a meeting. “We are still open to such discussions, and I want this to happen,” he stated.

Putin
https://twitter.com/i/status/1892218938236215650

Read more …

Well, they try to.

US and Russia Move Closer – But Ukraine And The EU Stand In The Way (Ryumshin)

On Tuesday, Riyadh hosted the first high-level meeting between Russian and American officials in several years. The meeting was the latest in a rapid series of diplomatic maneuvers set off by Donald Trump’s phone call to Vladimir Putin. It followed US Vice President J.D. Vance’s lashing of Western European leaders in Munich and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s economic ultimatum to Ukraine. With so much anticipation surrounding Riyadh, expectations were understandably high – perhaps too high. Some observers may be disappointed that Marco Rubio and Sergey Lavrov did not emerge from the talks to announce historic breakthroughs. Instead, both were notably cautious in their statements.

When asked about a potential Trump-Putin summit, Lavrov simply responded, “Not next week.” Meanwhile, Western media has already speculated that such a meeting will take place before the end of February. Does this mean the meeting in Riyadh was a failure? Not at all. Success was never meant to be measured by immediate results. Even before the talks began, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov made it clear: the goal in Riyadh was to “agree on how to start negotiations.” By that standard, the summit achieved its purpose. The most tangible outcomes of the meeting include:
• Restoration of diplomatic channels: Russia and the US agreed to begin the process of fully resuming embassy operations.
• Creation of a consultation mechanism: A structured dialogue to resolve bilateral “irritants” in the relationship.
• Initiation of Ukraine negotiation teams: Although talks on Ukraine did not advance significantly, the groundwork was laid for future discussions.
These are foundational steps. Without them, further dialogue would be impossible.

Perhaps even more significant than these tangible outcomes was the overall tone of the talks. For the first time in years, Russian and American officials sat across from each other not as ideological caricatures but as pragmatic dealmakers. The shift in atmosphere was so stark that Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, reportedly said he “could not have imagined a better outcome.” That sentiment alone suggests real momentum for future negotiations. However, despite the positive tone, the Riyadh talks did not bring an end to the Ukraine conflict any closer. This was to be expected. Moscow and Washington went into the meeting focused on improving their own relations first. The issue of Ukraine, for now, remains secondary. Despite Trump’s rapid reshaping of the diplomatic landscape, the road to peace remains difficult.

For the past three years, the Western strategy was clear: negotiate an internal peace deal between Ukraine and its allies, then attempt to pressure Russia into accepting it. Trump has flipped this entirely – choosing instead to negotiate directly with Moscow while sidelining both Kiev and Brussels. Thus, what was once a strategy of “negotiating Ukraine with everyone but Russia” has now become “negotiating Ukraine with Russia but without the EU.” This shift suits both Trump and Putin. But it leaves two key players – Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and the EU leadership – furious. Zelensky has already rejected the legitimacy of any US-Russia agreements that exclude Kiev. Meanwhile, Western European officials are increasingly viewing Washington as a rival rather than an ally. This is a significant development. Even if Moscow and Washington reach an understanding, Ukraine, under EU and British influence, could refuse to comply and continue fighting.

Despite dwindling American aid, the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) likely have enough resources to keep fighting for another six months. Beyond that, their ability to sustain the war depends on whether the EU and Britain can revive their military-industrial production – something that seems highly unlikely. Eventually, Western Europe will have no choice but to accept whatever settlement is reached. The assumption that peace will be brokered quickly hinges on one major factor: a personal meeting between Trump and Putin next month, where the framework for a ceasefire could be finalized. However, that remains a best-case scenario. For now, the biggest sticking point is how to structure the ceasefire. The US wants an immediate halt to hostilities, followed by elections in Ukraine. Given Russia’s military momentum, such an arrangement is unacceptable. There is no guarantee that Ukraine would not exploit the pause to regroup and continue fighting.

How Moscow and Washington will navigate this issue remains to be seen. But it is clear that the first steps toward peace have been taken – however long the road ahead may be. While optimism is warranted, patience will be necessary. The shift in US policy under Trump has changed the entire diplomatic equation, but reality is setting in: peace cannot be imposed overnight. Instead, it will be a long, step-by-step process. The first move has been made. Now, we wait to see what follows.

Read more …

What can Europe do for the US? Very little. It’s all one way.

Riyadh Meeting May Be ‘Beginning of the End of NATO’ (Sp.)

Russian and US officials held high-level talks in the Saudi capital Tuesday, outlining each side’s position on bringing about a resolution to the conflict in Ukraine as the greatest security crisis in Europe since WWII nears its third anniversary. Sputnik reached out to a leading independent US international affairs observer for comment. “The approach that the Europeans want and Ukrainians want” for ending the Ukrainian proxy conflict through victory on the battlefield against Russia has “just proven not to work, and they don’t seem to be capable of defending themselves,” Michael Maloof says, noting that the meeting in Riyadh signals a tectonic shift in global geopolitics.

“I envision that this is going to be the beginning of the end of NATO, that this is going to mean that ultimately you’re going to see Europe maybe go into a series of defense alliances, regional alliances, rather than one cohesive entity of 32 countries,” the former DoD senior security policy analyst noted. “32 countries will never be able to arrive at a unanimous decision on anything, given the realities on the ground today. And we see that now. There is no cohesiveness in NATO nor in the EU,” the observer explained.

Tuesday’s meeting signals US recognition of several key facts, Maloof says:
• that Russia and the US, not Europe, much less the Zelensky regime, are the “strategic partners” critical to ending the Ukraine conflict.
• that the US “has basically decided” to try and “reestablish what are basically spheres of influence” rather than to continue to pursue global unipolarity.
• the US is no longer willing “to continuously back up Europe’s wars all the time…You see this as a result of Trump looking more into the Western Hemispheric region, focusing more on Greenland, Panama, Canada, as opposed to Europe.”
• Trump appears committed in principle to fixing a “broken” relationship with Moscow, and treating Russia as “strategic equals, not talking down to them as the Biden administration did.”

Trump, “a major economics guy,” also recognizes that the US cannot wage conflicts worldwide, and would rather resolve differences with adversaries “through economic competition and cooperation,” according to the observer.
Europe has already “cut off their nose to spite their face,” and simply doesn’t “have the ability” to continue the Ukraine proxy war even if it wanted to, Maloof says. “They cut off cheap gas and oil for their own industries, quality of living and production capabilities. They did this to themselves. The population of these countries is saying what have you done? And you see a distinction between what the elites and leadership want as opposed to the people themselves,” the observer emphasized.

Read more …

“..Marco Rubio also acknowledged that the West would need to address the sanctions imposed on Russia in order to reach a lasting solution..”

This as Europe talks about more sanctions.

Russia and US Will Have To ‘Clean Up’ After Biden – Lavrov (RT)

Moscow and Washington need to “clean up the legacy” left by the former US President Joe Biden’s administration that ruined the ties between the two states, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Speaking at the Russian State Duma on Wednesday, having returned from talks with US diplomats in the Saudi capital on Tuesday, Lavrov described the meeting in Riyadh as a first step toward rebuilding relations between the countries. The bilateral negotiations were led by Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and aimed to lay the groundwork for ending the Ukraine conflict and normalizing ties between Russia and the US. “We have started to move away from the brink of the abyss to which the Biden administration had led us, but these are only the first steps,” Lavrov told lawmakers, commenting on the talks.

“For now, we need to ‘clean up’ the legacy of the Biden administration, which did everything to destroy… the foundation of a long-term partnership between our countries,” he added. According to the diplomat, “the movement towards normalizing relations in all areas is beginning.” “There is, at least, a declared readiness to start on this course. And to resolve not only the Ukraine crisis, but to create conditions for the restoration and expansion of partnership in trade, economic and geopolitical spheres,” Lavrov stated. He noted that Washington’s representatives expressed marked interest in removing “artificially created” obstacles to potential joint initiatives with Russia in many areas, including economic and foreign policy. Among other things, the sides agreed to restore embassy staffing and form high-level teams to begin work on the potential Ukraine peace settlement.

“We welcome this,” Lavrov said, noting that the countries could eventually return to the state of cooperation they had prior to the Ukraine conflict and the West’s sanctions war on Russia. “There will always be problems, but the main thing is to meet, listen and hear one another, make decisions that will be realistic with regard to the partners they concern,” he stated. Tuesday’s negotiations have been described as “truly monumental” in Washington. Following the talks, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also acknowledged that the West would need to address the sanctions imposed on Russia in order to reach a lasting solution to the conflict and to restore relations. Later on Tuesday, US President Donald Trump told journalists he felt “much more confident” about the prospects of a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine amid the budding rapprochement with Moscow.

Read more …

They will bankrupt the EU. It has no future in its present shape.

EU’s Military-Industrial Complex Wants to Prolong Lucrative Ukraine Crisis (Sp.)

Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger’s comments to media about Europe and Ukraine’s empty arms depots and complaining about Europe being ‘left at the kids’ table’ in peace talks represent those of Europe’s defense sector as a whole, says veteran political observer Mateusz Piskorski. “This is the alarmist statement of a representative of the European military-industrial complex, made in an attempt to convince the European leadership to increase spending on defense contracts,” Piskorski, a columnist for the popular alternative Polish newspaper Mysl Polska, explained. Papperger’s remarks also represent a broader “trend” of ideas being thrown around across Europe today on the need to increase defense spending amid shrinking US commitments, the observer believes.

In that sense, now is the perfect moment for the European MIC to try to “use current international events, changes in the geopolitical situation, for its own interests. It’s worth noting that at the moment that the Rheinmetall chief made his statements, the stock price of defense companies on European stock exchanges rose quite sharply, with Rheinmetall’s up 11%,” Piskorski said. “It’s difficult to say how this will all end, because when analyzing these processes, we must also take into account the potential and significance of the US MIC, which also has lobbyists in Europe, particularly in Eastern and Central Europe.” “So now, of course, with all these increases in defense spending, there will be rather tough competition, a struggle even, between different lobbying groups,” including within the EU, Piskorski summed up.

Speaking to the Financial Times Tuesday, Papperger stated that “the Europeans and the Ukrainians have nothing in their depots,” and claimed that “even if the war stops – if we think that we [will] have a very peaceful future…that’s wrong.” The Rheinmetall chief expects Germany’s next government to relax its strict budget debt rules to allow for a massive ramping up of defense spending, and is counting on his company earning between €30-40 billion ($31.3-$41.7 billion US) a year within the next five years, up from €5.7 billion ($5.9 billlion) in 2021. Bloomberg reported last week that a European defense buildup and commitment to “rebuild” Ukraine’s military would cost the region some $3.1 trillion over ten years.

Read more …

“The Russians are not coming. Indeed, it’s the other way around. As in that 1970s Hollywood horror movie where “the call comes from inside the house,” the sum of all fears for NATO-EU Europe is now emanating from Washington. How ironic.”

The US Is Giving Its European Vassals What They’ve Been Asking For (Amar)

It’s the “end of an era” and Germany is “in disarray.” And not just Germany: “Pandemonium” rages in Europe; the continent is under “assault.” Its elites are “shaken, anxious, and sometimes aghast,” as an “ideological war” has been declared against their fiefdom, which is being “left in the dust.” A big “boom” has sounded, and a “ferocious reckoning” is underway. In short, it’s a “European nightmare.” The above are quotes from (in order of appearance), the Financial Times, The Telegraph, and The Economist (all three from Britain), Le Monde (France), Bloomberg (US), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Bild (both Germany), and, finally, the (German) head of the Munich Security Conference Christoph Heusgen himself. Later, Heusgen, a beyond-middle-aged man and experienced bureaucrat, just cried, literally. For which he was applauded.

What happened? Have “the Russians” finally done what whole divisions of NATO-EU politicians, generals, admirals, think tankers, media talking heads and careerist intellectuals have been feverishly promising for years already? Are their tanks rolling down the Kudamm in Berlin and the Champs Elysees in Paris already? Not that Moscow has given any sound reason to believe it wants to do such things (who’d want to conquer a heap of economic misery, demographic malaise, and cultural pessimism, really?) But that has never mattered to European “elite” fantasies. No, it’s not that: The Russians are not coming. Indeed, it’s the other way around. As in that 1970s Hollywood horror movie where “the call comes from inside the house,” the sum of all fears for NATO-EU Europe is now emanating from Washington. How ironic.

For it’s not Russia but the all-new Trumpist US that is panicking its own subjects: The Americans are leaving. Or, at least, they have made it brutally clear that they are tired of babying their EU vassals, who need to get ready to stand on their own feet. What an idea! A bloc of roughly 450 million inhabitants and in possession of modern (if steadily declining) industries – defend itself? What’s next? Asking healthy adults to walk, breathe, and eat on their own? The timing, at least, of that overdue dose of tough love from Washington is not entirely fair, to be sure: The US, after all, has profited from its European colonies as well; and especially recently Washington’s policies have mightily deindustrialized, subverted, and generally crippled NATO-EU Europe. Very much with the help of the proxy war and puppet regime in Ukraine, the American empire has begun to devour its most loyal, submissive, self-abasing subjects – and now it’s asking the sorry remnants to stop being so clingy. It’s harsh, no doubt.

Yet geopolitics is not about fairness but power. And the comprador “elites” of NATO-EU Europe have only themselves to blame for letting the US treat their countries like dirt. Now things are escalating quickly: A genuine reset, maybe even a new détente between Russia and the US is a real possibility. That’s a very good, sensible thing for the world. But for the Euro-vassals, even this propitious turn of events comes with a very bitter taste: Washington has told them that they need not be in the room when serious powers talk. And Washington is right.

Being first systematically abused, fleeced, and then dropped – as in that very, very bad relationship every good friend would tell you to get the hell out of – would be awful enough. Yet things are even worse for a Europe that has made itself kickable as perhaps never before. Because Washington is not simply threatening to abandon it. The vassals should be so lucky! No, what Washington is really suggesting is a whole new and very raw deal: You, vassals, stay under our command and influence. In fact, we want even more of that. And in return we, your overlords, owe you nothing. Call it Mafia 2.0: all the extortion, none of the “protection.”

That was one but not the only message of the already famous speech that US Vice President J.D. Vance delivered at the Munich Security Conference. The speech, not long but packing a punch and well worth listening to in full, touched on various issues, including a terrorist attack in Munich that coincided with the conference, the authoritarian suppression of dissent with abortion in Britain, the recent canceling of elections in Romania, the upcoming vote in Germany, and, of course, migration. The silly hysteria around allegations of Russian meddling in Western politics and Greta Thunberg and Elon Musk also got a mention.

What kept these topics together was one simple but important idea: Vance reminded his listeners that genuine security – it was a security conference after all – is not only a matter of defense against outside threats but also requires domestic stability and consent inside countries. That, in turn, he argued, means that the NATO-EU vassals are running their fiefdoms all wrong. Vance admonished his listeners that they marginalize and suppress opinions and political choices which genuine democracies should, instead, accommodate.

Read more …

It is far from over.

DOGE Poised To Strike Defense Department With Mass Layoffs (ZH)

After firing thousands of “probationary employees” at various federal departments, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has arrived at the largest of them all — the Department of Defense — and is expected to unleash a mass termination as early as this week. On Tuesday, DOGE staffers were reportedly at the Pentagon and being given lists of probationary employees in compliance with an end-of-business-day deadline. That term generally applies to any federal employee who’s in the first one or two years of their current position, regardless of whether they’ve held other roles before taking their current one. During the probationary period, employees generally can be fired without any privilege of appeal.

Though it’s not clear how many DOD employees are probationary, the Pentagon has about 950,000 civilian employees in all. Along with the lists of probationary employees, officials were also asked to identify any employees they wanted to spare, and provide a justification. However, according to the Washington Post’s sources, few exceptions are expected to be made. The mass termination may happen by the end of this week. Uniformed service members are exempt. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has embraced the coming cuts. “There are waste, redundancies and headcounts in headquarters that need to be addressed,” he said last week. “There’s just no doubt.”

Given the sheer scale of the DOD, and the enormous variety of roles, DOGE may take a little extra time to parse the layoff candidates. Last week, the DOGE probationary-employee axe accidentally hit hundreds of Department of Energy employees who work with nuclear warheads. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) raced to reverse the terminations. One sensitive function of the DOD is its enormous hospital and health care system. Suddenly terminating doctors, nurses and therapists would obviously be catastrophic. However, when firing probationary employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs — which runs its own vast medical system — DOGE tread very lightly: Only 1,000 of more than 43,000 probationary VA employees were cut.

Last week, President Trump said he’d like to pursue a summit with Chinese President Xii and Russian President Vladimir Putin, with a goal of agreeing to slash each country’s military budget in half. “We’re spending the money against each other, and we could spend that money for better purpose if we get along,” he said. “And I’ll tell you, I think that something like that will happen.” According to the New York Times, here are the approximate numbers of probationary employees already let go at several other federal departments:
Agriculture: 4,200
Interior: 2,300
Health and Human Services: 1,900
Energy: 1,000

The DOGE campaign against federal waste got a shot in the arm on Monday, when Obama-appointed US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan denied an emergency filing to block DOGE’s access to federal records and government layoffs – saying in a 10-page decision that the 14 states who brought the lawsuit have failed to meet the burden of proof to prove “imminent, irreparable harm.

Read more …

“..plaintiffs “have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency.”

Raskin Takes Premature Victory Lap Just Before a Slew of Court Losses (Turley)

On CBS’s Face the Nation, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) repeated the talking point of Democratic politicians and pundits that the courts are stopping President Donald Trump’s lawless actions taken after his inauguration. Raskin declared “we’re winning in court…we’re winning across the board.” The boast was dubious at best on Sunday given earlier losses, but became embarrassing on Monday and Tuesday as additional courts ruled in favor of the Trump Administration in major cases. For weeks, some of us have expressed confusion over the basis for some of the Democratic challenges and initial injunctions in court. President Trump clearly has the authority to designate federal officials to look at the books and track expenditures in the executive branch. After losing both houses and the majority vote, Democratic groups sought to use the courts to block such executive actions.

There was obvious forum shopping as these groups went to many of the same courts and judges for relief. However, even judges viewed as decidedly hostile to Trump like Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington ultimately balked at the demand for an injunction and allowed the access and actions to continue. On Monday, Judge Randolph Moss, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia delivered a blow to groups seeking to block the Department of Government Efficiency from gaining access to data from the Department of Education on student borrowers. Judge Moss found in his ruling that the University of California Student Association failed to show sufficient irreparable harm to receive such immediate relief. He, however, left the door open a crack: “The Court leaves for another day consideration of whether USCA’s has standing to sue and has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Those questions are less clear cut and are better answered on a more complete record.”

Judge Chutkan also refused to grant the plaintiffs’ request to issue a temporary restraining order of Doge, again citing the failure to demonstrate evidence of “irreparable harm.” There was a palpable sense of reluctance, even regret, in the opinion by Chutkan who noted that “Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight.” This, of course ignores the “elected individual” in the body of the President who is allowed to delegate such responsibility to subordinates. Chutkin would have been reversed by the higher courts if she had issued the requested TRO as demanded by the coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general.

Even before Raskin’s boost, U.S. District Judge John Bates also rejected a request to block DOGE from accessing records of three government agencies, writing in his own opinion Friday that plaintiffs “have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency.” Likewise, challengers thought that they had a victory in hand when U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole enjoined the buyout offer by the Administration. Some of us criticized the injunction as lacking any cognizable basis given the clear authority of the President to make such an offer. Then, as many were citing the victory as proof of the Trump Administration’s unlawful actions, Judge O’Toole lifted the injunction on the buyout program, agreeing to allow the buyouts to go forward.

Then Judge Randolph Moss (D.D.C.) in Doe v. Office of Personnel Mgmt. rejected another challenge to testing by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) of a new email system. The federal employees argued that the move violated federal law including privacy protections. The court, however, ruled that the “Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating (1) that they likely have standing to bring this action, and (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of emergency relief.” These and other setbacks do not mean that new cases cannot be brought with new records and parties. However, it is a far cry from the claim of Democrats “winning across the board.”

Read more …

“..Fauci is going to be lawyered up to the hilt and any prosecution by a state AG of a federal bureaucrat of his standing would be unprecedented.”

19 State Attorneys General Signal Intent to Prosecute Fauci (PJM)

The venal little worm who posed as America’s Doctor over the past five years may have gotten an unprecedented pardon spanning a decade of potential criminality by the Biden regime on its way out. Still, he can’t slip the proverbial noose at the state level quite so easily. In perhaps a case of state law trumping federal law, nineteen state attorneys general recently penned a letter to the GOP leadership in Congress requesting cooperation in gathering evidence that might lead to a successful Fauci prosecution at that level of government, despite Biden’s generous federal pardon: A pardon by former President Biden does not extend to preclude state-level investigations or legal proceedings. As state Attorneys General, we possess the authority to address violations of state law or breaches of public trust. We are fully committed to investigating any malfeasance that may have occurred to the fullest extent of our authority and are prepared to collaborate with you in further efforts.

Via Outkick: Alan Wilson, the state Attorney General of South Carolina, along with 18 other AG’s, sent a letter to Congressional leadership laying out their intentions to hold Fauci to account at a state level, despite Biden’s protection. “We, the undersigned Attorneys General, write to commend your work to promote transparency and accountability in studying the response to the COVID-19 Pandemic,” the letter starts. “As part of your continued efforts in holding malign actors accountable for their actions arising out of the Pandemic, if you believe that further findings or direct evidence that suggests there may have been any violation of state laws, please include us in any actions taken so that we may evaluate state-level courses of action. Although former President Biden attempted to shield potential bad actors—like Dr. Anthony Fauci—from accountability via preemptive pardons, we are confident that state laws may provide a means to hold all actors accountable for their misconduct.”

Several avenues for potential criminal state-level prosecutions present themselves. The first, and perhaps easiest, indictments may be for violations of state-level speech protections in the vein of the federal First Amendment, as Fauci was integral to the censorship regime surrounding COVID-19 origins and “vaccine” safety and efficacy. Then there’s Fauci’s direct involvement in bankrolling the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in the first place through the “nonprofit” EcoHealth Alliance, effectively a conspiracy to concoct a bioweapon, which all states have laws on the books prohibiting. Of course, Fauci is going to be lawyered up to the hilt and any prosecution by a state AG of a federal bureaucrat of his standing would be unprecedented. But, at the very least, it would put future bad actors on notice that they’ll be hounded to the ends of the earth if they ever dare repeat the Public Health™ crimes of the past five years.

Read more …

“Alwaleed responded: “I think the value is more than double the $44 billion valuation.”

Back To Par: Musk’s X Eyes Fresh Funding Round At $44 Billion (ZH)

X’s financial outlook appears to be steadily improving as recent high-yield fund managers’ interest in the company’s debt soared. Adding to the momentum, Elon Musk announced earlier this month that the advertiser boycott has unraveled—a major development that could significantly boost the company’s revenue in the coming quarters. Now, Bloomberg reports that X is preparing to raise money from investors at a $44 billion valuation—the same as when Musk acquired the company in 2022. This would mark X’s first investment round since Musk took it private that year. Neither X nor Musk has confirmed the report’s legitimacy. The investment round would mark a significant turnaround for X, which has been battered by collapsing ad revenue after NGOs and corporate media waged war on the ‘free speech’ platform. X’s recovery represents the emergence of new media that will dominate the conversation through President Trump’s second term, hence why investor demand is returning.

Bloomberg noted that late last year, Fidelity Investments marked down its X stake by more than 70% from the 2022 sale price. However, in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a major X investor, stated: “We never devalued it [X]. Some entities did devalue it by 30, 40, even 50%. But now, after the election, with President Trump and the strong alliance between Musk and Trump, we’ve seen the market revalue X dramatically—at least to its par value of $44 billion.” Carlson asked the Saudi investor: “What do you think X’s actual value?” Alwaleed responded: “I think the value is more than double the $44 billion valuation.”

Meanwhile, xAI is reportedly raising $10 billion in a new funding round, which would value the startup at around $75 billion. On Monday evening, XAI released the Grok 3 chatbot, which Musk views as the “smartest AI on Earth.” In fact, the chatbot might be… The xAI team revealed that Grok3 outperformed Alphabet’s Google Gemini, DeepSeek’s V3 model, Anthropic’s Claude, and OpenAI’s GPT-4o across math, science, and coding benchmarks. Readers should listen to Carlson and Alwaleed’s conversation. The X video should be started around the 11:30-minute mark to understand why Alwaleed sees X’s value more than doubled from par value.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Father and son

 

 

Age
https://twitter.com/i/status/1892185701501862296

 

 

Dog train

 

 

Thank you
https://twitter.com/i/status/1891954344829866164

 

 

Duck dog

 

 

Cats
https://twitter.com/i/status/1892194792689266815

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Sep 062024
 
 September 6, 2024  Posted by at 8:16 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  68 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Two naked figures 1908

 

Putin Quips That He Prefers Harris To Trump (ZH)
Trump Reacts To Putin Rooting For Harris (RT)
Trump Pulling Ahead Of Harris – Nate Silver (RT)
ABC Debate: ‘I’m Gonna Let Her Talk’ – Trump (ET)
Trump Will Adopt Elon Musk’s Proposal For Gov’t Efficiency Commission (ZH)
Ukrainian Army Facing Collapse – Putin (RT)
Prosecutors Urge Hunter Biden Judge To Reject Plea Deal (ZH)
Scott Ritter Says Ending Cooperation With RT, Sputnik Due to US Sanctions (Sp.)
‘A Unique Kind of Fascism’: US Continues Clampdown on Alt Media (Miles)
DoJ Clampdown on Russian Media Proving US Empire Has No Clothes (Sp.)
Whistleblowers Reveal US Secret Service Blunders (Sp.)
Pavel Durov Warns French Crackdown Will Prompt Serious Tech Setbacks (Sp.)
Macron Pushes Through PM Pick After 60 Days (Manley)
Germany Reeling in the Wake of AfD Election Victories (SCF)

 

 

 

 

Trump lead CNN

 

 

RT

 

 

Kamala CNN
https://twitter.com/i/status/1831694357855965273

 

 

Tulsi
https://twitter.com/i/status/1831414258451775980

 

 

Benny

 

 

Liz Cheney Kamala
https://twitter.com/i/status/1831461002115981776

 

 

Tucker

 

 

9 times cheaper
https://twitter.com/i/status/1831249005189198011

 

 

Chris M Butler
https://twitter.com/i/status/1831722765335806020

 

 

Rogan
https://twitter.com/i/status/1831396827893026873

 

 

 

 

“Putin said Harris “laughs so contagiously and expressively, it shows she’s doing well.”

Putin Quips That He Prefers Harris To Trump (ZH)

Russian President Vladimir Putin said during an interview at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok that Russia now wants Vice President Kamala Harris to win in November since they had previously supported Joe Biden – and Biden has endorsed Harris. “I told you, our favorite, if I may say so, was the current president, Mr. Biden,” said Putin, smirking. “He was removed from the race, but he advised all his supporters to support Ms. Harris. So we will do it as well, we will root for her,” he continued. Putin said Harris “laughs so contagiously and expressively, it shows she’s doing well.” “And if she is doing well, then … Trump introduced so many restrictions and sanctions against Russia, like no other president had ever introduced before him. And if Ms. Harris is doing well, perhaps she will refrain from doing anything like that,” he continued.

As modernity.news continues, Putin’s comments are likely to be dismissed as a joke by the Harris campaign, while Trump will probably use them to deflect long-standing claims by Democrats that his campaign is supported by Russia. According to Sky News’ Moscow correspondent Ivor Bennett, “Vladimir Putin is having a little chuckle himself here. His comments are almost certainly more mischief-making than a statement of fact because, as we know, Russia’s president doesn’t always say what he thinks.” As we highlighted earlier this week, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was asked by pro-Russia TV reporter Pavel Zarubin, “Then who is our candidate now?” “We have no candidate. But, of course, the Democrats are more predictable. And what Putin said about Biden’s predictability applies to almost all Democrats, including Ms. Harris,” responded Peskov. The Kremlin spokesman was also dismissive towards Trump’s claim that he could end the war with Ukraine within 24 hours.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1831723835101499393

Read more …

” I don’t know exactly what to say about it. I don’t know if I’m insulted or he did me a favor..”

Trump Reacts To Putin Rooting For Harris (RT)

US Republican candidate Donald Trump said on Thursday that he doesn’t know how to feel about Russian President Vladimir Putin stating that he preferred his Democratic rival, Vice President Kamala Harris. The Russian leader said earlier in the day at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok that Moscow would rather see Harris win the US presidential election in November. Putin told the audience that he admired the Democratic Party candidate’s “infectious laugh” and that he respected current President Joe Biden’s choice to endorse her as his successor. “He [Putin] endorsed Kamala, and I didn’t know if I was supposed to call him up and say, ‘Thank you very much’ … I don’t know exactly what to say about it. I don’t know if I’m insulted or he did me a favor,” Trump claimed during an event at the Economic Club of New York. US National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby reacted by stating that the Russian president should refrain from discussing the US presidential election.

Putin’s remarks came in response to a question at the forum on whether he had a preferred candidate in the US election now that Joe Biden, for whom he previously expressed a preference, has dropped out. Putin replied by saying that it was not Russia’s job to choose a “favorite” in the election, which is up to American voters. Moscow has repeatedly dismissed Washington’s allegations about attempts to interfere in the US elections. Speaking about Harris, the Russian president suggested that her positive disposition could mean she would refrain from imposing as many sanctions on Russia as Trump did, who Putin said had introduced more restrictions on Moscow than any other president in American history at the time. “In the end, the choice is up to the American people, and we will treat their eventual decision with respect,” Putin said.

Read more …

“..Trump now stands a 58.2% chance of winning the election, compared to Harris’ 41.6%..”

Trump Pulling Ahead Of Harris – Nate Silver (RT)

Influential American election analyst Nate Silver has put Republican candidate Donald Trump’s chances of defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in this November’s election higher than at any point since Harris announced her candidacy in July. Despite polling consistently showing Harris with a slight lead over Trump, Silver claimed on Wednesday that the Democrat has underperformed in recent surveys, and that Trump now stands a 58.2% chance of winning the election, compared to Harris’ 41.6%. This time last week, Silver’s model gave Trump a 52.4% chance of winning, and put Harris’ chances at 47.3%. Silver’s predictions are regularly cited by American media outlets, and are considered among the more influential election forecasts in the country. His methodology samples polling, economic data, likely turnout, and other factors – including the post-convention “bounce” that typically boosts a candidate for several weeks after the official nomination.

Democrats confirmed Harris as their party’s nominee at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago three weeks ago. However, Harris didn’t receive the “bounce” that most candidates normally do, Silver explained. CNN polls conducted after the convention showed Harris and Trump tied in three out of six battleground states and leading by around five points in three more, while a YouGov survey showed the Democrat leading by two points nationwide. With these polls taken so soon after the convention, Harris should have held a wider lead, Silver argued. Silver’s predictions are contradicted by other pollsters. FiveThirtyEight, an analytics organization founded by Silver, maintains that if the election were held today, Harris stands a 55% chance of winning, with Trump’s likelihood of victory standing at 44%. While FiveThirtyEight and Silver use the same methodology, FiveThirtyEight places more emphasis on polling as election day draws closer.

Individual polls can be misleading, however. A New York Times poll last month showed Harris beating Trump by 50% to 46% in the swing states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. However, the poll oversampled Democrats, and when adjusted showed Harris and Trump in a statistical dead heat in all three states. For both Harris and Trump, winning either Pennsylvania and its 19 electoral votes, or Michigan and Wisconsin’s combined 25 votes, will be essential to winning the election. Silver’s model shows Trump winning in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and North Carolina, with the two candidates tied in Michigan and Harris with a slight lead in Wisconsin. “Needless to say, stranger things have happened than a candidate who was behind in the polls winning,” Silver cautioned. “And in America’s polarized political climate, most elections are close and a candidate is rarely out of the running.”

Read more …

“Everybody has a plan until they get ‘punched in the face..”

ABC Debate: ‘I’m Gonna Let Her Talk’ – Trump (ET)

After Hannity asked what the former president was doing to get ready for next week’s debate with Harris, Trump replied: “I think I’ve been practicing all my life for this stuff. It’ll be an interesting evening.” The former president said debates are unpredictable, so a candidate needs to be nimble. Many before him have prepped extensively, only to fail miserably in the heat of debate. “Everybody has a plan until they get ‘punched in the face,’” Trump said, quoting Mike Tyson. “A lot depends on ABC. … I hope they’re going to be fair,” he said, adding that a contract bars the network from providing questions to either candidate in advance of the showdown. The Trump and Harris camps had proposed different ground rules for the debate; they disagreed over whether the candidates should be seated or standing, and over whether microphones should be muted while the opposing candidate is speaking.

Trump’s strategy? “I’m gonna let her talk,” he said. That is what he did on June 27 in Atlanta, where CNN hosted a debate between him and President Joe Biden. The incumbent was widely seen to have struggled during that face-off. Biden withdrew from the race less than a month later and endorsed Harris as his preferred successor. Noting that many thousands of Pennsylvanians depend on fracking for their livelihoods, Trump told the audience, “You have no choice; you’ve gotta vote for me.” Hannity played multiple video clips of Harris making past statements opposing fracking. Trump said he disbelieves her recent statement that she won’t ban the procedure that is used to help extract gas or oil from the ground. He said Democrats’ policies have directly hurt the industry even without an outright ban. “You have to have fracking. … It’s a massive business for Pennsylvania, and you can’t take a chance” that Harris would eliminate it, Trump said.

Hannity noted the town hall came at a time when Trump was trending upward in some of the polls. Those include a Trafalgar Group poll showing Trump ahead of Harris in Pennsylvania by 2 percentage points. The host said the latest numbers seem to suggest that Harris’s “long-lived honeymoon phase now finally, finally appears to be over.” In the RealClearPolitics average of opinion polls, Harris was holding a 1.9 percent national lead against Trump on Sept. 4. But a few very recent polls were detecting a shift in momentum. In Rasmussen Reports’ Daily Presidential Tracking Poll on Sept. 4, Trump opened a six-point lead over Harris nationally. But in Rasmussen’s five-day average, he was only 2 percent ahead of her. Many other polls still show Harris with an edge over Trump nationally, but still within the margin of error, which runs at 3 percent or more for most polls. An online prediction and betting site, Polymarket.com, on Sept. 4 showed Trump with a 52-percent chance of winning the Nov. 5 election; Harris had a 47-percent chance.

Hannity noted that Harris has given no solo news conferences since she became the apparent Democratic nominee 45 days prior to the Fox town hall. She and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, participated in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on Aug. 29 but disclosed no new policy specifics. And, as of Sept. 4, no policy platform was yet listed on Harris’s website. Hannity contrasted this with the dozens of news conferences and interviews Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), have given since Biden dropped out of the race. After Trump passed the 16-minute, 30-second mark into the program, Hannity thanked him for going longer than Harris’s CNN interview; the audience laughed.

Read more …

“No pay, no title, no recognition is needed.”

Trump Will Adopt Elon Musk’s Proposal For Gov’t Efficiency Commission (ZH)

Former President Trump plans to adopt Elon Musk’s proposed new commission, the Department of Government Efficiency abbreviated as ‘DOGE.’ According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump could unveil the new government efficiency commission as early as today. Trump plans to unveil the government efficiency commission before he delivers a speech at the Economic Club of New York. He will tell reporters that the commission would conduct “a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government” and make “recommendations for drastic reform.” The commission’s primary goal is to identify ways to eliminate fraud and improper payments, according to portions of the speech viewed by journos at WSJ.

Trump’s upcoming speech and proposed commission to address the failures of Biden-Harris’ Bidenomics, which sparked an inflation storm and financially crushed mid—and low-tier consumers, also aims at deregulation. Trump has actively championed deregulation to make the economy great again. Musk endorsed Trump on X shortly after the failed assassination attempt on July 13. He pledged millions of dollars to a super PAC supporting causes on the right. Speaking with Reuters last week, the former president said he would offer Musk a position if he were seriously interested. ” He’s a very smart guy. I certainly would—if he would do it, I certainly would,” the former president said. “He’s a brilliant guy.” Musk and Trump first publicly discussed a government efficiency commission during a two-hour conversation on X on August 13. The conversation has received 60.4 million views so far.

Musk shared an AI picture last month of himself standing at a platform that read “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) and wrote on X, “I am willing to serve.” Earlier this week, Musk reiterated, “I can’t wait. There is a lot of waste and needless regulation in government that needs to go.” On X this morning, Musk responded to one user’s post about WSJ’s story. He said, “I look forward to serving America if the opportunity arises. No pay, no title, no recognition is needed.” Trump also plans to say, “This election will decide whether we reward Kamala Harris with re-election and four more years of economic calamity—or whether we change direction.” Let’s not forget that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion to fraud annually, or about $4,000 per American household, as per The Hill.

Read more …

Meanwhile…

Ukrainian Army Facing Collapse – Putin (RT)

High casualties incurred by the Ukrainian military since Kiev launched its incursion in Russia’s Kursk Region could render its armed forces useless, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said. The Russian leader shared his assessment of the frontline situation on Thursday during a panel discussion at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. He said the Ukrainian attempt to disrupt the Russian military with the massive attack across the border last month had backfired. ”Our military has stabilized the situation and is now gradually pushing the opponent from the border territories. More importantly, there is no resistance to our advancement [in Donbass],” he explained. “The opponent has weakened itself on the key axis by moving those relatively strong and well-trained units to the border areas.” Ukrainian officials expected Moscow to redeploy some of its forces from the east to repel the incursion in the north.

However, the gamble has not paid off, Aleksandr Syrsky, Kiev’s top general, acknowledged last week. Putin said Russian troops had been securing more land in Donbass, which is a priority for Moscow, at a pace unseen in a long time. Meanwhile, Ukrainian troops are “suffering very high losses in manpower and hardware.” “Because of that, [Kiev] risks a collapse of the front line on the most important axis. The casualties may result in a loss of fighting capability of the entire armed forces, which is what we are looking to achieve,” the president added. On Wednesday, the Russian Defense Ministry estimated that Ukrainian casualties in the Kursk operation had surpassed 9,700 troops. Kiev also lost 81 tanks, dozens of other armored vehicles, hundreds of cars, and multiple heavy weapons, the military said. Putin confirmed the statistics, telling the audience that the intelligence had been confirmed by multiple sources.

Read more …

Alford plea: you don’t say you did it, but you accept the punishment.

Does there need to be a conviction before he can be pardoned?

Prosecutors Urge Hunter Biden Judge To Reject Plea Deal (ZH)

It would appear that Hunter Biden doesn’t have a nicely arranged plea deal with the DOJ after all – as prosecutors have urged the judge in the case to reject his proposal to plead guilty. Of note, Hunter is attempting to plead guilty via an “Alford plea,” which would have to be approved by the prosecution and higher-ups at the DOJ. It appears they were caught off guard.

* * *

Hunter Biden’s lawyers announced on Thursday that the first son will plead guilty in his $1.4 million tax evasion case. “Mr. Biden intends to change his plea this morning,” Hunter’s lawyer Abbe Lowell told the judge in a Los Angeles federal courtroom, with the younger Biden facing trial on nine federal charges for failing to pay federal taxes from 2016 – 2019. If convicted, Hunter faced up to 17 years behind bars. He currently faces up to 25 years behind bars when he’s sentenced in November for a conviction on gun charges.

Read more …

“I am deeply grateful for the professionalism of all of my Russian colleagues over the past several years, and am proud to have made their acquaintance..”

Scott Ritter Says Ending Cooperation With RT, Sputnik Due to US Sanctions (Sp.)

The US Department of the Treasury issued a statement on Wednesday to announce sanctions against the Rossiya Segodnya media group, RIA Novosti, RT, Sputnik and Ruptly. The sanctions affected Rossiya Segodnya and RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan and a number of other senior executives. “The actions by the Department of the Treasury in levying new sanctions against RT, Sputnik, and other Russian media organizations has made it impossible for me to continue my work as an outside contributor for RT and Sputnik, as well as participating in interviews and other collaborations with other Russian media,” Ritter said on X. He said his work with Russian media organizations was legitimate journalism.

“I reject the notion that the work I have done over the past years with the newly sanctioned Russian media organizations has been anything other than legitimate journalism, the content of which has been factually correct and analytically sound, and always of my own creation,” Ritter said. However, he said, he is committed to obeying US laws. “Nonetheless, I am fully committed to obeying US law, and as such will be terminating all contractual relationships with both RT and Sputnik effective immediately, as well as suspending my participation in any and all media interaction with sanctioned individuals and organizations until which time it is deemed lawful to do so by US authorities,” Ritter said. He said he will continue to exercise his free speech rights.

“I am deeply grateful for the professionalism of all of my Russian colleagues over the past several years, and am proud to have made their acquaintance. I regret the actions of my government in silencing legitimate journalistic outlets, and look forward to the day when freedom of speech and a free press is not constrained by a dubious ‘Russian exception’ that is violative of Constitutional norms and values,” Ritter said. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, commenting on the US sanctions imposed against the Rossiya Segodnya media group, told Sputnik that attacks on Russian media are the result of operations by Western security services to “sterilize” the information space.

Read more …

“..a recent survey found that almost half of Amercans believe there is “not enough democracy” in the United States while 57% of people polled said the US government only serves a minority of its population..”

‘A Unique Kind of Fascism’: US Continues Clampdown on Alt Media (Miles)

The Biden administration signaled that it would continue to clamp down on alternative media Wednesday with the announcement of several measures against figures connected to Russian outlets. “Today, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated ten individuals and two entities as part of a coordinated US government response to Moscow’s malign influence efforts targeting the 2024 US presidential election,” read a statement released Wednesday morning. US Attorney General Merrick Garland claimed individuals connected to Russian media outlets were involved in a campaign to spread “disinformation” in the months leading up to November’s election, a favored talking point the Biden administration has repeatedly used to justify its heavy-handed tactics in regulating social media.

The account for RT on the video sharing giant YouTube was removed in 2022 and Biden signed legislation earlier this year likely to result in the social media app TikTok becoming unavailable in the United States after this fall’s election.Writer and historian Dr. Gerald Horne joined Sputnik’s The Critical Hour program Wednesday to discuss the surprising development, which he attributed to the United States’ concern over the rise of Russia, China and Iran and the emergence of an increasingly multipolar world. “It’s difficult to judge what you just described without judging simultaneously what’s unfolding in the Tampa, St. Petersburg area of Florida, where Chairman Omali and his comrades and the African People’s Socialist Party and the Uhuru movement are now facing trial in the halls of injustice for reasons eerily similar to these charges,” said Horne, referring to the Biden administration’s ongoing persecution of Black radical groups.

“Certainly, we should not forget what has befallen Scott Ritter, the former arms inspector, now viewed widely as a dissident who has been a frequent guest on numerous platforms including your own, as I understand it, rebuking and reprimanding US foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the escapade in Ukraine,” he continued. “Not to mention the funding and financing an army of the radical regime in Israel. We are also aware of what has befallen Richard Medhurst who is a frequent speaker on issues related to Iran in particular. He was detained in London summarily just a few days ago in a blatant violation of civil rights and civil liberties, causing some commentators to suggest that England, Great Britain is moving towards a unique kind of fascism.” Horne claimed a “hysteria” is gripping the US political class over an emerging counterhegemonic bloc of countries increasingly able to challenge the political and economic might of the United States.

Former US Army officer Gen. Wesley Clark reflected the anxieties of Washington officialdom in an editorial in USA Today recently, casting Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping as enemies of “democracy.” But a recent survey found that almost half of Amercans believe there is “not enough democracy” in the United States while 57% of people polled said the US government only serves a minority of its population. Russia and China ranked higher than the United States on most questions regarding their citizens’ self-perception of their country’s democracy, with Chinese people being among the most likely in the world to consider their country democratic. Clark drew attention to improving relations between Beijing and Moscow, something the United States worked to undermine throughout the Cold War.

Read more …

“$10 million would barely influence a US Senate race. The amount is hardly a drop in the bucket for a presidential race.”

DoJ Clampdown on Russian Media Proving US Empire Has No Clothes (Sp.)

The US Justice Department’s sweeping crackdown on Russian media on Wednesday to the thunderous applause of the legacy media will leave Americans a little less informed, less safe and a lot less free, observers including long-time Sputnik contributors say. “It looks like the US Department of Justice is producing another election year spectacular. Sixty days before the election we are invited to suspend our disbelief and embrace ‘Russia, Russia, Russia: The Sequel.’ And once again the DOJ is rounding up the usual suspects: Trump, Russia and Democracy,” political commentator and Newsmax columnist Michael Shannon told Sputnik, commenting on the DoJ’s unprecedented crackdown on Russian media Wednesday over alleged “disinformation” and an election-related “malign influence operation.”

“I predict the audience for this lame sequel will be the remaining mask wearers, Clot Shot booster advocates, Trump haters, consonant crusaders and government employees. Anyone else with simple common sense will see it for what it is: The DOJ’s attempt to influence the election,” Shannon stressed. The figures being alleged by the Justice Department are also laughable, according to the observer. “Let’s put alleged Russian influence buying in perspective. The indictment says Tenent Media was given $10 million to ‘influence the election.’ I’ve got news for you. $10 million would barely influence a US Senate race. The amount is hardly a drop in the bucket for a presidential race. Donald Trump and Joe Biden combined spent $1.85 BILLION in 2020,” Shannon emphasized.

“I regret the actions of my government in silencing legitimate journalistic outlets, and look forward to the day when freedom of speech and a free press is not constrained by a dubious ‘Russian exception’ that is violative of Constitutional norms and values,” former US Marine intelligence officer, UN weapons inspector and commentator Scott Ritter wrote in a social media post. Ritter, who has already suffered a campaign of blatant intimidation by the FBI, including a raid on his family home and the confiscation of his passport, announced the termination of his work for Sputnik and other Russian media after the DoJ and Treasury’s new restrictions were announced, fearing he would be further targeted.

Former CIA analyst-turned whistleblower and author Larry Johnson highlighted the DoJ crackdown’s off the charts “hypocrisy that is staggering in its magnitude and its foulness,” telling Sputnik that the claims of Russian media attempts to “meddle” in the upcoming US presidential election are simply laughable when considering that the US government has allocated “almost $4 billion to interfere or meddle in the political affairs of other countries” in 2024 alone. Popular independent media personality Jackson Hinkle says Americans looking for alternative perspectives and sources of information will the most to suffer from the DoJ’s move. “We can topple governments. We can kill sovereign presidents of sovereign countries. But for a media company to be reporting on the facts…about what’s actually going on in the world, and then for the United States to sanction them, it’s absolutely insane,” Hinkle said. “I think millions of Americans want to hear that truth, and that’s why they’re going after companies like Sputnik so hard right now.”

Read more …

“It’s a matter of an intent to expose him to potential assassination..”

Whistleblowers Reveal US Secret Service Blunders (Sp.)

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has claimed that most agents who were present during the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump in July were not US Secret Service (USSS) agents, but were in fact Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents. The US politician told Fox News that the only training the agents received was a “2-hour online webinar” training. Citing claims made by whistleblowers, he added that the agents who were protecting the former president that day had no prior experience in security detail. Hawley wrote the whistleblowers’ allegations in a letter to Ronald Rowe, the acting director of the USSS, and attached the letter to an X post. Tyler Nixon, an attorney, media relations specialist and political analyst, joined Rachel Blevins on The Backstory on Wednesday, and presented a rundown of the agency’s long-standing failings.

“Well, there’s no question that the Secret Service (USSS) is a very troubled agency and it has been varyingly for many years,” Nixon said. “…the agency has had serious problems with … racial discrimination. There was a lawsuit that became a class action that dragged on for nearly 17 years of Black agents from the ‘80s and ‘90s who were held back, discriminated against, suppressed in terms of promotions. They won and the Secret Service fought that tooth and nail.” The lawyer disclosed that he represents the first Black Secret Service agent who served on presidential protection, who has threatened to be a whistleblower to the “Warren Commission concerning the laxity, drinking and other things that the agents had perpetrated or done on the President John F. Kennedy detail,” he said, adding that “many argue [the laxity] contributed to their slow reactions [of JFK’s assassination].”

“[USSS] has to, I think, if they were talking about it, it’s well over a billion-dollar budget. I think it might have been $1.4 billion, if I’m not mistaken. But whatever it is, it is absolutely enough that they should have the best equipment, the best agents and the best operations. And I think it’s just proof that, generally speaking, you can throw as much money as you want at a government agency to address a problem if there’s institutional incompetence and institutional issues and just the fact that the government operates the way it does without accountability,” Nixon explained.

“And one of the other things was, which really stands out in the Trump affair was that they were assigning […] based on apparently the status, let’s just say, of the protectee, meaning Trump’s not the president. He’s a candidate, a former president. Versus what [American conservative commentator Dan Bongino] noted should be the criteria for assigning the resources, which is the threat profile,” he added. “In Butler, there was what I would view as it wasn’t simply incompetence. There was actually active security stripping, which is very, very troubling because that’s not just a matter of people not doing their jobs properly. It’s a matter of an intent to expose him to potential assassination or assassination, and that is, that’s corruption that is so – I mean, it would be criminal, obviously, that level of corruption,” he continued. “So, major reforms need to happen with that agency, if not a total reckoning.”

Read more …

“..Telegram has an official representative in the EU that both “accepts and replies to EU requests.”

Pavel Durov Warns French Crackdown Will Prompt Serious Tech Setbacks (Sp.)

Telegram CEO Pavel Durov spoke out on Thursday against the crackdown against his platform by French authorities, warning that the spate of charges could mark the start of serious setbacks for the tech industry as a whole. In a post shared on Telegram, Durov detailed that he had been questioned by French authorities over a period of four days, and that he had been informed he would be held “personally responsible” for criminal actions that occur on the platform due to past notifications that had gone answered. “This,” Durov went onto emphasis, “was surprising for several reasons.” Not least of which was the fact that Telegram has an official representative in the EU that both “accepts and replies to EU requests.” “Its email address has been publicly available for anyone in the EU who googles ‘Telegram EU address for law enforcement,'” he pointed out, adding that authorities could have easily contacted him via the French consulate in Dubai.

“A while ago, when asked, I personally helped them establish a hotline with Telegram to deal with the threat of terrorism in France.” “Using laws from the pre-smartphone era to charge a CEO with crimes committed by third parties on the platform he manages is a misguided approach,” he said. “Building technology is hard enough as it is. No innovator will ever build new tools if they know they can be personally held responsible for potential abuse of those tools.” Rather than pursuing criminal charges, French authorities should have instead opted for the “established practice” of filing legal action against an internet service to start proceedings. Durov underscored that Telegram would not be abandoning its principles on ensuring users’ privacy and security, but that it was and will continue to hold open lines of communications with country regulators.

However, if no balance can be made in any one nation, the company will opt to “leave.” The CEO further rejected reports that painted Telegram as “some sort of anarchic paradise” and slammed them as “absolutely untrue.” However, while the platform’s user count has soared upwards of 950 million, he acknowledged the spike “made it easier for criminals to abuse our platform.” Durov revealed that new internal measures were being implemented, and that such steps would be made public at a later time. The Russian-born tech entrepreneur was detained at a Paris airport on August 24 on charges related to criminal uses of his messaging app, including terrorism, child pornography, drug trafficking, money laundering and fraud. He was released on August 28 on a 5-million-euro ($5.5 million) bail and is barred from leaving France.

Read more …

Both France and Germany are in deep political trouble.

“It’s like a husband and wife debating over which electrician to hire to redo the wiring in your house not being able to come to an agreement and hiring a plumber..”

Macron Pushes Through PM Pick After 60 Days (Manley)

President Emmanuel Macron has appointed Michel Barnier, 73, a veteran right-wing politician who served twice as European Commissioner and played a major role in the 2016 Brexit Task Force, as the new prime minister of France as of Thursday. Macron is trying to break through a political impasse that has gripped France following the country’s snap legislative elections held in July. The French presidency said in a statement that Macron is entrusting Barnier with “the task of forming a unity government to serve the country and the French people”, the New York Times reported. Barnier will take over the role from Gabriel Attal, France’s youngest ever prime minister who has held the position for the last eight months. Phil Kelly, a Belfast-based political commentator and socialist activist, joined Sputnik’s Political Misfits Thursday to discuss Macron’s continued rejection of the French public’s desires.

“This is far from democracy. This is an absurdity,” said Kelly. “It’s like a husband and wife debating over which electrician to hire to redo the wiring in your house not being able to come to an agreement and hiring a plumber. It’s an affront, an absolute affront to the democratic will of the people.” “What Macron is doing is he’s investing heavily in creating future problems because France is a powder keg. It is divided. The breakthrough for the left was good to see, but let’s hope it’s not a pyrrhic victory because what acts like this are doing is it just erodes faith that people have in their democratic institutions,” he added. “It’s a further sign that France is in dissent and chaos, that its establishment is flailing, that Macron is just trying to hold the door against change,” the analyst suggested. “But that change will come to France and I hope it’s a positive change, but there’s no guarantee there will be. The country’s in a dark way.”

In March of last year France’s Senate passed a controversial reform bill to raise the retirement age for French citizens by two years. The Senate passed the bill by 195 votes to 112. Macron’s decision to push through a bill that is extremely unpopular among voters for the alleged sake of the economy clearly went unforgiven during July’s election. Business-friendly think tanks such as the pro-Macron Institut Montaigne claim Macron’s pension plan is more cost-effective than other proposals, but a majority of French voters reject the ploy. “A country that is able to send billions of euros to the Kiev regime while its own citizens are offered a diet of, ‘we make you work longer for less’… and it’s a bit like from his gilded palace in Paris. He’s a bit like Macron Antoinette,” Kelly said.

“Macron [is] a guy who’s deeply unpopular, who, at one point, was talking up the advantage of World War III to the French people, now clinging on desperately to power, trying to make the guy who lost who came forth the leader of the country and all, as you say, to cling on to his own power for a little bit longer and to try and push through a policy that is so deeply unpopular.” In January, Macron claimed during a speech at the Swedish Defense Academy that the future security architecture of the continent could no longer be settled simply by the United States and that Europe should determine its own future. In April, the French president said he would be willing to discuss using French nuclear warheads as a “credible European defense” against a supposed Russian threat. The French president previously hinted at the use of France’s nuclear weapons in 2020 and again in 2022. In March the leader alarmed other EU member states when he announced his openness to ground operations in Ukraine, saying it might be required “at some point”.

“It’s not, unfortunately, only France that has this kind of political class,” Kelly added. “[There was] one of the ministers in the German government who’s a member of the Green Party saying — I’m sure you remember this — ‘I don’t care about German voters, I’ll do whatever it takes to support Ukraine.’” “This is why Europe is in decline. Much like your country where the political establishment has [nothing to] offer, it has no vision of how to move things forward, it only has ‘how can we trick the electorate in the next election and then just do the same [thing],’” he explained.

Read more …

“The government in Berlin should ask itself if it can even continue to govern..”

Germany Reeling in the Wake of AfD Election Victories (SCF)

The German residents of Saxony and Thuringia awoke on Monday to a radical new political landscape as the Alternative for Germany, or Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), received more than double as many votes as the three parties which make up the federal coalition government — the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), environmentalist Greens and neoliberal Free Democrats (FDP) — combined. This marks the first in any German state since Nazi rule. The results represent a major setback to Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s struggling coalition government and demonstrate the increasing breakup of the political landscape and surge in popularity of anti-establishment parties across the continent. Scholz labelled the losses for his government “bitter” and called upon mainstream parties to build governments without “right-wing extremists”.

The AfD, which, as an “extremist” group, falls under the official surveillance of the German domestic intelligence agency, was founded in 2013 as an offshoot of the CDU. It advertises itself as a right-wing movement that is critical of the European Union’s policies but supportive of German membership. Since its founding, the party has moved further to the political right and shifted its attention to immigration and Islam. The party is most powerful in the formerly communist east Germany, which is less wealthy than the country’s west. Björn Höcke, 52, the leader of Thuringia, has been convicted of knowingly using a Nazi slogan at political events, a conviction he is appealing. A court in the eastern city of Halle fined the history teacher turned politician for using the prohibited phrase “Everything for Germany”, or “Alles für Deutschland” in German. The slogan was etched on weapons used by Nazi paramilitary officers. Germany has harsh laws against the use of phrases and symbols linked to the Nazi party.

In the last nationwide election, for the European Parliament in June, the AfD attracted 16 percent of the vote. In other words, not exactly a nationwide nationalist takeover. Moreover, with just over 2 million people out of a national population of more than 80 million, Thuringia ranks as one of the smallest of Germany’s 16 states. At the same time, Saxony’s population stands at just 4 million. Nevertheless, it is rather astonishing, and worrisome, that about one in three voters in these two states cast their vote for a party that the states’ own intelligence agencies have declared to be ‘extremist’. Factors that have led to support for the AfD in eastern Germany include deep dissatisfaction with the national government, anti-immigration sentiment and opposition to any further German military aid for Ukraine. And despite the government’s rapid reaction to the deadly knife attack in Solingen, in western Germany, shortly before the elections failed to result in a change of opinion. Four out of five German voters have expressed discontent with the work of the federal government, a sentiment that has lasted a long time.

The AfD rightly views itself as having established a deep support base. The state elections brought “historic” success for their party, AfD co-leader Alice Weidel said on Sunday, calling for the federal government to stand down. “It is also a punishment for the federal government, it is a requiem for this coalition,” she said. “The government in Berlin should ask itself if it can even continue to govern. This question of fresh elections should be posed at least following the [upcoming] election in Brandenburg, because things cannot carry on like this.” Now the government of Olaf Scholz is attempting to recalibrate its positions, moving further to the right to counter the AfD’s respectable gains. Looking down the road to the immigration debate during the electoral campaigns, the federal government last week announced harsher migration and security policies, and made an unexpected move to deport 28 asylum-seekers who had committed criminal offenses to Afghanistan.

Now, all eyes are now focused on the eastern German state of Brandenburg, where elections are scheduled for September 22. The coalition of the SPD, Greens and FDP are nervously anticipating this vote as the German population is increasingly demanding new blood in the halls of power. If early nationwide elections were to be held today, current polling shows they would no longer get a majority. The victors would be their competitors the AfD and the Conservative Union of the Christian Democrats (CDU) and their Bavarian counterparts, the Christian Social Union (CSU). The Union, which comprises the largest opposition bloc in the Bundestag, has long called for the government to step down. Therefore, the SPD will be campaigning extra hard leading up to election day, because the vote will be crucial for them. The party has led the government in Brandenburg since 1990.

“I expect that everyone will make even more of an effort than ever before,” said SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil on Sunday evening in Berlin. The party needed to work together to win back votes, he said. “Everyone now needs to play their part so that things improve.” In the event that Brandenburg’s state premier of 11 years, Dietmar Woidke, fails to be reelected, this could set in motion some serious power moves in the country. There is even the possibility that Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who polls higher than Scholz among Germans, could become the chancellor candidate for the federal election in September 2025. Will the coalition government last that long? That’s a question many Germans are anxiously pondering today amid the rise of far-right ideology, which is beginning to reverberate across the country. Whether that will turn into a political earthquake remains to be seen.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Putin Nordstream
https://twitter.com/i/status/1831646625074127257

 

 

Ghostwriting
https://twitter.com/i/status/1831522277705372109

 

 

Fox

 

 

Best job

 

 

Thank you
https://twitter.com/i/status/1831375847825272873

 

 

Trust

 

 

Antlers

 

 

Moose
https://twitter.com/i/status/1831678847835590856

 

 

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