Kallas Archives - The Automatic Earth

US govt warns: Do not, under any circumstances, come to Russia. pic.twitter.com/Jpl9luk8Ie

— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) June 29, 2024

McAfee 2020 (!)

Russia's first time traveller has returned.

Guess what he said:

In September Biden is medically diagnosed as unfit for office and quits.

They discover that the DNC has legal power to choose a replacement without a National vote!

Weird huh?

You'll never guess who they chose.

— John McAfee (@officialmcafee) July 18, 2020

https://twitter.com/i/status/1806945470566056163

“Washington is unhinged and depraved. A collection of psychopaths as are its minions in Brussels and other NATO capitals.”

• Imagine a Missile Massacre On a Florida Beach On the Fourth of July (SCF)

The scenario is not hyperbole. Imagine a sunny beach in Florida crowded with families enjoying a holiday weekend. In a split second, mayhem and murder are unleashed as crowds flee in panic from a foreign missile exploding over the beach. There is no doubt that the United States would go to war immediately against the perpetrator. Furious condemnations would ring out for days, weeks, and months among American politicians and their media. But what is also obvious from this hypothetical scenario is the egregious double standard and hypocrisy of American and Western responses. Last weekend, Russia was celebrating its annual Day of Remembrance and Sorrow. The day honors the dead of the Great Patriotic War instigated by Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. That weekend also combines Trinity Sunday, a prominent religious holiday in the Orthodox calendar.

As Russian families were enjoying the festive weekend, the Kiev regime fired five U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles at the Crimean city of Sevastopol. It was a deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure. Four missiles were shot down by Russian air defenses, but a fifth exploded over a nearby beach, where hundreds of people were enjoying sun-splashed sand and the gentle lapping of waves. In the ensuing horror, four people including two children were killed. Over 150 were injured, dozens of them seriously, from the explosions caused by cluster bomblets released by the missile. Video footage clearly shows explosions and not merely ordnance shrapnel falling from the sky. This was an act of state-sponsored terrorism against civilians. The United States and its NATO partners bear responsibility for the massacre.

Only a week before the attack, U.S. President Joe Biden and other NATO leaders had signed off on supplying the Kiev regime with long-range (300 km) ATACMS weapons and a green light to use these missiles on Russian territory. Arguably, too, the atrocity was an unpardonable act of war against Russia. As the foreign ministry in Moscow noted, the U.S.-led NATO proxy war in Ukraine has become a direct war against Russia. The situation has entered a most dangerous moment. The Kremlin has warned that retaliation is coming. There is no question that under international law, the Russian Federation has every right to respond to murderous aggression. It only remains to be seen what the form of retaliation will be. It is doubtful that Russia would take revenge on innocent American civilians. The Russian leadership and its people are far too moral and strategically intelligent to countenance such barbarity.

The scenario of bombing a beach in Florida is invoked to demonstrate the heinous reality of what occurred in Crimea last weekend. And it also demonstrates the rank moral bankruptcy of American and European leaders. Only days before the missile attack on Crimea, the American Senate introduced a bill to declare Russia a “state sponsor of terrorism”. The bill was a hysterical reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s state visit to North Korea and the signing of a mutual defense pact with Chairman Kim Jong Un. The irony of the U.S. reaction in light of the subsequent attack on Crimea is not merely bitter. Washington is unhinged and depraved. A collection of psychopaths as are its minions in Brussels and other NATO capitals.

“We have a serious problem here, because we have a president who, by all appearances, is not up to the task..”

• Biden Should Be Removed As President – US House Speaker (RT)

Joe Biden should be replaced as US president, having shown he is “not up to the task” during his debate with Donald Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson has said. The US president’s performance in his first election face-off with Trump on Thursday was widely viewed as a disaster. The 81-year-old appeared frail and confused, struggling to finish his sentences and mixing up words. According to media reports, Democrats were “panicking” after the debate, and some donors have demanded that the president be dropped from the party’s ticket for the November 5 election. “I would be panicking too if I were a Democrat today and that was my nominee. I think they know they have a serious problem,” Johnson told journalists on Thursday. The Republican politician argued that Biden should not only withdraw from the race, but also be immediately removed from office.

“It’s not just political. It’s not just the Democratic Party. It’s the entire country. We have a serious problem here, because we have a president who, by all appearances, is not up to the task,” he said. Johnson said Biden’s administration could force him to step down by invoking the 25th Amendment – which states that the vice president and cabinet members can vote to declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and the duties of his office,” making the VP the acting head of state. If the commander-in-chief refuses to comply, the final decision on the issue would be made by Congress. The amendment has never been used in US history. “There are a lot of people asking about the 25th Amendment, invoking the 25th Amendment right now because this is an alarming situation,” the House speaker stressed.

Due to Biden’s mental condition, “our adversaries see the weakness in this White House as we all do. I take no pleasure in saying that.” “I think this is a very dangerous situation… And it needs to be regarded and handled as such. And we hope that they will do their duty, as we all seek to do our duty to do best for the American people,” Johnson stated. “I would ask the Cabinet members to search their hearts.” The results of a poll by Morning Consult, published by the news website Axios on Friday, suggested that 60% of the voters believe Biden should “definitely” or “probably” be replaced as the Democratic presidential nominee following his disappointing performance in the debate.

“.. the plan threatens Ukraine with certain defeat, regime, and, possibly, even state disintegration; it threatens Moscow with a harder time – a type of threat that has no record of success.”

• Trump the Peacemaker? His Presidency Might Help End The War In Ukraine (RT)

The likely next president of the US, Donald Trump, has signaled that he has a plan for bringing the war in Ukraine to an end. Or, at least, two of his advisers have such a plan. More importantly, they have submitted it to Trump. And most importantly, they have said that he has responded positively. As one of the plan’s authors has put it, “I’m not claiming he agreed with it or agreed with every word of it, but we were pleased to get the feedback we did.” It is true that Trump has also let it be known that he is not officially endorsing the plan. However, it is obvious that this is a trial balloon which has been launched with his approval. Otherwise, we would have either not have heard about it or it would have been disavowed.

The two Trump advisers are Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general, and Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst. Both held significant positions on national security matters during Trump’s presidency. Currently, both play important roles at the Center for American Security: Kellogg serves as co-chair and Fleitz as vice chair. Both, finally, are clear about their belief in what is perhaps Trump’s single most defining foreign policy concept: America First. Fleitz recently published an article asserting that “only America First can reverse the global chaos caused by the Biden administration.” For Kellogg, the “America First approach is key to national security.” The Center for American Security, finally, is part of the America First Policy Institute, an influential think tank founded in 2022 by key Trump administration veterans to prepare policies for his comeback.

Clearly, this is a peace plan that has not come out of nowhere. On the contrary, it has not merely been submitted to Trump to receive his – unofficial – nod, it has also emerged from within Trumpism as a resurgent political force. In addition, as Reuters has pointed out, it is also the most elaborate plan yet from the Trump camp on how to get to peace in Ukraine. In effect, this is the first time that Trump’s promise to rapidly end this war, once he is back in the White House, has been fleshed out in detail. The adoption of the plan or any similar policy would obviously mark a massive change in US policy. Hence, this is something that deserves close attention.

What does the plan foresee? In essence, it is built on a simple premise: to use Washington’s leverage over Ukraine to force the country to accept a peace that will come with concessions, territorial and otherwise. In the words of Keith Kellogg, “We tell the Ukrainians, ‘You’ve got to come to the table, and if you don’t come to the table, support from the United States will dry up’.” Since Kiev is vitally dependent on American assistance, it is hard to see how it could resist such pressure. Perhaps to give an appearance of “balance” for the many Republicans still hawkish on Russia, the plan also includes a threat addressed to Moscow: “And you tell Putin,” again in Kellogg’s terms, “he’s got to come to the table and if you don’t come to the table, then we’ll give Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field.”

Yet it is obvious that, despite the tough rhetoric about Russia, the plan will cause great anxiety in Kiev, not Moscow, for two reasons. First, the threats addressed to Russia and Ukraine are not comparable: If the US were to withdraw its support from Ukraine, Kiev’s Zelensky regime would quickly not just lose the war but collapse. If the US were to, instead, increase its support for the Zelensky regime, then Moscow would respond by mobilizing additional resources, as it has done before. It might also, in that case, receive direct military assistance from China, which would not stand by and watch a potential Russian defeat unfold, because that would leave Beijing alone with an aggressive, emboldened West. In addition, Washington would, of course, have to weigh the risk of Russia engaging in counter-escalation. In sum, the plan threatens Ukraine with certain defeat, regime, and, possibly, even state disintegration; it threatens Moscow with a harder time – a type of threat that has no record of success.

The second reason the plan is bad news for Ukraine but not for Russia is that the peace it aims at is much closer to Moscow’s war aims than to those of Kiev. While the document that has been submitted to Trump has not been made public, American commentators believe that a paper published on the site of the Center for American Security under the title “America First, Russia, & Ukraine” is similar to what he – or his staff – got to see. Also authored by Kellogg and Fleitz, this paper, too, repeatedly stresses just how “tough” Trump used to be toward Russia. Plenty of strutting there for those who like that kind of stuff. These statements, however, are balanced by an emphasis on what used to be called diplomacy: “At the same time,” we read, “Trump was open to cooperation with Russia and dialogue with Putin. Trump expressed respect for Putin as a world leader and did not demonize him in public statements … This was a transactional approach to US-Russia relations … to find ways to coexist and lower tensions … while standing firm on American security interests.”

“..making no differentiation between conservatives and liberals, social democrats or Republicans and Democrats. All belong to the de facto Western War Party serving U.S.-led Western imperialism.”

• US and NATO Accomplices Play Terror Card Against Russia (Van den Ende)

Recently, two U.S. senators, Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal, introduced a bill to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. “We will push for a vote, and the best thing we can do, I think, to shape the future is to label Putin as a terrorist leader, because that’s what he is,” said Graham. Graham can be compared to a (rather stupid) criminal cowboy. There are many senators with the same criminal mentality in the U.S. government. Graham is Republican, Blumenthal is a Democrat. It doesn’t matter who rules the U.S., both political parties are on the warpath and both are under the influence of the U.S. deep state (lobbies like the arms industry, military complex, etc.). Elections are a farce, just like in Europe. The U.S. together with its partners in the European Union and NATO, have instigated and prolonged all kinds of illegal wars for many years, with the reckless supply of weapons and money.

Recent wars include Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and the bombing of Libya into the stone age, and now it is Russia’s turn. Since the start of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine in February 2022 (even before that going back to 2014), Russia has been the target of the entire West. European leaders have recently become even more radical than Uncle Sam and are using threatening war language – rabid rhetoric we have not heard since the Second World War. Now that Ukraine cannot win on the battlefield, the U.S. and the West are turning to other means, as they always do, namely terrorism. We see a pattern here over several decades. The worst manifestation perhaps were the bloody wars that culminated in terrorism in Syria and Iraq, where the U.S. and EU/NATO sponsored and still sponsor terrorism. ISIS or Daesh was created by the U.S. The deceased senator (a Republican) John McCain was one of the godfathers of ISIS, whose murderers were trained at the U.S. Camp Bucca in Iraq.

The same John McCain was in Kiev during the unfolding Maidan coup in December 2013 and told thousands of NeoNazi chanting demonstrators that Americans support their resistance to closer ties with Russia. The coup was executed in February 2014. Other senators and government officials from the U.S. and Europe were also present for the Kiev coup, such as Chris Murphy and Victoria Nuland from the U.S. From Europe, the Dutchman Hans van Baalen, the former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstad (now EU MEP) and other EU delegates were present and supported the neo-Nazi groups wreaking violence on the Maidan square, killing police officers and sacking public buildings. I must emphasize that the Western coup backers were from all kinds of political parties in the EU and the U.S., making no differentiation between conservatives and liberals, social democrats or Republicans and Democrats. All belong to the de facto Western War Party serving U.S.-led Western imperialism.

Victoria Nuland (now retired from the CIA-riddled U.S. State Department) followed in the footsteps of John McCain and emerged as the greatest Russia hater in the U.S. It was she who threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with “nasty surprises” only weeks before the terrorist attack in March this year on the Crocus City Hall shopping-theater complex just outside Moscow where 144 people were killed by a team of gunmen. The embassies (U.S. and EU) issued warnings for their fellow countrymen not to go to events or busy places in the near future, so they knew something was coming – because they planned it themselves.

Nuland has spoken vulgarly over the years. We all know her “fuck the EU” comment. But at her so-called farewell speech in February this year, she literally said: “The war in Ukraine is not to help Ukraine, but to thwart Russia.” Also revealing was Nuland’s explanation of the background of the war. Nothing about saving Ukraine, but all about her aversion to Russia. “We wanted a partner that was focused on the West, that wanted to be European. But that was not what Putin brought,” she said. So, in other words, Putin has to go and Russia needs a regime change that is pro-West, in other words a puppet regime.

So we make her our top ‘diplomat’?!

• ‘She Eats Russians For Breakfast’ (RT)

Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has been nominated by the leaders of EU member states to become the next high representative for security and foreign policy. The politician – selected to speak for Brussels internationally and balance conflicting interests in the EU – has a reputation as an uncompromising hawk on Russia. Before beginning a five-year term, Kallas will need approval from the European Parliament, whose members are expected to vote on her appointment in July, a step widely seen as a formality. The 47-year-old’s attitude towards Moscow was summed up by an unnamed EU official, explaining why Western European nations were resisting her candidacy for another top job – the secretary general of NATO. “Are we really putting someone who likes to eat Russians for breakfast in this position?” the source told Politico in March. Kallas reacted by posting a picture of her breakfast, consisting of blueberries, muesli, a dairy product, and a drink.

Kallas has embraced the idea that at some point NATO countries may have to deploy troops in Ukraine to prevent Moscow from defeating Kiev, first put forward by French President Emmanuel Macron in February. “We shouldn’t be afraid of our own power. Russia is saying this or that step is escalation, but defense is not escalation,” the Estonian politician said of the proposal. Macron’s stated goal in voicing the idea publicly was to leave Russian President Vladimir Putin guessing as to how far the US-led military bloc might go in supporting Ukraine. After multiple member states, including the US, ruled out sending their soldiers to fight for Kiev, the suggestion was downgraded to a military training mission in Western Ukraine. Kallas has backed the new plan, saying it does not amount to an escalation – because a potential attack on the instructors would not trigger a mandatory joint NATO response. “If you send your people to help Ukrainians … you know the country is at war and you go to a risk zone. So you take the risk,” she explained in May.

According to Kallas, there should be no “Plan B” for Ukraine, because contemplating it would amount to undermining the primary goal of helping Ukraine prevail in the conflict. ”Victory in Ukraine is not just about territory,” she told the BBC in early June. “If Ukraine joins NATO, even without some territory, then that’s a victory because it will be placed under the NATO umbrella.” The Estonian politician believes the optimal scenario of a defeat for Russia would result in the country’s dissolution. Russia is composed of “many different nations” that could become independent, and “it is not a bad thing if the big power is actually [made] much smaller,” she argued last year. The Estonian daily Postimees argued earlier this month that leaving domestic politics behind may be the best thing the prime minister can do for her country. The Baltic nation is enduring a recession and severe budget deficit, and Kallas’ coalition government is unable to find common ground on tackling the problems, the editorial argued.

“She has earned the reputation of a strong voice of the eastern part of the EU and a convincing supporter of Ukrainian victory,” the newspaper said. “It’s all good, but the citizens of Estonia did not elect her based on her international image”. Her looming appointment has “paralyzed the government,” as the coalition is unable to function while everyone waits for Kallas to quit, Postimees said. Kallas is a vocal proponent of cutting all business ties with Russia as part of the Western response to the Ukraine conflict. However, last year Estonian media revealed that her Husband Arvo Hallik held a 25% stake in a logistics company that provides services in Russia. She has denied any wrongdoing and rejected calls to step down over the scandal, which she claimed to be a politically motivated hatchet job. But her reputation was severely damaged, at home and internationally. “This is hypocrisy in a cube,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said at the time. He was referring to Kallas’ criticisms of Budapest, which views the EU decision to decouple from the Russian economy as self-harming, while having no impact on the hostilities.

“Orban also accused the EU leadership of “imposing their own ideologies” on the populations of member states, instead of “looking after the interests of the people.”

• EU Bureaucrats ‘Want War With Russia’ – Orban (RT)

The EU leadership is pushing the bloc towards war with Russia, while neglecting the interests of their own people, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has claimed. In an op-ed published in the Magyar Nemzet newspaper on Saturday, Orban warned that the EU is facing a series of crises, including economic challenges and the heightened threat of terrorism. “To make matters worse, the Brussels bureaucracy that lives in a bubble has made a number of bad political decisions in recent years,” the prime minister argued. “Europe is increasingly being dragged into a war, in which it has nothing to gain and everything to lose.” “The bureaucrats in Brussels want this war. They see it as their own, and they want to defeat Russia. They keep sending the money of the European people to Ukraine. They have shot European companies in their feet with sanctions. They have driven up inflation and they have made making a living difficult for millions of European citizens.

The Brussels bureaucrats want this war, they see it as their own, and they want to defeat Russia. They keep sending the money of the European people to Ukraine, they have shot European companies in the foot with sanctions, they have driven up inflation and they have made making a living difficult for millions of European citizens. Orban also accused the EU leadership of “imposing their own ideologies” on the populations of member states, instead of “looking after the interests of the people.” The Hungarian prime minister made his comments shortly after EU leaders nominated Ursula von der Leyen to serve for a third term as the president of the European Commission. At the same time, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas was nominated to replace Josep Borrell as the bloc’s top diplomat. Known for her hawkish foreign policy, Kallas has been one of the key champions of tougher sanctions on Russia and more weapons shipments to Ukraine.

She is also an advocate of using frozen Russian assets for aid to Ukraine. Orban is an outspoken critic of the EU’s approach to the Ukraine conflict, favoring a diplomatic settlement through negotiations as opposed to more escalation. Unlike many other NATO members, Hungary has refused to send weapons to Kiev and lobbied against unconditional financial assistance. Orban previously claimed the US and the EU were “the sources” of the “war madness” sweeping the continent, and accused Brussels of dangerous brinkmanship with Russia.

Europe has all these women compensating for a lack of testicles.

• Ursula von der Leyen: Beyond Redemption (NC)

To be accused of impropriety on one occasion may be regarded as a misfortune but to be accused on four occasions looks like carelessness. (With apologies to Oscar Wilde) If there is one individual who, more than anyone else, symbolises the ineptitude of the European Commission then it is surely the Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen (hereafter, VDL). Questions about VDL’s lack of probity first surfaced in 2015 when she was accused of plagiarising her doctoral dissertation. She was eventually cleared of the accusations but as the BBC reported on 9 March 2016, the president of the Hannover Medical School, Christopher Baum, conceded that “Ms von der Leyen’s thesis did contain plagiarised material”, but he added “there had been no intent to deceive”. Her first lucky escape.

VDL’s lack of probity continued while she served as Germany’s Minister of Defence between 2013 and 2019. During her tenure at the ministry, she became embroiled in a scandal regarding payments of €250 million to consultants related to arms contracts. Germany’s Federal Audit Office found that, of the €250 million declared for consultancy fees, only €5.1 million had been spent. Furthermore, one of the consultants was McKinsey & Company, where VDL’s son was an associate, thus raising a possible conflict of interest. It also emerged that messages related to the contracts had been deleted from two of VDL’s mobile phones. Although she was eventually cleared of corruption allegations, questions over her probity during that period remain to this day.

Having survived two scandals, VDL couldn’t believe her luck when in July 2019 Macron, together with Merkel, bypassed the Spitzenkadidaten process and nominated her as Jean-Claude Junker’s successor as head of the European Commission. The Spitzenkadidaten process, through which the lead candidate emerges and is then ratified by the European Parliament, is itself somewhat arcane. In VDL’s case, she was fortunate that the EU couldn’t agree on either of the two lead candidates at the time, Martin Weber and Frans Timmermans. It was thus left to the consummate fixer, Macron, and VDL’s mentor, Merkel, to come to an agreement using that great democratic and transparent tool called the ‘backroom deal’. VDL’s nomination was accepted by the European Council and on 16 July the European Parliament voted to accept her appointment. But it was a close vote. Out of a total of 747 MEPs, only 383 voted for her, 327 voted against, 22 abstained, and one vote was invalid. Under the EU rules, the president of the Commission must be elected with more than 50% of the MEP votes. Thus, she received only 9 votes more than the threshold. Compare this to her predecessor, Juncker, who in 2014 received 422 votes.

After she was appointed president of the European Commission, VDL again became embroiled in controversy, this time involving the procurement of the Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer. The scandal, which the media dubbed Pfizergate, related to the purchase of 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer vaccine for use across the EU. It transpired that: a) the number of doses was far greater than was required, resulting in a significant number having to be either destroyed or donated; b) the excess doses cost the EU €4 billion; c) the total value of the contract, which Politico reported as being approximately €20 billion, was inflated; and d) the most damaging charge, the contract for the vaccines was negotiated directly between VDL and Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer. The negotiations were conducted using sms messages, which VDL later claimed to have deleted.

The New York Times, which initially carried out the investigation into Pfizergate, brought a lawsuit against the European Commission for failing to provide access to the sms conversations between VDL and Bourla. In Belgium, a lobbyist, Frederic Baldan, filed a criminal complaint citing corruption and the destruction of documents. The Belgian lawsuit was eventually taken over by the European Public Prosecutors Office, which opened a criminal investigation. The outcome of these legal proceedings/investigations is still pending.

“BRICS countries are home to 45.2% of the world’s population, compared to just 9.7% in the G7..”

“Data on oil reserves show that BRICS countries now hold 45.8% of global volumes, while the G7 holds only 3.7%..”

• Why Does Türkiye Want to Join BRICS? (RT)

At the beginning of this month, news of Türkiye’s desire to join BRICS drew global media attention. The announcement was made by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan during his visit to China. “Of course, we would like to become a member of BRICS. Let’s see what we can achieve this year,” said the minister, as quoted by the South China Morning Post. This issue was also discussed at the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting in Nizhny Novgorod, attended by Türkiye’s chief diplomat, Hakan Fidan. Türkiye’s desire to join is not entirely new – during the BRICS summit of 2018, where Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan was a participant, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Ankara could join in 2022. However, subsequent events on the world stage apparently delayed that ambition, and Ankara is only now showing renewed interest.

[..] With the confrontation between the countries of the global majority and the West growing, BRICS is considered to be emerging as an alternative to the G7. This is determined by several key reasons related to economic, political, and social aspects. The G7, comprising leading economically developed countries – the US, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan – has traditionally dominated the international arena, shaping the global economic and political agenda. However, the emergence and development of BRICS have changed this balance, offering an alternative view on global governance and cooperation. BRICS unites the largest developing economies in the world, which together account for a significant share of global GDP and population. Collectively, BRICS countries possess vast resources and potential for economic growth, making them important players on the global stage.

To provide a clearer understanding, let’s compare some indicators. With its five new members, BRICS now accounts for almost 34% of the world’s land area, while the G7 accounts for 16%. BRICS countries are home to 45.2% of the world’s population, compared to just 9.7% in the G7. The combined GDP based on purchasing power parity in BRICS countries is 36.7% of the global total as of 2024, compared to 29.6% for the G7. Data on oil reserves show that BRICS countries now hold 45.8% of global volumes, while the G7 holds only 3.7%. Thus, in many respects, BRICS surpasses the G7. The economic power of BRICS allows these countries to propose alternative models of development and economic cooperation, differing from the Western approaches represented by the G7.

Due to international contradictions and the destructive hegemony of Western countries led by Washington, questions about the need to transform the world order are actively arising. BRICS advocates for a multipolar world, where the balance of power is more evenly distributed among various regions and countries. While the G7 represents the interests of economically developed Western powers, BRICS focuses on the issues and interests of developing nations, which are often marginalized in global politics. This makes BRICS an important platform for countries seeking greater autonomy and independence from Western influence. Moreover, the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) demonstrates the BRICS countries’ desire to establish alternative financial institutions capable of competing with traditional Western institutions, particularly the IMF and the World Bank.

[..] Türkiye shows significant interest in joining BRICS, seeing it as an important step toward enhancing its international influence and economic potential. This aspiration is driven by several key factors related to economic, political, and geostrategic aspects. Possessing one of the largest economies in the region, Türkiye aims to diversify its economic ties and strengthen cooperation with rapidly developing countries. Joining BRICS would give Ankara access to a vast market and opportunities to increase trade and investment with the leading economies of the developing world. This is especially important in the context of global economic challenges and uncertainties, where diversifying partners becomes a key factor for sustainable growth.

Türkiye has repeatedly faced financial difficulties and restrictions imposed by Western financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. Joining BRICS would provide Türkiye with access to the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, allowing it to secure funding on more favorable terms and with fewer political commitments. This is particularly relevant for Türkiye, which seeks to maintain its economic independence and minimize external pressure.

“Suddenly, it is not a cheap fake but reality.”

• The Art of Being Eternally Shocked (Turley)

No one would think of the Beltway as being a place of the naive innocents of our society. Washington is the only ecosystem composed entirely of apex predators. Yet, this week everyone seems to be eternally shocked by what has been obvious for years. The press and pundits are coming off an embarrassing couple of weeks where the Hunter Biden laptop was authenticated in federal court as real. This occurred in the trial of the president’s son almost on the anniversary of a debunked letter of intelligence officials claiming that the laptop appeared to be Russian disinformation. Biden then repeated the claim in the last presidential debates to avoid answering questions over the massive influence peddling scheme of this family revealed by the laptop. After the story was suppressed before the 2020 election, it took years for the media to admit that, oops, the laptop is surprisingly real.

For years, the press and pundits piled on experts who suggested that Covid 19 escaped from a Chinese lab. The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible. Now, even W.H.O. accepts the lab theory as possible and federal agencies now believe it is the most likely explanation. The response: surprise and spin. This week, the Supreme Court ruled that the Justice Department has unlawfully charged hundreds of people with obstruction of an official proceeding after the January 6th riot. For years, objections to the excessive treatment of these cases were dismissed as the view of the radical right. Now, even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voted to toss out these convictions. Surprise. Whether it was the false story about agents whipping migrants in Texas or the photo op claim in Lafayette Park, false stories were disproven only to have a collective shrug from those who spread them.

For years, the press and pundits have repeated like gospel that Trump had called neo-Nazis “fine people.” At the time, most of us noted that Trump condemned the racists and neo-Nazis and made the statement about fine people on both sides of the controversy over the removal of historic statues. Six years later, Snopes finally decided to do a fact check and, surprise, found that Trump never praised neo-Nazis as fine people. The only person not surprised was Biden who repeated the false story on Friday as true. Heading into the presidential debate, the White House and the media attacked Fox News and other outlets for “cheap fake” videos designed to make the President look confused and feeble. For months, politicians and pundits have insisted that Biden is sharp and commanding in conversations even after Special Counsel Robert Hur cited his decline as a reason for not charging him criminally for the unlawful retention and mishandling of classified material.

On MSNBC, Joe Scarborough stated “start your tape right now because I’m about to tell you the truth. And F— you if you can’t handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close second. And I have known him for years…If it weren’t the truth I wouldn’t say it.” Then the presidential debate happened and, after years of being protected by staff, tens of millions of people watched the president struggle to stay focused and responsive. After the debate, there was total surprise, if not shock, on CNN and MSNBC. Suddenly, it is not a cheap fake but reality.

“Given the multitude of errors at trial and the pending election, it is a near certainty that his request for a stay will be granted.”

“..federal statutes generally require that the highest court in a state rule before the Supreme Court intervenes..”

• Trump Sentencing Will Put Merchan’s Bias in Crosshairs (RCP)

On July 11, acting New York Judge Juan Merchan will sentence former President Donald Trump. Trump was convicted in a New York State court in Manhattan on a novel theory and on facts never before used to secure a conviction in New York. Disregarding at least a dozen reasons his conviction should be reversed, because Trump was convicted of falsifying records with the intent to commit a second crime – illegally interfering in the 2016 presidential election – the falsification was upgraded to a class E felony, comprising 34 counts, one for each entry. The maximum penalty is four years in jail on each count, not to exceed a total of 20 years. New York defendants sentenced to less than a year are usually jailed in notorious Rikers Island, known for its overcrowding, drug problems, and violence. The New York City Council voted to close the facility by 2026. New York Post photos from just a few years ago show the awful conditions there.

For sentences of a year or longer, Trump could be remanded to one of 41 state prisons for men, though most likely to one of the three minimum security facilities. It seems highly unlikely that the U.S. Secret Service would permit Trump to be held in a New York prison. While space might be made available in a federal prison, or a building converted for exclusive use by Trump, it is more likely that he would serve any sentence in home confinement, wearing an ankle monitor. Alternatives to incarceration include probation for up to 10 years, unconditional discharge, or discharge, without probation, conditioned on not committing a further crime during the following three years, and a fine of up to $5,000. Merchan could order that confinement be limited to weekends or nights, and could permit exceptions for political or business activities. He also could split the sentence, for example, requiring 30 days of home confinement followed by conditional discharge.

Even if Trump is conditionally discharged or given probation but is later convicted of another crime, he could be remanded to prison. In setting the sentence, Merchan will consider a mandatory Pre-Sentence Report and the nature of the crime in addition to Trump’s background, age, and health. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg follows a policy of not recommending incarceration for those convicted of non-violent class E felonies. During the trial, Merchan observed that he sees incarceration as a “last resort.”Trump’s indictment for numerous other crimes and his frequent violations of Merchan’s gag order will make unconditional release less likely. However, Trump’s evaluation also will suffer because of recent verdicts that he is liable for civil fraud and defamation, and for presumably refusing to accept guilt during the pre-sentence interview.

If Merchan properly considers the nature of the offense, that similar offenses have not been prosecuted in New York, the “false records” were internal Trump accounts, there was no monetary loss, and the so-called effort to interfere in the 2016 election failed in New York (where Clinton overwhelmingly won), and Trump has no prior record, there should be no jail time or home confinement.However, if Merchan approaches sentencing with the same antagonism to Trump’s rights he brought to the trial, he can be expected to cite a fraud on the national electorate to justify at least a brief period of home confinement. Even then, it would be shocking if Merchan did not stay the sentence until after the election, pending Trump’s appeal. Trump likely will appeal to New York’s intermediate appeals court and will seek to have any sentence stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. Given the multitude of errors at trial and the pending election, it is a near certainty that his request for a stay will be granted.

Trump could also bring an action in federal district court asserting that Bragg and Merchan lacked jurisdiction to accuse him of interfering in a federal election, and he was not given adequate notice of the alleged crimes. It is unlikely a federal judge would get involved prior to a state appeals court. Trump could seek intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, but federal statutes generally require that the highest court in a state rule before the Supreme Court intervenes. In the end, it seems likely that Trump’s conviction will be overturned. Whether the sentence is harsh or a slap on the wrist, the entire process has been a political prosecution intended to keep Trump off the campaign trail and give Biden the talking point that Trump is a convicted felon. That flagrant abuse of due process is not how our justice or electoral systems are supposed to work.

“Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has told Israel and its allies that a war with no limits will ensue if Israel attempts to invade southern Lebanon..”

• Iran Threatens Israel With ‘Obliterating War’ If It Attacks Lebanon (ZH)

Iran’s mission to the United Nations has put Israel and the world on notice, saying that if Israel launches an all-out war against Hezbollah in Lebanon the whole region will burn. A Friday statement from Iran’s ambassador warned the UN that any “full-scale military aggression” in Lebanon against Hezbollah will mean that “an obliterating war will ensue.” The Iranian statement continued by emphasizing that “all options, including the full involvement of all resistance fronts, are on the table” in a statement posted to X. By “resistance fronts” Tehran means the militias it supports in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen will also ramp up their military activities. On a few occasions, Iraqi Shia militias have launched missiles and drones against southern Israel, as have the Houthis, with limited effect.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has acknowledged this week that a “seven front war” could open up, in reference to all of Iran’s proxies across the region. For years already, Israeli jets have been regularly attacking ‘Iranian assets’ inside Damascus, also in a continued effort to weaken Assad, despite the presence of Russia’s military primarily in the northwest coastal region. Israel has meanwhile continued to pound Hezbollah positions in south Lebanon, amid continued fears of a bigger war at any moment. The US has even sent amphibious military ships closer to Israel and Lebanon in the Eastern Mediterranean to be ready to evacuate Americans if a bigger conflict ensues.

The Israeli Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper wrote Saturday, “In the past few hours, warplanes attacked several Hezbollah targets, including a military site for the organisation in the Zabqin area, two operational infrastructure sites in the Khiam area, and a Hezbollah building in the al-Adissa [Odaisseh] area.” Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has told Israel and its allies that a war with no limits will ensue if Israel attempts to invade southern Lebanon. Some Israeli officials fear that the IDF could be stretched too thin if this happens, considering it’s still in the thick of anti-Hamas Gaza operations in the south. Most analysts agree that Hezbollah is far more capable a paramilitary and guerilla force than Hamas, or any other Iran-linked group in the region for that matter. In the 2006 Lebanon war, there were reports that IRGC operatives were on the ground in Lebanon assisting Hezbollah.

“..the Cypriot government has become part of the war and the resistance [Hezbollah] will deal with it as part of the war..”

• Over 80 UK War Planes Deployed From Cyprus To Lebanon Since 7 Oct (Cradle)

The UK has sent over 80 military transport planes to the Lebanese capital of Beirut since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza nine months ago, Declassified UK reported on 28 June. All the flights have gone from the UK’s massive Akrotiri airbase on the nearby island of Cyprus, long a staging post for UK bombing missions in West Asia. Declassified UK notes that the number of UK military flights to Beirut has risen dramatically in recent months. The group tracked 25 flights in April and May and 14 so far in June. Flights from the UK base take around 45 minutes to reach Beirut, which Israel has increasingly threatened to bomb in a possible full-scale war with the Lebanese resistance movement, Hezbollah. The Ministry of Defense declined to disclose the number of UK military flights to Lebanon since the start of the war on 7 October or their purpose. A defense source told Declassified UK that the flights “have been primarily for the purpose of facilitating senior military engagement” with the Lebanese army.

But it is widely assumed the planes are carrying weapons to Beirut to arm anti-Hezbollah militias. The US, UK, and Israel would presumably use these militias to attack Hezbollah from within the country in the case of an Israeli invasion from the south. Declassified UK notes that nearly every Royal Air Force flight to Lebanon has been the Voyager KC mark 2, which can carry a payload of 45 tons and 291 personnel or provide air-to-air refueling. Another flight involved a vast C-17 cargo plane. Israeli threats to invade Lebanon have accelerated in tandem with the increase in flights. Israeli military leaders have increasingly warned of a Lebanon campaign to push Hezbollah away from the border and past the Litani River. Last week, the Israeli army approved “operational plans for an offensive in Lebanon,” and the US pledged to support Israel with weapons if a full-scale war breaks out.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned the resistance movement will use its massive rocket and missile arsenal to hit targets across Israel in a “total war” if Tel Aviv decides to launch an invasion. Nasrallah also threatened Cyprus, noting its role as a US, UK, and Israeli staging ground. “The Cypriot government must be warned that opening Cypriot airports and bases for the Israeli enemy to target Lebanon means that the Cypriot government has become part of the war and the resistance [Hezbollah] will deal with it as part of the war,” he said. Nasrallah’s threat appeared to include the Akrotiri base, which lies in territory retained by the UK when Cyprus gained independence in 1960. The territory now hosts vast military and intelligence hubs for Britain and the US, Declassified UK notes.

“With the Chevron doctrine overturned, any future regulatory attempts to impose such burdens will require explicit and unambiguous congressional authorization..”

• Chevron and Bitcoin (Crossman)

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, delivered a decisive opinion that dismantles Chevron deference. The Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires courts to exercise independent judgment when interpreting statutes, rejecting the notion that ambiguities in law should default to agency interpretations. “Chevron defies the command of the APA that ‘the reviewing court’—not the agency whose action it reviews—is to ‘decide all relevant questions of law’ and ‘interpret . . . statutory provisions,’” Roberts wrote. “It requires a court to ignore, not follow, ‘the reading the court would have reached’ had it exercised its independent judgment. … Chevron cannot be reconciled with the APA… .” Slip Op., at 21 (emphasis added).

The ruling emphasizes that statutory ambiguities do not automatically delegate interpretive authority to agencies. Instead, courts must use traditional tools of statutory construction to determine the best reading of a statute, ensuring that agencies do not exceed their conferred powers. The implications of this ruling extend far beyond administrative law, reaching into the heart of the Bitcoin mining industry. Much like the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s overreach, this ruling reinforces the need for clear congressional authorization before agencies can impose significant regulatory burdens. For the Bitcoin mining industry, this decision is a clear win. Regulatory uncertainty has long been a thorn in the side of Bitcoin miners, who rely on predictable and stable access to power and other resources. By curbing the ability of agencies to unilaterally expand their regulatory reach, the Court has created a more favorable environment for Bitcoin mining operations.

Bitcoin miners have often been at the mercy of shifting regulatory landscapes, which can dramatically impact their operations. For instance, stringent environmental regulations targeting power consumption could have severely constrained the industry. With the Chevron doctrine overturned, any future regulatory attempts to impose such burdens will require explicit and unambiguous congressional authorization, followed by detailed judicial scrutiny. This decision also invigorates the major question doctrine, which posits that significant regulatory actions with vast economic and political implications require clear congressional authorization. This doctrine can be a powerful tool for Bitcoin miners and other industries to challenge regulatory overreach, ensuring that agencies cannot impose wide-ranging policies without clear legislative backing.

CHEVRON GOES DOWN!

This is a great clip on the Chevron Doctrine. pic.twitter.com/4nkhbeA6GK

— eve (@eveforamerica) June 29, 2024

“Admittance is only granted to the select few who pay the massively extortionate ticket price..”

• Banksy ‘Launches’ Migrant Boat Stunt At Glastonbury Festival (MN)

The ‘street’ artist Banksy carried out a stunt at the now uber trendy Glastonbury Festival Friday night by launching a mock-up small boat complete with dummy migrants into the crowd. The Guardian reports that many in the crowd thought it was part of the band Idles’ set given that their songs are all about lefty political positions such as the idea that limiting mass illegal immigration is right wing and evil. The report notes, however, that Banksy was behind the stunt stating “The raft, a reference to the small boats carrying migrants across the Channel that have been such a high-profile target of Rishi Sunak’s immigration policy, was crowdsurfed through the thousands-strong Other stage crowd, which Idles were headlining on Friday night.” Given that Sunak has done practically nothing to prevent the boats and the Conservative government has actively incentivised mass illegal immigration for years now, you’d be forgiven for thinking the stunt was some sort of endorsement.

One of the most cringe, out of touch and middle class things I’ve seen at
Glastonbury. Crowdsurfing a lifeboat representing illegal migrants.

Being open borders at a music festival which has a gigantic fence & very high security. So edgy. pic.twitter.com/pJxwTUNnww

— Chris Rose (@ArchRose90) June 29, 2024

Indeed, it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what the point of it was. What is the crowd cheering about here? The report further notes that the boat was ‘launched’ during a song called Danny Nedelko, which contains the following lyrics: “My blood brother is an immigrant, a beautiful immigrant. My blood brother’s Freddie Mercury. A Nigerian mother of three. He’s made of bones, he’s made of blood. He’s made of flesh, he’s made of love. He’s made of you, he’s made of me. Unity. Fear leads to panic, panic leads to pain. Pain leads to anger, anger leads to hate.” The report also notes that “Migration is a major theme at this year’s Glastonbury festival, with a new area dedicated to the topic.” Mega cringe. It continues, “Entrants to ‘Terminal 1’ must answer a question from the UK government’s citizenship test for prospective migrants.”

The message being that having some form of secure border and vetting system is oppressive… or something. If people manage to pass the test they’re then treated to “music by representatives from Notting Hill carnival and Bristol’s St Paul’s carnival, alongside visual art by global artists including Love Watts, Yoshi Sodeoka and the Turner prize winner Mark Wallinger.” No thanks then. Admittance is only granted to the select few who pay the massively extortionate ticket price and can afford to spend more than the majority of people earn in an entire month once inside. It’s basically full of metropolitan shitlib ‘creatives’ and influencers with trust funds and disposable incomes. So it’s the perfect venue to engage in empty virtue signalling stunts.

CO2

"It's just total nonsense."

Energy expert Alex Epstein debunks the bare-faced lie that we're living through the hottest period in Earth's history.

"They're trying to make our CO2 levels today, and our temperatures today, seem unprecedented… We're one tenth the CO2 that we've… pic.twitter.com/PU9szvqwCO

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) June 29, 2024

Whale

Not enough people are talking about how magnificent and terrifying this is pic.twitter.com/Z6zYVlvdyJ

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) June 29, 2024

Cracks

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade…or art

David Zinn has been creating original artwork in and around Ann Arbor, Michigan, since 1987.

Armed with a box of sidewalk chalk, he turns cracks into works of art.pic.twitter.com/T3CdMxNgNY

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) June 29, 2024

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

Debt Rattle June 28 2024

Jun 282024

June 28, 2024 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:00 am Finance Tagged with: Alito, Biden, debate, free speech, Fulton County, Kallas, Trump, unfit 63 Responses »

Ivan Aivazovsky Lake Maggiore 1892

• US Rep. Gosar: Biden Debate Performance Shows He’s Unfit to Be President (Sp.)

• Biden Campaign Refuses To Commit To Drug Test Before Debate (MN)

• Justice Alito Dissent Says Majority ‘Shirks’ Duty in Free Speech Case (ET)

• Want to Defeat Joe Biden? Make Free Speech the Key Issue in 2024 (Turley)

• Australian Politician Blames Assange For Years Of Captivity (RT)

• What The Assange Saga Says About The State Of The American Empire (Hryce)

• US Uses National Security ‘As A Veil To Hide War Crimes’ – Assange Lawyer (RT)

• Russia Considers Downgrading Diplomatic Relations With The West (RT)

• Putin: The Protector of Ukraine (Paul Craig Roberts)

• EU Nominates Hawk For Next Top Diplomat (RT)

• EU To Put Brakes On Kiev’s Exports – FT (RT)

• Zelensky Regime Willing to Sacrifice Own People for Anti-Russia Crusade (Sp.)

• Israeli Plan To Prevent A Palestinian State (Sahiounie)

• Fulton County Georgia Seeks to Destroy 2020 Ballots To Halt Lawsuits (GP)

• Jim Rogers Warns of Economic Decline Post-Election (Sp.)

BBee

Trump Indicted For Murdering Elderly Man On CNN https://t.co/zLAfOXbJ11 pic.twitter.com/mPcQ0EsCrC

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) June 28, 2024

There are many takes on the debate. Jon is one. But in June 2024 you still use “Trump’s Blatant Lies” in your headline? As Biden said the border is more secure under him than Trump?

Jon Stewart – Trump’s Blatant Lies and Biden’s Senior Moments

Debate

Tucker Julian
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806048853885325769

Macron Zelensky
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806316098058326163

Sausage
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806052953804960012

Zelensky
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806343426243236022

Eva
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806191478265233454

Gosar says what many/most are thinking. Biden’s problem is, the Dems think it too. He’s a very big risk.

• US Rep. Gosar: Biden Debate Performance Shows He’s Unfit to Be President (Sp.)

Numerous Democrats have expressed concerns about Biden’s poor performance and its implications for the future of his candidacy, according to CNN, which hosted the debate. Trump and Biden are set to debate again on September 10 in an ABC-moderated event. US Congressman Paul Gosar in a statement to Sputnik said US President Joe Biden’s debate performance demonstrated he was mentally unfit to be US president. “With tonight’s debate, Joe Biden stammered the quiet part out loud: he is mentally unfit to be President of the United States,” Gosar said. President Joe Biden’s claim that the US southern border is more secure under his administration compared to former President Donald Trump’s is nonsense, former acting US Customs and Border Protection Deputy Commissioner Ronald Vitiello told Sputnik.

Biden during the first presidential debate in Atlanta falsely claimed that the National Border Patrol Council endorsed him and that his border policy currently has the southern border in better condition than when former President Donald Trump was in office. “Nonsense,” Vitiello said Thursday night. “Media reports have a 40% reduction in encounters since the executive order was signed. That still keeps us at over 1 million [illegal crossings on the southern border] per year.” Vitiello added that even at a lower flow rate thousands of illegal migrants are being released after being encountered on the US southern border and present a threat to US security. National Border Patrol Council Vice President Art Del Cueto told Sputnik that the group will never endorse Biden and that the US southern border has been in shambles since he took office in 2021. “Our borders have been in shambles since day one of the Biden administration,” Del Cueto said Thursday night. “The Border Patrol union never has nor never will endorse President Biden. We are fully behind Donald J. Trump.”

And how did that work out?

• Biden Campaign Refuses To Commit To Drug Test Before Debate (MN)

The Biden campaign has refused to agree to a drug test ahead of his debate with Donald Trump later today. While Trump has offered to submit to a drug test if his opponent also does so, the Biden campaign is having none of it. In an appearance on CNN Wednesday, Biden campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod stated “I mean, I don’t even really know what to say about that.” She then claimed that Biden twice beat Trump in previous debates (don’t remember that). “This is what [Trump] does because he doesn’t have anything else to run on,” Elrod further charged, adding “He doesn’t have a plan. He doesn’t have a record for fighting for the American people. He doesn’t know why he’s running, except for to seek political retribution on his enemies.”

Really? Trump is the one who doesn’t have a plan? She continued, “So he has to resort to these types of tactics which are, frankly, just silly. Turns off a lot of voters, especially voters who want to see their president fight for them.” Have you asked the voters lately? Biden’s campaign also posted this pathetic attempt to project problems with their own candidate onto Trump:

They don’t know how to meme, and they can’t do this either.

Trump appears to glitch and freeze on live television when asked about taking a drug test pic.twitter.com/WpufNv4qE5

— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) June 26, 2024

As we noted yesterday, the Trump campaign suggested that Biden will “probably be filled with Adderall” on Thursday, with senior adviser Jason Miller noting “We know that when it comes to the big events, when it comes to debates, when it comes to State of the Union, things of that nature, that they’re going to have Joe Biden completely super-soldiered up. He is going to be ready to go.” The Trump campaign also wants to know why Biden needs an entire week to prepare for a 90 minute debate, and exactly who is running the country in the meantime.

“..one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.”

And yeah, they dropped that ball. Kudos Alito.

• Justice Alito Dissent Says Majority ‘Shirks’ Duty in Free Speech Case (ET)

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said the high court shirked its duty by rejecting a challenge brought over the White House’s communications with social media companies over political content, a case he described as “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.” Justices Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority in the June 26 decision that the state and individual plaintiffs involved lacked standing to bring speech-related claims to the court. The plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri had claimed, among other things, that the Biden administration illegally coerced social media platforms to moderate certain election-related content and posts related to COVID-19. Justice Alito’s dissent disputed the majority’s arguments about standing while detailing communications between the Biden administration and Facebook. He said administration officials’ actions were “blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”

Justice Alito wrote that there was “more than sufficient” evidence that Jill Hines, one of the plaintiffs, had standing to sue, so the court is “obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents.” “The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think,” he wrote. The dissent warned that the majority, whose opinion was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, sent a message to government officials that if a “coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by.” He suggested the outcome should have been the same as in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, which was heard on the same day as Murthy and ultimately held that New York state’s government plausibly violated the First Amendment by pressuring companies to cut ties with the gun rights group.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court ruled last year that the administration’s communications constituted the type of coercion of social media companies that betrayed its duty not to violate the First Amendment.Three judges signed onto the September 2023 opinion that cited communications in detail. For example, it stated that a White House official “responded to a moderation report by flagging a user’s account and saying it is ‘[h]ard to take any of this seriously when you’re actively promoting anti-vaccine pages.’”It continued: “The platform subsequently ’removed‘ the account ’entirely‘ from its site, detailed new changes to the company’s moderation policies, and told the official that ’[w]e clearly still have work to do.’”“The official responded that ’removing bad information‘ is ’one of the easy, low-bar things you guys [can] do to make people like me think you’re taking action.‘ The official emphasized that other platforms had ’done pretty well‘ at demoting non-sanctioned information, and said ’I don’t know why you guys can’t figure this out.’”

In his June 26 opinion, Justice Alito described tech platforms as “critically dependent on the protection provided by [Section] 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 … which shields them from civil liability for content they spread.” He added that Facebook faced a regulatory environment that incentivized the company to “please important federal officials and the record in this case shows that high-ranking officials skillfully exploited Facebook’s vulnerability.” The administration, he said, “continuously and persistently hectored Facebook” while the platform’s “reactions to these efforts were not what one would expect from an independent news source or a journalistic entity dedicated to holding the Government accountable for its actions.”

“Instead,” he added, “Facebook’s responses resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster.”He later wrote, “Internal Facebook emails paint a clear picture of subservience.” The dissent also considered a variety of communications between White House officials Andy Slavitt and Rob Flaherty. For example, it noted that Mr. Flaherty, who served as White House director of digital strategy, accused Facebook of “hiding the ball” and suggested the company was “playing a shell game.”Justice Alito also pointed to Facebook’s changing policy amid White House criticism. Facebook representatives, he said, “pleaded to know how they could ‘get back to a good place’ with the White House.”

Tulsi
https://twitter.com/i/status/1806115658469704011

“We are now seeing what is arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in our history.”

• Want to Defeat Joe Biden? Make Free Speech the Key Issue in 2024 (Turley)

Since his dystopian speech outside of Independence Hall in 2022, President Joe Biden has made “democracy is on the ballot” his campaign theme. Pundits have repeated the mantra, claiming that if Biden is not elected, American democracy will perish. While some of us have challenged these predictions, the other presidential candidates are missing a far more compelling argument going into this election. While democracy is not on the ballot this election, free speech is. The 2024 election is looking strikingly similar to the election of 1800 and, if so, it does not bode well for Biden. In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” released last week, I discuss our long struggle with free speech as a nation. It is an unvarnished history with powerful stories of our heroes and villains in the struggle to define what Justice Louis Brandeis called our “indispensable right.”

One of the greatest villains in that history was President John Adams, who used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents – including journalists, members of Congress and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams. We are now seeing what is arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in our history. President Joe Biden is, in my view, the most anti-free speech president since Adams. Under his administration, we have seen a massive censorship system funded and directed by the government. A federal judge described the system as “Orwellian” in its scope and impact. Biden has repeatedly called for greater censorship and accused social media companies of “killing people” by not silencing more dissenting voices. Other Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have pushed for restrictions on “unacceptable” speech.

The Biden administration seeks to censor even true statements as disinformation. For example, I testified before Congress last year on how Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” The left has picked up the cudgels of censorship and blacklisting once used against them. During the McCarthy period, liberals were called “communist sympathizers.” Now, conservative justices are called “insurrectionist sympathizers.” In this election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, Donald Trump and Cornel West should talk about the threats against free speech at every debate and stump speech. They will have to overcome a news media that has been complicit in the attacks on free speech, but these candidates can break through by raising it as a key issue dividing Biden from the rest of the field.

Democrats and the news media have hammered away at cracking down on those accused of “disinformation.” The public, however, has not been won over by those seeking to limit their right of free speech or the push to amend the First Amendment because it’s too “aggressively individualistic.” So far, the anti-free speech movement has flourished largely in the echo chambers of academia and the media. It is time for the public to render its judgment. As discussed in my book, we are hardwired for free speech. It is in our DNA. Despite these periods of crackdowns on free speech, we have always rejected those who wanted to regulate the views of others. Jefferson called the Federalists “the reign of the witches.” (Ironically, Jefferson would himself prosecute critics, though not to the same extent as Adams). Attacks on free speech have returned with a vengeance before another presidential election. After fighting in the courts and in the public to expand censorship, Biden should now have to defend it with the voters. Let’s have at it, as we did in 1800. Free speech is again on the ballot. It is time for the public to decide.

Sure, he should have volunteered for 175 years of prison time.

• Australian Politician Blames Assange For Years Of Captivity (RT)

The opposition leader in the Australian Senate, Simon Birmingham, has claimed Julian Assange’s years of confinement in the UK were the result of his own actions, as he evaded lawful extradition requests. On Wednesday, the Wikileaks founder walked free from a courtroom in a remote US Pacific territory, after pleading guilty to a single count of conspiracy to obtain and disseminate national defense information – in exchange for a sentence that amounted to the time he spent in UK custody fighting a US extradition request. The Australian government, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, had sought his release. In an interview with Sky News Australia on Thursday, Simon Birmingham predicted that “the prime minister’s embrace of Mr. Assange might not age very well, once Mr Assange starts tweeting again.” He insisted that Assange should not be considered an innocent Australian citizen, persecuted by an authoritarian government.

“Mr. Assange evaded lawful extradition requests, first by hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy, then by using his legal rights in the United Kingdom to challenge them over many years,” Birmingham said. “The reason it has taken so long to resolve this is his decision to challenge it in that way.” Ecuador granted Assange political asylum in 2012 due concerns that a Swedish extradition request for the Wikileaks founder was a ruse to have him sent to the US. American espionage charges, which were made public years later, could have landed the Australian up to 175 years of prison time. The Australian Senate opposition leader claimed that the publishing of classified materials by WikiLeaks endangered the sources of US allies, including Australia, which is a member of the Five Eye intelligence-sharing group.

A similar argument was made by US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, who claimed during a daily briefing on Wednesday that Assange “put the lives of our partners, our allies and our diplomats at risk, especially those who work in dangerous places, like Afghanistan and Iraq.” Some journalists, including Associated Press reporter Matt Lee, challenged him – pointing out that the court verdict specifically said that there were no victims in the case and that the US government never identified to the public any individual put in harm’s way by WikiLeaks. “Just because people were able to mitigate the harm done by your actions, that doesn’t absolve you,” Miller responded, comparing publication of leaked documents to reckless driving.

“America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.”

• What The Assange Saga Says About The State Of The American Empire (Hryce)

The Assange saga is a salutary tale about the exercise of US power as the American Empire declines, and the continuing willingness of US allies like the UK and Australia to comply with America’s demands – even when they involve persecution of citizens of those allied countries. Assange’s release is understandably being portrayed by some commentators as a victory of sorts – the international Federation of Journalists called it “a significant victory for media freedom” – and insofar as Assange has regained his personal freedom, it is. But it should not be forgotten that for the past 14 years the US has been able to successfully – with the abject complicity of governments and authorities in the UK and Australia – imprison a journalist of international stature for simply engaging in genuine investigative journalism.

Assange is a journalist – not a whistleblower or leaker of classified material. Nor did Assange’s publishing of the classified material in question cause any real harm to the US – other than to embarrass it by disclosing the truth about American conduct during its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. America’s fabled commitment to freedom of speech and the press – embodied in the first amendment to its constitution – has never been absolute, but, as the Assange saga clearly shows, it has probably never been weaker than over the past few decades. That is not surprising – given that pursuing the inherently corrupt aims of the Empire overseas must inevitably result in the curtailment of domestic freedoms. Barrington Moore Jr described this relationship as “aggression abroad and repression at home” during the height of the Vietnam war in the late 1960s, and America’s founding fathers were well aware of how the British had been corrupted by their Empire.

Washington in his farewell speech warned against America becoming involved in “foreign entanglements” – and John Quincy Adams famously said “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” And Edmund Burke, the conservative 18th-century British statesman, and stern critic of British policy in America and India, pointed out that “the breakers of the law in India are also the makers of the law in England.” It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the US persecution of Assange should have occurred during a period in which America has engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and promoted and funded proxy wars in Gaza and Ukraine.

And there can be no doubt whatsoever that if Assange had been extradited to the US and had been tried in an American court, that he would have received a very lengthy jail sentence. One prosecutor suggested that a term of 175 years would have been an appropriate punishment for him. Nor should it be forgotten that America’s persecution of Assange was carried out on a bi-partisan basis. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans were equally keen to put Assange in prison. Hillary Clinton was a particularly rabid critic of Assange, as was Biden until very recently. In fact, Donald Trump had a measure of sympathy for Assange because WikiLeaks had published the emails that had damaged Clinton’s reputation in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

America’s internal decline over the past 50 years can be gauged by comparing Assange’s likely fate with what happened to Daniel Ellsberg – who famously leaked the Pentagon Papers to the Washington Post in the early 1970s. When Ellsberg was prosecuted, the US courts threw the case out on the basis the Nixon administration had subjected Ellsberg to unlawful persecution. Equally troubling – especially for the citizens of the UK and Australia – is the fact that, until very recently, governments in both of these countries cravenly capitulated to US demands in relation to Assange.

“..this was the only way to end a case that undeniably did not play in favor of the image of the US in the world..”

• US Uses National Security ‘As A Veil To Hide War Crimes’ – Assange Lawyer (RT)

The Julian Assange saga has clearly shown that the US has been using its “national security” as a “veil” to hide war crimes, one of the WikiLeaks founder’s attorneys, Aitor Martinez, has said. The years-long persecution of the publisher and the extradition case have also set a very dangerous precedent, which threatens the whole concept of press freedom, the lawyer added. At the same time, the Assange case had become growingly toxic for the US administration, sprouting numerous groups advocating his release and effectively turning into a global movement, Martinez suggested. “The truth is that the US administration had been pushing for the extradition process until recently, and indeed, just a few weeks ago, they had even provided diplomatic assurances seeking the effective handover of Julian Assange.

However, in recent times, a citizen movement has emerged against this extradition, and I believe there is no corner of the world where a ‘Free Assange’ movement has not sprung up,” the lawyer stated. The timing of the abrupt resolution of the years-long affair is likely linked to the looming US presidential elections and the ongoing campaign, where it was bound to emerge one way or another. The case “in some way tarnished the image of the United States before the world” given it “meant the political persecution of a journalist who simply published truthful information that evidenced the commission of serious war crimes,” Martinez noted.

“Therefore, unquestionably, the Assange case would have arisen in the framework of the presidential debates, and this was the only way to end a case that undeniably did not play in favor of the image of the US in the world,” he said. While politicians in Washington have ultimately opted to wrap up the affair, the US intelligence community has regarded it as a personal vendetta of sorts against the journalist, Martinez claimed. “This case was being radically pushed by the US intelligence establishment and mainly by the CIA as a form of revenge against Julian Assange for the material he had published, which in some way had revealed the shame of the US military in operations abroad,” he said.

Sad.

• Russia Considers Downgrading Diplomatic Relations With The West (RT)

Moscow could be forced to downgrade diplomatic ties with Western countries, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has warned, citing hostile policies of the US and its allies. “We have not initiated such a step yet, despite all of the things related to the most tumultuous phase in our relations with the West,” the diplomat said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper, published on Thursday. “Is a decision to downgrade the level of diplomatic ties possible? I can say that we are examining this issue. Such decisions are made on the highest level,” Ryabkov said, adding that it is too early to “speculate.” The West’s “sense of impunity” on the world stage will eventually force Russia to retaliate more decisively, if the situation does not change, the deputy minister warned. Our adversaries must know that, with every step, they are moving closer to the point of no return.

Ryabkov accused Washington of helping Ukrainian forces pick targets when using US-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles to strike Russian territory. Last week, four people were killed when cluster munitions from a missile hit a packed beach in Crimea. The incident prompted Moscow to summon the American ambassador. “It was a flagrant case of a direct [US] involvement in the conflict,” Ryabkov said. “The complicity in a terrorist act committed by the Kiev regime will not go unanswered.” The diplomat said that deliveries of weapons to Ukraine and attempts to confiscate Russian assets abroad undermine potential dialogue in other fields, such as arms control. “They must understand that it would be simply impossible,” he stressed. Earlier in June, Ukraine’s Western backers renewed their pledges to continue support for Kiev in its fight with Moscow. Russia has repeatedly stated that no amount of foreign aid will stop its operation in Ukraine, and that weapons deliveries only lead to further escalation.

PCR thinks Putin should kill more Ukrainians. Putin does not.

• Putin: The Protector of Ukraine (Paul Craig Roberts)

Has anyone noticed that Putin is conducting his “limited military operation,” by which he means limited to Donbas and the former Russian territories that are again part of Russia, as a response to US/NATO/Ukrainian initiatives? When the Russian military strikes outside the limited combat zone, it is usually a response to a Ukrainian strike into Russia out of the combat zone. After 2.5 years of conflict, Putin has made no effort to win the war. He doesn’t even seem to understand that Russia is at war, not engaged in a limited police action. Putin has left the Ukrainian government in functioning order and has not interfered with Zelensky’s ability to continue the conflict. Kiev is intact. The government in Kiev is intact. Nothing has been done to close Ukraine’s borders from Western armament supplies. The entire initiative of the conflict is with the West. The West acts, and Putin responds. There are no Russian initiatives. Indeed, Russia was forced into the conflict by the West’s initiatives.

This is not the way to fight a war. It is Putin’s refusal to fight and win a war that is causing the enormous expansion–the ever widening–of the war. Notice that the Kremlin’s response to the US missile attack on Crimean civilians and a public beach is to call in the American ambassador and complain, to investigate, to send condolences, not to destroy and occupy Kiev. After all this time haven’t the Russians learned that no one pays any attention to their complaints? Why does Putin think he can shame the shameless West? Why does the Kremlin worry about over-responding to attacks? Washington doesn’t worry about over-provoking Russia. Let me be clear, I am on humanity’s side. I don’t want nuclear war. Putin should never have entered a conflict when he did not intend a quick victory before Washington/NATO could get involved and widen the war.

Now that French troops are in Ukraine, now that US/NATO personnel are conducting the targeting of the US long-range missiles on Russian civilians, and now that Russia is faced with the likelihood of NATO troops entering Ukraine, Putin’s response is to play into Washington’s hands by speaking of bringing North Korean troops into the conflict. Imagine the propaganda damage. North Korea is even more demonized than Russia and Putin. Why does Putin want to widen the conflict instead of quickly winning it? Is the reason that his central bank director convinced him Russia lacked the resources to conduct a real war? Is this why Putin endlessly emphasizes Russian nuclear capability? Does Putin lack the resources to conduct conventional war? With his central bank director’s 16% interest rates hindering the Russian economy, perhaps it is so. Putin’s central bank director left Russian central bank reserves in Western depositories where Washington could seize them.

Was this incompetence or an act of treason? Washington has decided that the interest income earned by the seized Russian central bank reserves will be given to Ukraine to continue the war. So Russia’s own central bank reserves are financing Ukraine’s ability to conduct war against Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia, especially the youth, were corrupted for years by Washington’s propaganda. They lost their national consciousness and became “citizens of the West.” Has Russian youth escaped from this delusion, or does it still rule? The question before us is: Does Russia have leadership capable of comprehending that Russia has an enemy intent on her destruction and dismemberment, or will the Kremlin finally realize this at the last minute, too late to avoid nuclear war?

It is extraordinary that the fate of the world rests on Russian misperception and inadequate response to the West’s intent. As a result of Putin’s inability to act decisively, he was drawn into a conflict that has become open-ended, involving, at least in plans, troops from foreign countries. To pretend that such a conflict is a “limited military operation” is an act of irresponsibility, even evidence of reality denial. Russia is at war with the West. She got there because she refused to acknowledge the fact. Grasping reality remains a challenge for the Kremlin which continues to enable the Ukraine conflict to spin out of control rather than use the force to decisively terminate the conflict before it ends in World War III.

PCR

The loudest anti-Russia voice as your top diplomat?

• EU Nominates Hawk For Next Top Diplomat (RT)

EU leaders have officially nominated Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas to replace Josep Borrell as the bloc’s top diplomat. Kallas is known for her hawkish position on Russia and has been one of the most outpoken proponents of tougher sanctions on Moscow. The leaders also backed Ursula von der Leyen to serve a third five-year term as the president of the European Commission, and named the former foreign minister of Portugal, Antonio Costa, as the new president of the European Council. The nominations for Kallas and Von der Leyen are not final, and require approval by the European Parliament. However, Costa is automatically elected by the national leaders of the 27 nations.

Euronews cited two sources as saying that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni voted against Kallas’ candidacy, while Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban abstained. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Kallas wrote that the potential new post would be “an enormous responsibility at this moment of geopolitical tensions.” “The war in Europe, increasing instability in our neighborhood and globally are the main challenges for European foreign policy,” she wrote, promising to “work on achieving EU unity” and “protect the EU’s interests and values in the changed geopolitical context.”

Kallas has repeatedly called for stronger sanctions on Moscow and backed the idea of using frozen Russian assets to fund aid for Kiev. In May, Estonia’s parliament passed a law that allows using seized Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine. She urged the EU to boost the deliveries of weapons to Ukraine and increase the bloc’s own defense capabilities. “Our aim must be to manufacture more munitions than Russia,” Kallas said in March. Russia blacklisted Kallas earlier this year and issued a warrant for her arrest, citing “hostile policies towards Russia.

This feels very stupid.

• EU To Put Brakes On Kiev’s Exports – FT (RT)

The EU is set to reimpose tariffs on sugar and egg imports from Ukraine on Friday to protect the bloc’s farmers from a flood of cheap goods, the Financial Times (FT) has reported. EU member states decided earlier this year that they would apply an “emergency brake” if Ukrainian imports reached a certain volume. Eggs and sugar imports have now hit that level, the FT said, citing people familiar with the situation. Tariffs amounting to €419 ($448) per ton of white sugar and €339 ($362) per ton of raw sugar will be announced on Friday, the publication reported. Eggs will cost an additional 32 cent per kilogram, it added. Ukraine has become the EU’s leading supplier of eggs after the bloc’s poultry industry suffered from bird flu outbreaks in recent years. Imports from Ukraine jumped by three-quarters in 2023, and continued to rise at the start of this year, according to EU data.

Last week, tariffs were reintroduced on Ukrainian oats as imports also reached the relevant ceiling. The decision to limit Ukrainian imports follows months of protests by farmers. Agricultural workers argue that the EU’s policies are threatening their livelihoods. After the launch of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, Brussels dropped all tariffs and quotas on Kiev’s farming goods for a period of one year to allow its agricultural products to be shipped to global markets. Farmers in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and other neighboring countries staged protests, complaining that they simply could not compete with cheap Ukrainian imports that were not subject to the same tariffs and regulations as EU-produced goods.

In April, EU lawmakers extended Kiev’s duty-free access to member states’ markets but also decided to introduce caps on Ukrainian farm imports such as oats, corn, maize, honey, eggs, poultry, and sugar. Duties would be applied to the listed produce if imports exceed average levels of past years. The expected reintroduction of tariffs comes just days after the EU opened membership talks with Kiev, “an agricultural powerhouse,” the FT said. The move underlines how difficult Ukraine’s accession negotiations will be, it added.

“..they know or have identified certain individuals in the Kiev regime and the US’ decision-making process, whom they can hold personally responsible..”

• Zelensky Regime Willing to Sacrifice Own People for Anti-Russia Crusade (Sp.)

The number of Ukrainian casualties in the country’s ongoing war against Russia has remained a highly contentious matter throughout the duration of the conflict. Kiev and its Western allies often downplay the number, claiming the death toll is only in the thousands, but Moscow’s defense ministry has estimated the actual figure is close to 500,000. Purportedly leaked US intelligence documents admit Ukraine’s death toll is much higher than publicly acknowledged. Whatever the number, the war is likely the bloodiest the world has seen in decades. But security analyst Mark Sleboda claims the “ideological” Kiev regime is unfazed by the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands, or even a million, of its own citizens in its crusade against the Russian nation. The international relations expert joined Sputnik’s Fault Lines program Wednesday to discuss the latest developments in the conflict as the killing of several Russian civilians, including two children, at a beach in Sevastopol elevates tensions to new heights.

Host Jamarl Thomas began by asking Sleboda what the consequences might be for the United States, which provided Ukraine with the US-made ATACMS missiles used in the attack. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently warned the country would be forced to respond to repeated acts of terrorism against Russian civilians. “That’s a good question and I don’t know that anyone rightfully knows the answer to that,” Sleboda responded. “There are some who suggested that the statements by Lavrov and by other officials seem to indicate that they know or have identified certain individuals in the Kiev regime and the US’ decision-making process, whom they can hold personally responsible, and what measures they might take against them either over sanctions, criminal cases or shall we say more direct justice.” “The other possibility is an asymmetric response, as Putin has promised, of providing long-range strike weapons to US adversaries in the world,” he suggested.

Thomas speculated Moscow could implement a no-fly zone over the Black Sea, where drones have gathered targeting information for Ukrainian strikes. Russian officials have also pointed out that advanced Western weaponry, such as the ATACMS missile system, typically require the assistance of highly-trained US military personnel to operate. The high level of coordination in the strikes on Russia represents a level of US involvement in the conflict that goes beyond what the country publicly acknowledges, Russian officials have noted, requiring a response from Moscow in order to protect its people and territory.

“This is not passive intelligence,” Sleboda said of Kiev’s reliance on Western reconnaissance aircraft to help coordinate attacks. “This is active intelligence gathering.” The security analyst also noted the assistance of the United States in programing targeting information into Ukraine’s weapons systems, according to comments by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and generals in the German Bundeswehr. “Not doing something almost guarantees escalation by the West,” said Thomas. “Meaning, they’re acting with impunity. They don’t believe in Russia’s red lines.” The host claimed the United States has not yet faced a great enough cost during the conflict to reconsider its position, with American officials frequently boasting of the potential to undermine one of their perceived global adversaries without sacrificing American lives.

All other plans involve 2 states.

• Israeli Plan To Prevent A Palestinian State (Sahiounie)

While the world watches the genocide in Gaza, there is another war on the Palestinian people in the Occupied West Bank. On June 9, the New York Times (NYT) reported that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich outlined, in a speech to Jewish extremists, a plan by the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to annex the Occupied Territories of the West Bank. His speech was recorded secretly and leaked to the NYT. Smotrich is part of the more than 600,000 Jewish settlers illegally occupying Palestinian lands. He advocates Israel taking all the Palestinian territories, and preventing the Palestinians from ever having an independent state. The UN, the U.S. and the international community all agree that Gaza and the West Bank should be eventually an independent Palestinian state, which would be the end of a brutal Israeli military occupation and apartheid.

This is not the first secret leaked speech of Smotrich. In October 2022, Smotrich was caught calling Netanyahu “the liar of all liars”, as reported by The Jerusalem Post. According to Smotrich, the plan to steal the West Bank is fully supported by Netanyahu, and forms a basis for the current right-wing Jewish extremist coalition keeping Netanyahu in power, and out of jail. The plan involves supporting the Jewish settler’s expansion in the West Bank, which is illegal under international law, and has been under occupation since 1967. Officially, the Israeli government maintains that the West Bank’s status will be negotiated in the future. The Smotrich-Netanyahu plan would forever deny the almost 3 million Palestinians of the Occupied West Bank their freedom. For Palestinians, the plan would mark the end of any hope to live in freedom and democracy, but for the Jewish Zionists, the plan would be a culmination of their goal to have one land ‘from the river to the sea’ which is occupied only by Jews.

Not every Jew is a Zionist, and not every Zionist is a Jew. For example, after October 7, U.S. President Joe Biden said he was a Zionist, while being a Christian. Zionism is a political movement, hiding behind a religion. Similarly, Al Qaeda and ISIS are political movements, hiding behind a religion. Using the word Zionist as a label of identification is not antisemitic, because Zionism is not limited only to Jews. The modern movement of Zionism began in the late 1800s, and refers to Zion as an acronym for Jerusalem. Jewish settlers in the West Bank see their illegal occupation there as a demonstration of Zionism. Those who oppose Zionism are not being anti-Semitic. They simply oppose a political position of the Israeli government, just as they may oppose a political position of the Japanese government on an issue.

The official name of Israel is “The Jewish State of Israel”. Some have offered that there is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and also similarly of Iran. So why do people complain about the religious nature of Israel? Israel denies the human rights and civil rights of non-Jewish people in Israel and Palestine, and has been classified as an Apartheid state by the UN and human rights groups. Tallie Ben Daniel, the managing director of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which sees Zionism as a movement whose aim “is to deny the rights of Palestinians and the humanity of Palestinians.” “For us, we want to be clear: the form of Zionism that has survived and has power now is an expansionist, right-wing, genocidal form,” Ben Daniel said. “The people in power in Israel right now … want to annihilate the Palestinians and get all the land for Jews, and there is no thought there could be coexistence,” said Ben Daniel.

Nice county. Fani says hi.

• Fulton County Georgia Seeks to Destroy 2020 Ballots To Halt Lawsuits (GP)

In an ongoing lawsuit concerning the 2020 election, attorneys for Fulton County, Georgia, made a controversial argument yesterday. They suggested that a temporary injunction preserving the 2020 Fulton election ballots should be lifted, which would allow the ballots to be destroyed before they are unsealed, copied, and revealed to the public. The attorneys also contended that Fulton County should receive attorney fees for the case, despite a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that overturned lower court decisions and confirmed standing for the plaintiffs who seek to copy and inspect the ballots, according to the VoterGA. Representing Fulton Superior Court Clerk Che Alexander, Attorney Laura Moore made the case that there is no longer room in a secure warehouse cage for the ballots, so they may now be destroyed.

Moore conveniently omitted from her argument that Fulton County recently opened a new 60,000 sq. ft. Election Operations warehouse at an initial cost of nearly 30 million and an additional 4 million annual lease for Fulton taxpayers, per VoterGA. More from the VoterGA press release: Attorney Kaye Burwell argued that the county should receive attorney fees for costs incurred so far because Plaintiffs’ claims, which are still yet to be adjudicated, are“meritless”. Burwell ignored all rulings showing Plaintiffs in the case, currently known as Favorito v. Wan, were granted relief eight times thus proving their claims are legitimate. The rulings include:

• A temporary injunction to preserve all ballots on Jan. 7, 2021;
• An order to produce scanned absentee ballot images on April 16, 2021;
• An order upholding two Open Records Request claims on April 20, 2021;
• A motion granted to add the county and clerk as Defendants on April 21, 2021;
• An order to unseal the ballots for inspection and copying on May 21, 2021;
• An order granting Petitioners’ motion to add parties on June 24, 2021;
• A Georgia Supreme Court order confirming Plaintiffs’ standing claim on Dec. 12, 2022;
• An appeals court adoption of the higher order for Fulton plaintiffs on May 11, 2023.

Lead Plaintiff Garland Favorito added, “Watching the attorneys make such ludicrous, dishonest arguments with a straight face while seeking to destroy the ballots and charge us fees for winning arguments in court against them only serves to remind me of the massive Fulton County corruption that threatens the voting rights of every Georgian.” Judge Robert McBurney is expected to rule soon on the motion for fees, the temporary injunction for the ballots and a Plaintiff motion to substitute Defendants with new members of the Fulton County Election Board who the court can compel to act if it grants further relief.

“..the markets’ strength won’t last long, as they have been strong for a long time, so regardless of who wins, problems will begin after the elections..”

• Jim Rogers Warns of Economic Decline Post-Election (Sp.)

The global economy will face difficult times by the US presidential elections or shortly thereafter, renowned US investor Jim Rogers told Sputnik. Rogers observed that most markets are currently performing well and reaching new highs due to the massive amounts of money printed by nearly every central bank worldwide in recent months and years. “There’s a lot of free money around. It has to go somewhere and it’s been going into the investment world so everybody’s having a good time…,” Rogers said. ” When everybody is making a new high, that’s a risk. Whenever that happened in the past, it usually led to a decline, a bad market, and a bad economy… Soon that will be a problem.” Rogers explained that because the US is the largest economy in the world, whatever happens there affects the rest of the world. According to Rogers, the downturn will begin around the time of the US elections or shortly after.

The US presidential election will be held on November 5. The main rivals in the race are Biden, a Democrat, and his Republican predecessor, Donald Trump. Regardless of the winner in the upcoming US presidential elections, the markets will react positively, but this period of “happiness” will be brief, legendary American investor Jim Rogers told Sputnik “People expect Trump to win. They think that Trump will be good for the market. So if he wins, the markets will stay strong, not too much longer, because the markets have been strong for a long time now,” Rogers said. “Likewise, if Biden wins many people will think ‘we will have the same old good things’. So whichever one wins, the market is going to be happy for a short period of time.” Rogers added that the markets’ strength won’t last long, as they have been strong for a long time, so regardless of who wins, problems will begin after the elections.

Thank you

This is why CNN won't allow an audience for tonight's debate pic.twitter.com/Klkgv4NhEC

— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) June 27, 2024

Free energy

Free energy pic.twitter.com/4BmeIpfbEX

— nikola 3 (@ronin19217435) June 27, 2024

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

Debt Rattle May 22 2024

May 222024

May 22, 2024 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:26 am Finance Tagged with: Assange, deadly force, FBI, Kallas, Mar-a-Lago, Merchan, Michael Cohen, Nuland, Schwab.SPR, Zelensky 41 Responses »

Roy Lichtenstein Crying girl 1964

• Judge Merchan Becomes an Oddity in his Own Courtroom (Turley)

• Lawrence O’Donnell Mocked Over Pathetic Defense of Michael Cohen (Turley)

• Biden Drains Entire Northeast Gasoline Reserve In Bid To Lower Gas Prices (ZH)

• Estonia PM Calls For Breakup Of Russia (RT)

• Zelensky ‘Yelling At Generals’ – The Economist (RT)

• West Sweating Over Zelensky’s Crashing Popularity – Russian Intel (RT)

• Zelensky Wants NATO To Shoot Down Russian Missiles (RT)

• Nuland Comments On Potential Official NATO Deployment To Ukraine (RT)

• Let Ukraine Use US Weapons To Strike Inside Russia – Nuland (RT)

• Lavrov Reveals Zelensky’s ‘Hysterical’ Demand for Support in Switzerland Talks (Sp.)

• Ukraine ‘a Classic Failed State’ – Medvedev (RT)

• FBI Agents Were Prepared for Secret Service Resistance at Mar-a-Lago (ET)

• The Failure of Western Financial Sanctions (Metri)

• Klaus Schwab Steps Down As World Economic Forum Executive Chairman (ZH)

• Assange Granted ‘Last Chance Appeal’ For Freedom (Cradle)

Elon Musk: “In sharp contrast, X supports child safety bills”

Leavitt
https://twitter.com/i/status/1792631963355881787

Pam Bondi
https://twitter.com/i/status/1792942935861850122

Bobb

Trump lawyer Christina Bobb says when she switched to being counsel for Trump as it relates to election integrity she has had US Marshalls show up at her house, the FBI, she was interrogated by Biden’s DOJ twice and now she is facing up to 50 years in prison for helping to bring… pic.twitter.com/UlCSUYdj5p

— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) May 22, 2024

“The judge chastised Costello and even challenged him: “Are you staring me down?” In fact, it was hard not to stare. What is happening in the courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan is anything but ordinary.”

“May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.”

• Judge Merchan Becomes an Oddity in his Own Courtroom (Turley)

The completion of the testimony of Michael Cohen left the prosecution of Donald Trump, like its star witness, in tatters. In the final day of cross-examination, Cohen admitted to committing larceny in stealing tens of thousands of dollars from his client. Even more notably, he admitted to the larceny on the stand — after the statute of limitations had passed. There will be no dead felony zapped back into life against Cohen, as it was for Trump. Cohen clearly has found a home for his unique skill as a convicted, disbarred serial perjurer. It was not the first time that prosecutors looked the other way as Cohen admitted to major criminal conduct: In a prior hearing, Cohen admitted under oath that he lied in a previous case where he pleaded guilty to lying. If that is a bit confusing, it was just another day in the life of Michael Cohen, who appears only willing to tell the truth if he has no other alternative.

The result is truly otherworldly. You have a disbarred lawyer not only casually discussing lies and uncharged crimes, but prosecutors who proceeded to get him to remind the jury that he is not facing any further criminal charges. If any one of those jurors had stolen tens of thousands of dollars, they would be given a fast trip to the hoosegow. Yet Cohen then matter-of-factly said he plans to run for Congress due to his “name recognition” — the ultimate proof that it does not matter whether you are famous or infamous, so long as they spell your name right. As a legislator, Cohen would have the unique ability to say he will not be corrupted by Congress — because he came to Congress corrupted. While most members wait to take office to commit felonies, Rep. Cohen would show up with a self-affirming criminal record. He could then take one of the few oaths that he has not previously violated as the Honorable Rep. Michael Cohen.

At the end of the day, Cohen is the ultimate shining object for prosecutors to use as a distraction from the glaring omissions in their case. Prior witnesses testified that Trump’s payments to Cohen were designated as “legal expenses” not by Trump but by his accounting staff. Moreover, Cohen admitted that he worked for Trump for years in his murky capacity as a fixer. References to payments as a retainer were approved by Allen Weisselberg, a retired executive with the Trump Organization. The “legal expense” label was a natural characterization for a lawyer who was paid monthly and was on-call as Trump’s personal counsel. In any other district, this case would never have been allowed in trial. It certainly now should be facing a directed verdict by the court. Indeed, with any other defendant, a New York jury would be giving a Bronx cheer in derision. Even CNN hosts and experts have admitted that this case would never have been brought against another defendant or in another district. That is what Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is counting on.

Costello

"So I said, Michael, tell me about the NDA. Tell me about Stormy Daniels. What did you do? He said, I got a call from a lawyer representing Stormy Daniels who represented that she was going to testify that Donald Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels. Michael Cohen said, I didn't… pic.twitter.com/LGt0a1Ggcf

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) May 21, 2024

The biggest problem facing the defense is not the evidence, but the judge: Judge Juan Merchan seems to be channeling George Patton’s warning, “May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.” Merchan has not given any indication that he is seriously considering a directed verdict, which he should clearly grant before this goes to the jury. Merchan’s rulings have largely favored the prosecution, including some rulings that left some of us mystified. Judge Merchan continues to allow the jury to hear references to campaign-finance violations that do not exist. After gutting any use of a legal expert to testify on the absence of any such violations, the judge allowed the jury to hear Michael Cohen state that the payments to Stormy Daniels were clearly campaign violations. All that Merchan would offer is a weak instruction telling jurors not to take such statements as proof of a violation. The alleged campaign-finance violations allowed Cohen to try to implicate Trump. However, it is doubtful that Trump could have been convicted on such a charge in any other venue.

It is precisely what the Justice Department tried and failed to do with John Edwards, a Democratic candidate. After that unmitigated failure, the Justice Department dropped this theory of hush money as a campaign contribution. Indeed, after reviewing the Trump payments, not only did the Justice Department decline any charges but the Federal Election Commission did not even seek a civil fine. On Monday, Judge Merchan’s orders became even more inexplicable when Cohen’s former attorney Robert Costello took the stand. Merchan immediately started to sustain a flurry of prosecutors’ objections as Costello basically accused Cohen of multiple acts of perjury. At one point, Costello — one of the most experienced lawyers in New York and a former prosecutor — exclaimed that one of the judge’s rulings was “ridiculous.” The judge chastised Costello and even challenged him: “Are you staring me down?” In fact, it was hard not to stare. What is happening in the courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan is anything but ordinary.

How much did Cohen take in total over the years? No way it’s just $30,000.

• Lawrence O’Donnell Mocked Over Pathetic Defense of Michael Cohen (Turley)

After his disastrous testimony in Manhattan, Michael Cohen lost even hosts and legal analysts at MSNBC and CNN. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin described Cohen as a “fabricator, liar or forgetful person.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper discussed how the testimony was “devastating for Michael Cohen’s credibility.” CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig said that Cohen had his “knees chopped out” by the defense. All of that was before Cohen admitted that he committed grand larceny in stealing tens of thousands from the Trump company. Most analysts honestly expressed disgust at the admission and expressed shock that he was not prosecuted. The question is whether anyone could find a way to excuse grand larceny to spare viewers in the echo chamber. That is when host Lawrence O’Donnell stepped forward. So to recap. Here is what Cohen said under oath under questioning by Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche:

Blanche: “So you stole from the Trump Organization, right?” Cohen: “Yes, sir.” Not much ambiguity but Cohen went on to explain that he intentionally inflated costs to just pocket tens of thousands of dollars. He admitted it was theft, plain and simple. For O’Donnell, it is not that simple. He rushed outside to assure MSNBC viewers that everything is fine and that this is just a form of what Cohen laughingly called “self-help.” “Cohen [was trying] to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserved, & it still came out as less than the bonus he thought he deserved & the bonus he had gotten the year before.” It would have been more convincing if O’Donnell, a self-proclaimed socialist, had just called it a redistribution effort from the super-rich to the rich. However, there was a sense of desperation in O’Donnell’s interview in offering viewers an assuring alternative explanation. Larceny did not fit with the past coverage lionizing Cohen. For many viewers, O’Donnell’s account relieved them of the need to question the basis for the prosecution of Trump.

We will have to wait to see if O’Donnell’s defense is picked up in the nearby trial of Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.). It appears that taking those gold bars and other gifts may have been just an effort of Menendez to secure a bonus that he believed was warranted from his public service. It would also mean that anyone who was denied a bonus or received less from their employer can simply steal the difference. There is a serious aspect to the O’Donnell statement. It is not clear if O’Donnell actually believes that Cohen was justified in stealing this money. However, he does show the level of self-delusion or denial that is common with many citizens who cannot see beyond the identity of the defendant. These are the same citizens who elected candidates like Letitia James as state attorney on a pledge to bag Trump for something, for anything. These are the same citizens who voted roughly 90 percent against Trump in Manhattan. These are the same citizens that are likely represented by some on this jury.

That may explain why the Trump team decided to take the risk of a “killer shot” witness like Robert Costello. Some of us believe that this case is already fatally flawed and that no reasonable jury could convict Trump. Indeed, I cannot see how any reasonable judge could deny a directed verdict. However, the Trump team does not want to wait for a long appeal. Costello comes with a risk of opening up issues on cross examination, particularly the involvement of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. The fact is that the jury has MSNBC viewers and some who likely hold the same bias as O’Donnell. For them, what most of us see unfolding in Manhattan may not be what they see. They may only see one person in the courtroom and it is not any witness.

“Biden just drained the Northeast strategic gasoline reserve to push gas lower by a few cents on July 4..”

• Biden Drains Entire Northeast Gasoline Reserve In Bid To Lower Gas Prices (ZH)

Back in March, when reading the mammoth, 1050-page bill that was meant to avert government shutdown, but was yet another pork filled free-for-all bonanza authorizing $1.7 trillion in in discretionary spending, we stumbled upon something that was truly shocking: after Biden singlehandedly drained half of the US strategic petroleum reserve to avoid obliteration for Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections, Congress has snuck in a provision that would sell off and shutter the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve, a move that while perhaps keeps gas prices lower for a day or two, would also leave the entire continental northeast defenseless to any true environmental catastrophe or shock. We were so dismayed by the inclusion of this particular text, we wondered if it hadn’t been put there solely for the benefit of America’s enemies…

… because surely nobody in their right mind, not even the illegitimate senile occupant of the White House, would ever pursue such short-term gains at the expense of potentially disastrous long-term consequences to the entire nation. We were wrong: earlier today, just two months after the bill was signed by Biden into law, the panicking administration announced that it would sell the nearly 1 million barrels of gasoline in the US managed stockpile in northeastern states, the Department of Energy said, effectively closing the reserve.The department created the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve (NGSR) in 2014 after Superstorm Sandy left motorists scrambling for fuel. But, according to some megabrains hoping to justify the dumping of gas so its price drops for a few weeks ahead of the summer and avoid even more anger aimed at the president, storing refined fuel is costlier than storing crude oil, so closing the reserve was included in U.S funding legislation signed by President Joe Biden in March.

Bids to buy the gasoline located at the two NGSR storage sites in Port Reading, NJ (900,000 bbl) and South Portland, ME (98,824 bbl), are due on May 28 and the Treasury Department’s general funds gets proceeds from the sale. Incidentally, the proceeds from the reserve liquidation – which will amount to roughly $125 million gross (and far less net) – is roughly how much the government spends every 15 minutes! So is it better to have a gasoline reserve for unexpected events, or to fund a quarter hour of US government’s spending? Don’t answer that. Of course, the answer is neither – the whole point of selling the gasoline is to depress prices at the pump if only for a few days to help Americans forget about the great inflationary nightmare they have been in for the past 3 years.

The volumes will be allocated in quantities of 100,000 barrels with each barrel containing 42 gallons, the department said and said it would require that fuel is transferred or delivered no later than June 30. That will ensure the gasoline can flow into local retailers ahead of the Fourth of July holiday and that it will be sold at competitive prices. Translation: Biden just drained the Northeast strategic gasoline reserve to push gas lower by a few cents on July 4. For context, gas prices at the pump this Memorial Day will be the second most expensive in a decade – dramatically above the ten-year average of $2.91…

Start with the US.

• Estonia PM Calls For Breakup Of Russia (RT)

The conflict between Moscow and Kiev should end with the defeat and breakup of the Russian Federation, Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has proposed. Kallas made the suggestion on Saturday during a debate in the country’s capital, Tallinn, at an annual event dedicated to her country’s first post-soviet president. “Russia’s defeat is not a bad thing because then you know there could really be a change in society,” the prime minister told the 17th Lennart Meri Conference. The Russian Federation is comprised of “many different nations” and suggested that they should become separate states after the end of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, she argued. “I think if you would have more like small nations… it is not a bad thing if the big power is actually [made] much smaller,” Kallas said.

Kaja Kallas, Prime Minister of Estonia, says the objective should be to break up Russia into smaller countries.pic.twitter.com/SxnUfVhclB

This is an insane thing to say, not only because it makes winning the war all the more existential for Russia (who, as a reminder, have the…

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) May 22, 2024

The Constitution of the Russian Federation describes the polity as a multinational state. According to the 2020-2021 census, the country’s population speaks 155 different languages, with Russian being the most common. Estonia’s Prime Minister also urged Ukraine’s Western backers not to be afraid to do more to assist the government in Kiev in its fight with Moscow.”Fear keeps us from supporting Ukraine. Countries have different fears, be it nuclear fear, fear of escalation, fear of migration. We must not fall into the trap of fear because that is what [Russia’s President Vladimir] Putin wants,” she said. According to Kallas, the West must help Kiev “push Russia back to its borders” and continue to pressure Moscow via sanctions until Ukraine’s territorial integrity is restored. She also called for reparations to be paid and for the country’s leadership to be held accountable for the conflict. The prime minister insisted that in order for stable peace to be achieved in Europe, Ukraine has to be made a member of both the EU and NATO.

In February, Russia issued an arrest warrant for Kallas over her campaign to destroy Soviet WWII memorials across Estonia. The authorities in Moscow have said repeatedly that due to the unwillingness of both Kiev and the West to look for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, Russia will continue its military operation until all of its goals are achieved, including assuring the security of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, the demilitarization and “denazification” of the country, and making sure that it never becomes a NATO member. Earlier this month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the Ukrainian conflict will be decided militarily in Moscow’s favor if that is the wish of the US and its allies. “If they want it to be on the battlefield, they will have it on the battlefield,” Lavrov stressed.

“..A military official described how at one point the president’s office issued a direct order to a unit on the ground to “retake” a certain city, and received the reply: “With what?”

• Zelensky ‘Yelling At Generals’ – The Economist (RT)

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky believes his generals are hiding the truth from him and has taken to shouting at them, The Economist has claimed, citing a government source. Purported fits of presidential rage were mentioned in a Monday report on the situation in Kharkov Region, where Russian forces have gained significant ground over the last month. According to the British newsweekly, Ukrainian troops deployed there are angry at the development and have competing theories about the causes. Some blame the US and its allies for insufficient and untimely aid, not unlike Zelensky himself, while others “suspect that incompetence, or even treachery, played a more significant role.” There are also “conspiracy theories” about politicians in Kiev and Washington conspiring to sell the territory “down the river ahead of an ugly peace deal.”

Denis Yaroslavsky, a local commander who made national headlines for complaining that fortifications that were supposed to prevent Russian advances did not really exist, told The Economist that Zelensky “is being kept in a warm bath” – that is, being told comforting lies by his aides. The Economist’s anonymous government source said the president has been clashing with Ukrainian generals after allegedly sensing that he was not getting the whole truth about the frontline situation. Zelensky’s strained relations with the military leadership, which reportedly stems from him putting his political goals ahead of military objectives, has previously been covered by Ukrainian and international media. In December, the newspaper Ukrainskaya Pravda claimed that the president was actively undermining Valery Zaluzhny, who at the time was Ukraine’s most senior general, in favor of Aleksandr Syrsky.

“It seems Zelensky has two kinds of troops: ‘good’ ones commanded by Syrsky and other favorites and ‘bad’ ones under Zaluzhny,” a source told the outlet. “This demoralizes [Zaluzhny] and prevents him from commanding the army as a whole.” In February, the Ukrainian leader fired Zaluzhny and appointed Syrsky as his replacement. A profile of Zelensky published by Time magazine last November said the president’s uncompromising drive for a battlefield victory over Russia was “verging on the messianic” and had put him at odds with some officers. A military official described how at one point the president’s office issued a direct order to a unit on the ground to “retake” a certain city, and received the reply: “With what?” The unit had neither weapons nor soldiers, the source explained.

“The Ukrainian Constitution forbids certain democratic processes under martial law, such as parliamentary elections or referendums on constitutional amendments, but does not spell out the same restriction for presidential elections.”

• West Sweating Over Zelensky’s Crashing Popularity – Russian Intel (RT)

Kiev’s Western backers are seriously concerned by the rapidly decreasing public support for President Vladimir Zelensky, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has claimed. Zelensky’s five-year term in office technically expires on Monday, though he is expected to keep his position. Kiev has refused to hold a new presidential election due to martial law. The SVR claimed on Monday that opinion polls conducted in Ukraine by the US and its allies for their own internal use show a lack of trust in the incumbent leader and in some of the country’s key institutions. “The level of support for Vladimir Zelensky has dropped to 17% and keeps decreasing. Over 70% of the public distrusts all Ukrainian media, while some 90% would like to leave the country,” the statement said. “Even among the troops, who are being subjected to constant ideological conditioning, Zelensky’s popularity stands below 20%.”

Western nations have urged the Zelensky government to ramp up propaganda efforts to create fear among Ukrainians that a Russian victory would result in a disaster for them, SVR said. The president, who is allegedly concerned for his life, also launched a purge in the military and security service to eliminate possible threats, the statement continued. Kiev’s recent claim, that a ‘plot’ by senior officials to assassinate Zelensky had been outed, was “obviously fictitious” and stemmed from the crackdown on dissent, it assessed. Zelensky’s legal claim to his office is in dispute as of Tuesday. The Ukrainian Constitution forbids certain democratic processes under martial law, such as parliamentary elections or referendums on constitutional amendments, but does not spell out the same restriction for presidential elections.

Senior government officials have reasoned that organizing a national ballot under the circumstances would be unsafe for voters and prohibitively costly. Some international media have reported that in a hypothetical election, Zelensky’s popularity would make him the default choice of Ukrainians. “Many people in Ukraine see no sense in holding elections, if the obvious victor already holds the presidency. Not a single Ukrainian politician today can compare with Zelensky in terms of the level of trust and support,” the Russian-language branch of British state broadcaster BBC declared on Sunday, in a thread on X (formerly Twitter). Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Zelensky’s shaky status would put into question any treaties with Moscow that he may sign in the future.

“Do you think it is too much?” he asked. “For a country that is fighting for freedom and democracy around the world today?”

• Zelensky Wants NATO To Shoot Down Russian Missiles (RT)

The US and its allies should shoot down Russian missiles, give Ukraine more weapons, and allow Kiev to strike Russia directly, Vladimir Zelensky has told the New York Times. Zelensky spoke to the US outlet in Kiev, on the last day of his presidential term, which he has sought to extend for the duration of martial law he declared due to the conflict with Russia. He demanded that NATO countries shoot down Russian missiles over Ukraine, wondering if they are too afraid to provoke Moscow. “So my question is, what’s the problem? Why can’t we shoot them down? Is it defense? Yes. Is it an attack on Russia? No. Are you shooting down Russian planes and killing Russian pilots? No. So what’s the issue with involving NATO countries in the war? There is no such issue,” Zelensky told the Times.

“Shoot down what’s in the sky over Ukraine,” he added. “And give us the weapons to use against Russian forces on the borders.” Zelensky pointed to what the US and the UK did in mid-April, when Iran targeted Israel with a drone and missile barrage. Both the US and the EU have pushed back, saying the two situations were not comparable. The Ukrainian leader also begged for Patriot air defense systems, asking if he could get seven of them by the NATO summit in Washington. “Do you think it is too much?” he asked. “For a country that is fighting for freedom and democracy around the world today?” Zelensky also dismissed any criticism of Ukrainian democracy, given the indefinite postponement of both parliamentary and presidential elections, by announcing that Kiev “doesn’t need to prove anything about democracy to anyone, because Ukraine and its people are proving it through their war, without words, without unnecessary rhetoric.”

With Russian troops advancing all along the frontline, Zelensky and his aides have ramped up calls for more of everything – Patriot air defense systems and F-16 fighters in particular – but also demanded the lifting of restrictions on use of Western-provided weapons to strike deep inside Russia. The US and its allies have struggled to maintain the legal fiction that their missiles can only target Russian territory that Ukraine claims as its own – i.e. Crimea, Zaporozhye, Kherson, Donetsk and Lugansk – though Western-supplied weapons have been used against Belgorod Region on multiple occasions, including the Christmas market massacre.

Wasn’t she demoted recently? Oh, wait: “..The retired US diplomat..”

• Nuland Comments On Potential Official NATO Deployment To Ukraine (RT)

Former US diplomat Victoria Nuland has argued that officially sending Western instructors into Ukraine would create unnecessary risks – as NATO already provides a “huge amount” of training for Kiev’s forces on member states’ territory. Facing a severe troop shortage, Kiev has allegedly asked the US and NATO to help train some 150,000 new recruits inside Ukraine, so they can be sent to the front faster, the New York Times reported last week. In an interview with ABC on Sunday, Nuland – who was responsible for Ukraine in her State Department role and served as US ambassador to NATO – acknowledged Russia’s renewed offensive is making it hard for Ukrainian troops to “come off the front” and train abroad. However, she warned against sending Western instructors in. “I worry that NATO training bases inside Ukraine will become a target for Vladimir Putin. And it does directly implicate NATO on the ground, which could… escalate the war in a different direction and cause Putin to think that NATO territory might be fair game for him,” Nuland said.

The White House has repeatedly insisted that it will not deploy American troops – even instructors – in Ukraine. The retired US diplomat argued that “it still makes most sense to do most of the training outside of Ukraine but to give advice inside Ukraine.” The US-led military bloc has been training Ukrainian soldiers on the territory of member states including the UK, Germany and Poland, teaching them how to use Western-provided weapons. European officials have previously acknowledged the presence of some military personnel in Ukraine since the outbreak of the conflict in 2022, without clarifying whether they were training local forces. However, on Monday Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas claimed that military personnel from some NATO member states are already training Ukrainian soldiers inside the country. She insisted this will not lead to a direct confrontation with Russia because the personnel are doing it “at their own risk.”

French President Emmanuel Macron first raised the issue of sending NATO troops to Ukraine back in February, calling it an idea that should not be ruled out. Estonia and Lithuania have since expressed support for either sending instructors or support troops, to free up Ukrainian soldiers for combat duty. In early May, the Russian Defense Ministry estimated that Ukrainian military losses had surpassed 111,000 this year alone. Kiev now intends to mobilize hundreds of thousands of additional troops under a new law cracking down on draft avoidance. Over the past six weeks, Russian forces have taken more territory than Ukraine managed to capture in the six months of its failed counter-offensive last year, the Washington Post admitted last week, citing numbers from the Institute for the Study of War, a DC-based think tank run by Kimberly Kagan – Victoria Nuland’s sister-in-law.

WWIII.

• Let Ukraine Use US Weapons To Strike Inside Russia – Nuland (RT)

The US must allow Kiev to use its weapons to strike “Russian bases” deep inside the country, former senior Department of State official Victoria Nuland believes. American military aid has been provided to Ukraine on the condition that it would not use the weapons to attack targets on what the US considers Russian soil, as opposed to territories contested by Kiev. Nuland, who for decades directed Washington’s foreign policy in Europe, has called for the limitation to be lifted. ”They need to be able to stop these Russian attacks that are coming from bases inside Russia,” she told ABC News on Sunday. “The United States and our allies ought to give them more help in hitting Russian bases, which heretofore we have not been willing to do.” “Those bases ought to be fair game, whether they are where missiles are being launched from or where they are where troops are being supplied from,” Nuland added.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron similarly suggested this month that Ukraine “has the right” to strike targets inside Russia with UK-provided weapons. Moscow in response warned that if such an attack was to happen, it would consider any British military assets, be they on Ukrainian soil or elsewhere, fair game for retaliation. Ukrainian officials have reportedly launched a massive lobbying effort on Capitol Hill this month in an attempt to pressure the White House on its arm policy. Its legislators have claimed that Russia’s recent advances in Kharkov Region were a result of Kiev’s inability to deliver preemptive cross-border strikes.

Nuland accused Moscow of escalating the conflict with the operation and claimed that its goal was to “decimate [the city] without ever having to put a boot on the ground.” She claimed without evidence that Russian forces “have flattened a third of Kharkov” already. The avowed neocon reasoned that US permission to attack “Russian bases” under these circumstances would not be escalatory. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the operation in Kharkov Region was meant to dismantle Kiev’s ability to attack Russia’s Belgorod Region. Ukrainian forces have been hitting villages close to the border and the city of Belgorod itself with rocket artillery and drones for months. According to Putin, Moscow has no intention to fight for Kharkov, Ukraine’s second-largest city, at this point or time.

“..almost hysterically demanded support for his peace formula as a means to force Russia to its knees..”

• Lavrov Reveals Zelensky’s ‘Hysterical’ Demand for Support in Switzerland Talks (Sp.)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that the Ukrainian president strongly demanded support for his “peace formula” while discussing the upcoming Switzerland “peace conference” with foreign diplomats in Kiev. Russia’s top diplomat has exposed that the Ukrainian president “hysterically” demanded that other nations back his proposed “peace formula” ahead of a ‘Peace Conference’ that is to be held in Switzerland next month. “We have information – we have the ability to receive information that is not usually intended for publication. At the end of April, while discussing this idea [Zelensky’s ‘peace formula’] with foreign diplomats in Kiev, Zelensky, according to some participants, mostly improvised in a chaotic manner, almost hysterically demanded support for his peace formula as a means to force Russia to its knees,” Sergey Lavrov said at a press conference following the SCO Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Kazakhstan.

Switzerland will host a peace conference on Ukraine on June 15-16 near Lucerne with up to 120 heads of state expected to participate. Vladimir Khokhlov, the press secretary of the Russian Embassy in Bern, previously told Sputnik that Switzerland did not invite Russia to participate in the summit and that Moscow would not participate in any case. He added that the heavily promoted idea of a peace conference is unacceptable for Russia as it “involves another attempt to push through the unworkable ‘peace formula’ that ignores Russian interests.”

Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov, in turn, stated that the negotiating process on Ukraine without Russia’s involvement is meaningless, but it is necessary to understand what peace formula will be discussed at the summit in Switzerland. Moscow has repeatedly stated its readiness for negotiations, but Kiev has legislatively prohibited them. The West calls on Russia to negotiate but at the same time ignores Kiev’s constant refusal to engage in dialogue. Earlier, the Kremlin stated that there are currently no preconditions for the situation in Ukraine to move towards a peaceful resolution and Russia’s absolute priority is to achieve the goals of the special operation, which is currently possible only by military means. Kremlin officials have said that the situation in Ukraine could move towards peace only if the de facto situation and new realities are taken into account, and that all of Moscow’s demands are well known.

“Kiev is run by a lawless and criminal regime, the former Russian president has said..”

• Ukraine ‘a Classic Failed State’ – Medvedev (RT)

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s decision not to hold elections means his government has no legitimacy, according to Dmitry Medvedev, the head of Russia’s Security Council. Zelensky’s five-year mandate expired on Tuesday but he has argued that the Ukrainian constitution does not allow him to call new presidential or parliamentary elections during martial law, which he declared in February 2022. “All these manipulations with laws mean only one thing – the death of the failed state of Ukraine, its transformation into a classic failed state, to use American vocabulary,” Medvedev told TASS news agency on Monday. The US and its allies have supported Zelensky’s efforts to stay in power because they feared “the shameful fall of his criminal regime,” Medvedev added.

“That’s why there is such a high probability that Zelensky would have lost this election miserably, and the citizens of his non-existent country would have wanted a new president in the hope that he would start peace negotiations with Russia,” said the former Russian president and prime minister. Medvedev reminded reporters that Zelensky, “a political upstart,” won in 2019 precisely because he campaigned “on the rhetoric of peace.” However, Western sponsors of the regime in Kiev could not allow peace because “they make good money from the bloody bacchanalia,” he added.

The US and its allies have sought to portray the sending of weapons and ammunition to Kiev as an “investment” in their military-industrial complex worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and openly said most of that money would never reach Ukraine. Medvedev dismissed the notion that anything substantial will change in Ukraine after May 21, however. Ukrainians “didn’t live in a rule-of-law state anyway,” he said, arguing that “law and justice were forgotten ten years ago,” with the US-backed coup in Kiev and the start of the Donbass conflict. As for Zelensky, Medvedev said, he can either be captured and put on trial, or meet the same fate as his “spiritual teacher” Stepan Bandera. The leader of Ukrainian nationalists, who sought to collaborate with Nazi Germany during WWII, was assassinated by Soviet operatives in Munich in 1959.

FBI killing Secret Service details? Really?

• FBI Agents Were Prepared for Secret Service Resistance at Mar-a-Lago (ET)

FBI agents executing a search warrant at former President Donald Trump’s home in 2022 prepared for the possibility U.S. Secret Service agents resisted the agents, according to newly unsealed court documents. An operations plan for the raid of Mar-a-Lago in southern Florida stated that should President Trump arrive at Mar-a-Lago during the period when agents were there, FBI agents would be prepared to “engage with” him and U.S. Secret Service (USSS) agents who protect him.If the Secret Service agents “provide resistance or interfere with FBI timeline or accesses,” then FBI officials would contact certain individuals—their names and positions were redacted—the documents stated. The documents also stated that if Mar-a-Lago employees refused to provide a list of occupied guest rooms, FBI agents would “knock on each guest room door to determine occupation status.” Agents would request a map, list of rooms, and a skeleton key for all rooms, and were preparing to bring lock-picking equipment with them.

The documents, produced to President Trump through discovery in the criminal case against him, were placed on the docket on May 21. President Trump’s lawyers attached the documents as exhibits to a motion asking to suppress evidence seized by agents, arguing the raid was unconstitutional. The warrant was cleared by a U.S. magistrate judge after agents said there was probable cause to believe sensitive materials were being kept at unauthorized places at the resort. Officials said the raid would likely uncover evidence of obstruction of justice. Agents arrived at Mar-a-Lago at 8:59 a.m. on Aug. 8, 2022, and initiated the search at 10:33 a.m.. A summary of what transpired stated that FBI leaders coordinated with local Secret Service leaders and that Secret Service agents “facilitated entry onto the premises, provided escort and access to various locations within, and posted USSS personnel in locations where the FBI team conducted searches.”

In addition to 25 FBI employees from the bureau’s Miami office, the group of DOJ personnel included five officials from Washington and two DOJ lawyers. The group took numerous photographs, including pictures in the bedroom of former First Lady Melania Trump and a “child’s bedroom suite,” according to picture logs that were released on Tuesday. President Trump’s lawyers said in the motion that the search was “roving and highly inappropriate,” citing how it covered a gym, a kitchen, and the bedrooms where the pictures were taken. They said the warrant was too broad and authorized agents to seize virtually any document from Mar-a-Lago. Government officials have acknowledged they improperly seized passports and some other materials. Agents remained on the scene until 6:39 p.m. They flew the seized evidence to Washington the following day.

President Trump, after the execution of the warrant, was charged with mishandling national defense information, concealing documents, and making false statements. The documents included a statement on the use of deadly force, which quoted government policy in stating that “law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice (DOJ) may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.” The FBI also brought a medic and paramedic along on the raid, according to the documents, and listed the nearest trauma center in case anyone was injured during the execution of the warrant. Agents were equipped with standard-issue weapons, ammunition, handcuffs, and badges and brought medium and large bolt cutters.

There was no basis for the FBI to bring guns into Mar-a-Lago, according to President Trump’s lawyers.“There were no threats and no risk to agents’ safety arising from their allegations relating to possession of documents at a premises already guarded by the Secret Service,” the lawyers said. The lawyers also argued that an FBI agent omitted relevant information from the affidavit submitted to the judge as part of the request to authorize the warrant. The agent, for instance, “failed to disclose that presidents are not required to obtain clearances and that sensitive briefings including classified information had been provided to President Trump at Mar-a-Lago and other residences before and during his presidency,” the lawyers said.

“..China’s share of world GDP based on purchasing power parity reached 18.73%, while that of the USA was 15.56%..”

• The Failure of Western Financial Sanctions (Metri)

On March 24, 2024, some newspapers reported the 25th anniversary of the plane’s U-Turn over the Atlantic, with the then-Russian foreign minister, Yevgeny Primakov, due to the kick-off NATO bombings over Serbia, without approval from the UN Security Council. Amid the onslaught against Belgrade, NATO forces deliberately struck the Chinese embassy. Beijing hasn’t forgotten the date, and on May 7, 2024, President Xi Jinping was in the capital of Serbia to pay his respects to the dead and pass a message to the West. These events determined the beginning of Russia’s reconstruction, the acceleration of the Chinese rise process, and the deepening of Sino-Russian partnerships. During this period, starting from economic fragility and a military delay position concerning the USA, Russia established a strategic advantage in weapons in 2018 by developing hypersonic weapons. It also rebuilt its national economy, circumventing unprecedented economic sanctions against it.

Despite the sanctions, Russia’s economy expanded significantly in 2023 compared to other North Atlantic countries. This year, the IMF corrected its forecasts for Russia, doubling its estimates upward. The financial sanctions policy is one of the expressions of the monetary power of the dollar in the international system, especially after the Bush Doctrine of 2002 (2). However, the effectiveness of Washington’s economic sanctions regarding its foreign policy objectives has been very low, not to say null. For example, despite the severe sanctions introduced in 2007, Iran has acquired the ability to resist and develop an adequate offensive military capacity, allowing it to change the balance of forces in Southwest Asia. A month ago, on April 12, 2024, Tehran abandoned its “policy of strategic patience” and revealed to the world, through the missile attack, its ability to pierce the Israeli anti-aircraft defense system.

The main targets of U.S. sanctions (Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba) have generally succeeded in withstanding this kind of violence, and one of the most relevant reasons for this is China’s rise to the status of the largest economy, surpassing the U.S. one. In 2023, China’s share of world GDP based on purchasing power parity reached 18.73%, while that of the USA was 15.56%. Due to its dynamism, size, and sophistication, the Chinese economy made bypassing the payment systems controlled by Washington possible. For instance, after the start of Russian military intervention in Ukraine, when one imposed unprecedented sanctions, Sino-Russian trade grew 64%, reaching a record U.S. $240 billion in 2023. Not for any other reason, on April 8, 2024, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, visiting Beijing, threatened Chinese companies, stating, “There will be significant consequences for companies that provide material support to Russia. Those who do not comply will face the consequences”.

“..Will Schwab and Soros retire on a deserted island together to watch the end of the chaotic world they enabled from a distance?”

• Klaus Schwab Steps Down As World Economic Forum Executive Chairman (ZH)

Wit the organization he founded 50 years ago bringing in nearly $500 million in revenue in the year ending March 2023 (and sitting on a neat pile of 200 million Swiss francs cash), Klaus Schwab will own some things as he reportedly steps back from his role running the World Economic Forum has has headed since 1971. Semafor reports that Schwab announced his intentions to step down as executive chairman in an email to staff on Tuesday that was shared with Semafor by a person connected to the organization. The change in his role is pending approval by the Swiss government but should be finalized ahead of the WEF’s annual meeting in 2025.

Schwab, now 86, will be transitioning to a role as non-executive chairman. But Globalists should not worry about their agenda as Semafor reports that Schwab has seeded his organization with various family members to take up the tyrannical new world order torch – Schwab’s children appointed to high-ranking positions and his wife Hilde heading the organization’s foundation and awards ceremonies in Davos. Will Schwab and Soros retire on a deserted island together to watch the end of the chaotic world they enabled from a distance?

Q again: is this a full appeal?

• Assange Granted ‘Last Chance Appeal’ For Freedom (Cradle)

The UK High Court ruled on 20 May that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will have the right to appeal against extradition to the US, marking his final push for freedom. Assange’s legal team argued that judges should not accept Washington’s previous assurances that the embattled WikiLeaks founder would be able to rely on protection under the US First Amendment. He has been given a chance to make a full appeal for his legal team’s argument that he could be discriminated against, given that he is a foreign national. Assange’s legal team had previously been demanding assurances from the US that he would not face the death penalty if extradited. At Monday’s hearing, Assange’s lawyers argued that Washington had provided “blatantly inadequate” assurances that he would be protected. Problems with the US assurances were “multifold,” they said. It was only guaranteed “merely that he can seek to raise” assurances of First Amendment protection and not “rely” on them.

One of the lawyers pointed to a “deafening silence” from US prosecutors, including Gordon Kromberg – assistant US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the WikiLeaks founder would face trial. “Specific promises from prosecutors are pretty common. We will not object to bail. We will not seek the death penalty as in this case. No such specific assurance has been given here,” Edward Fitzgerald, one of Assange’s representatives, said. Fitzgerald accepted US assurances that Assange would not face the death penalty, calling it an “unambiguous promise not to charge any capital offense.” Previously, Assange’s legal team contested claims by US prosecutors that WikiLeaks’ publication of diplomatic cables created a risk that sources named in the documents would be put in harm’s way, arguing that no evidence for this exists.

“The position of the US prosecutor is that no one, neither US citizens nor foreign citizens, are entitled to rely on the first amendment in relation to publication of illegally obtained national defense information giving the names of innocent sources to their grave and imminent risk of harm,” US prosecutor James Lewis KC said during the court session. Assange could not make it to court – as in previous sessions – due to deteriorating health conditions. Hundreds of protesters gathered outside of the UK High Court in support of Assange’s cause. His legal team was reportedly jubilant following the court session. Last month, US President Joe Biden said he was “considering” an Australian request to drop the case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told the local broadcasting corporation that Biden’s words were encouraging and that the case against Assange, an Australian citizen, “needs to be brought to a conclusion.”

A report by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in March said that the US is considering a plea deal offer for the WikiLeaks founder, which would allow the imprisoned journalist to plead guilty to a misdemeanor offense and avoid extradition to the US. However, his legal team said at the time that it is unlikely that Washington will change its approach.

Assange is charged with violating the 1917 Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for releasing classified US military documents that implicate Washington in war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other charges. He founded WikiLeaks in 2006. The non-profit publisher came to prominence in 2010 when it released a leaked video from inside a US helicopter as it attacked civilians and journalists in Iraq. That same year, WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of US documents on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as thousands of US diplomatic cables. Assange is currently being held at London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison. According to Fitzgerald, it could be months before the appeal is heard. If it is unsuccessful, he will have exhausted his appeals in the UK, which would lead to the start of his extradition to the US. In that event, he could potentially appeal to the European Court of Human Rights to block the extradition.

Aether

Tesla talked about there being an aether

But JP Morgan stopped funding Tesla and gave his funding to Edison

Then Edison stole Teslas AC tech and the rest is history

Have we really been lied to for over 100+ years?

pic.twitter.com/ZvUIqa1Cbh

— Hodgetwins (@hodgetwins) May 21, 2024

If Ivermectin is a Parasitic drug that is proven to be helpful or is a cure for C19….

Than what does that make C19?

• Ivermectin = anti-Parasites
——“what the Ivermectin did was caused the parasites to have paralysis… and it was an immediate defense against the pathogen C19… pic.twitter.com/sANYQXbI5l

— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) May 21, 2024

Rhino