The Automatic Earth

Ivan Aivazovsky Stormy Night at Sea 1850

Two major issues today: the Trump verdict and the rapid escalation in the West’s attitude vs Russia. Hard to choose 😉

Trump after verdict
https://twitter.com/i/status/1796309856091300285

Merchan
https://twitter.com/i/status/1796140639161143740

Mike Davis Trump 47
https://twitter.com/i/status/1795807037432984050

RFK Trump

I told @jessebwatters that I believe the strategy to beat President Trump in the courtroom rather than the ballot box will backfire.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m no fan of Trump’s. I’m running against him because of his record: his lockdowns during Covid, his failure to root out… pic.twitter.com/wknEE0r8T8

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) May 31, 2024

Ballot access

Our Director of Content, Jonathan Hiller, breaks down the rigged ballot access game – the major way the duopoly tries to ensure Americans only have two choices when voting in presidential elections – and explains the behind-the-scenes efforts to give Americans the choice to vote… pic.twitter.com/NvJYudTt33

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) May 29, 2024

Polls

SHOCK, PANIC IN WASHINGTON as Biden's Youth Support Crashes: 25-Point Drop Among 18-24-Year-Olds from 2020 to 2024

CNN says, "Take a look here. Age 18 to 24. Biden won this group by 32 points last cycle over Donald Trump. Look at where the polling is now. Joe Biden still leads,… pic.twitter.com/XLoNE8WeQu

— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) May 30, 2024

Dmitry Suslov is a member of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, deputy director of World Economy and International Politics at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, and Valdai Club expert.

• It’s Time For Russia To Drop A Nuclear Bomb (Dmitry Suslov)

There’s every indication that the US and several of its allies may soon allow Ukraine to use Western weapons, including long-range missiles, to attack targets located within – how do we put this? – Russia’s internationally recognized borders. Or those that existed before the 2014 Maidan in Kiev. In America, as the New York Times recently reported, backers of the idea include Secretary of State Antony Blinken, most Republicans in Congress (including the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson), and many members of the foreign policy establishment, including Victoria Nuland, who recently resigned as deputy secretary of state. In Europe, Poland, the Baltic states, Germany’s main opposition party, the CDU/CSU, and some Western European figures, including the head of the UK Foreign Office, David Cameron, are agitating for the measure. Recently, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made a similar appeal, but he would not have made such statements if the issue had not already been considered on a practical level and had not received substantial support from Washington.

It has already come to the point where the topic has been discussed at the level of the heads of defense ministries of EU member states. Such a decision would take the conflict to a fundamentally different level, would mean the erasure of one of the brightest “red lines” that has existed since February 24, 2022, and signal the direct entry of the US and its NATO bloc into the war against Russia. Indeed, the strikes would be carried out on the basis of coordinates provided by Western intelligence systems; the decisions on these strikes would be taken by Western military officers (the media has repeatedly relayed confessions from Ukrainian military officers that every case of Western missile use is coordinated in advance by Western military advisers); and even the button would probably be pressed directly by Western military officers. It is no coincidence that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz justifies his reluctance to transfer Taurus missiles on the grounds that they would have to be operated by German, not Ukrainian, military personnel.

This is why denying Kiev such a right was the main condition for providing it with military aid and one of the main principles of Western involvement in the conflict from the very beginning. There are at least two reasons why the West is now discussing abandoning this principle. The first and main one is the increasingly difficult position of the Ukrainian army on the battlefield. Don’t forget that NATO leaders have been saying throughout that the outcome is of existential importance not only for Ukraine, but also for themselves, as it will determine the nature of the new world order. In other words, the West itself has given the Ukrainian conflict the status of a World War, and therefore Kiev’s defeat will mean its own strategic defeat, the final collapse of the Western-centered international order. Accordingly, the worse the situation for Kiev at the front, the greater the risks of escalation that the West is willing to take.

The second reason is Russia’s unwillingness to escalate relations with the West each time it crossed a ‘red line’ and became more involved in the conflict (supplying Kiev with tanks, aircraft and, eventually, long-range missiles). As a result, the fear of escalation, which was relatively high at the beginning of the military operation, has gradually diminished, as Western publications have repeatedly pointed out. Thus, the West has come to believe that the cost of Kiev’s defeat is far greater than the risks of a direct military confrontation with Russia, as a result of allowing Western weapons to strike deep into its ‘old’ territory. The voices of those who argue that even this time Moscow will not inflict direct military damage on Western countries are growing louder. This logic can inevitably lead to World War III. And if the West’s further involvement in the conflict in Ukraine is not stopped now, a full-scale “hot” war between Russia and NATO will become inevitable. Moreover, due to the superiority of the US and its 31 NATO members in the field of conventional weapons, this war will inevitably move to the nuclear level.

In a few months (or maybe even weeks), the same logic will be applied to stationing regular Western troops in Ukraine and then starting to shoot down Russian missiles over it. The Kiev regime has been making these proposals more and more insistently of late. According to even the current Russian nuclear doctrine (certainly a ‘peacetime’ doctrine in need of tightening), such a scenario would amount to official grounds for the use of nuclear weapons. There is only one way to prevent such a catastrophic development of events: a sharp increase in Moscow’s policy of deterrence and intimidation. The option of ‘freezing’ military operations along the current line of demarcation without any political conditions for Kiev and modalities for its security relations with the West is completely unacceptable.

Read more …

“This is a continuation of the pattern in which the NATO forces recognize they are losing the war in Ukraine, with the fragile lines of defense breaking, and the NATO response is to escalate..”

• The West is Hell-Bent on Provoking Russia Into Hot War (Pepe Escobar)

The warning by President Putin could not be starker: “In the event of the use of long-range weapons, the Russian Armed Forces will again have to make decisions about expanding the sanitary zone further (…) Do they want global conflict? It seemed they wanted to negotiate [with us], but we don’t see much desire to do this.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov then came up with the appropriate metaphor to designate NATO’s ramped-up military outbursts: not only NATO is raising the degree of escalation but delving into a warlike “ecstasy”. It does not get more serious than that. “They”, as Putin alluded to, do seem to want “global conflict”. That’s at the heart of NATO’s new suicidal “ecstasy” strategy. For all their circumlocutions, NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have effectively greenlighted Kiev using Western weapons for attacks deep inside the Russian Federation.

The alleged debate, still ongoing, is just a “smokescreen” for the real objective: a pretext that could lead to WWIII. There’s no reason to think Kiev will stick to “limited” strikes against relatively unimportant targets. Instead, it is likely to target critical security infrastructure in hopes of provoking an unrelenting Russian response, which in turn would pave the way for NATO to invoke Article 5 and de facto engage in a Hot War. The escalation “ecstasy” defined by Peskov went out of control since a – secret – new batch of ATACMS was dispatched to Kiev earlier this year, complemented with longer-range ATACMS. Kiev has been using them for serious hits on Russian air bases and key air defense nodes. These ATACMS fire missiles at Mach 3 speed: a serious challenge even for the best Russian air defense systems. All that seems to point to a crucial decision enveloped in several layers of fog: as the incoming, cosmic NATO humiliation in the black soil of Novorossiya becomes self-evident day after day, the Western elites who really run the show are betting on provoking a full Hot War against Russia.

Richard H. Black, a former US senator from Virginia, offers a sobering analysis: “This is a continuation of the pattern in which the NATO forces recognize they are losing the war in Ukraine, with the fragile lines of defense breaking, and the NATO response is to escalate. This is not accidental, but very deliberate. It is not the first attack on the Russian nuclear triad. The ideological folks are seeing their world crumbling, after flying the rainbow flag over conservative countries and [waging] perpetual wars. They are frantic and could escalate to nuclear war to get out of the bind. They are taking a series of baby steps, and respond that ‘they don’t do anything in response,’ and so they keep taking baby steps until one of them lands on a land mine and we are into World War III. (…) Putin is very aware of the disconnect in the West, who keep saying he is just saber rattling, but he is not—he is informing the West of the dangerous reality.”

In Russia, Senator Dmitry Rogozin, a former head of Roscosmos, directly warned Washington: “We are not just on the threshold, but already on the edge, beyond which, if the enemy is not stopped in such actions, an irreversible collapse of the strategic security of the nuclear powers will begin.” General Evgeny Buzhinky advanced an ominous scenario: “I am sure that if the strikes of Taurus of ATACMS are very harmful for Russia, then I presume we will at least strike the logistical hub in the territory of Poland in Rzeszów” where the missiles are staged for delivery to Ukraine. The connection in this case would be irreversible: Russia hits Poland; NATO invokes Article 5; WW3.

Read more …

“.. this is surely going to be a distinction without substance or meaning from Russia’s point of view, as it makes attacking Russia’s sovereign territory with US weaponry ‘allowable’ for the first time..”

• Biden Allows Ukraine To Use US Weapons To Attack Inside Russia (ZH)

Given the last days of momentum and growing pressure coming from some NATO countries, this was perhaps inevitable: the United States has now greenlighted Ukraine’s use of American-supplied weapons against Russian territory in a huge escalation which takes the world a big step closer to WW3 and nuclear-armed confrontation. Politico is reporting Thursday afternoon, “The Biden administration has quietly given Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia — solely near the area of Kharkiv — using U.S.-provided weapons, two U.S. officials and two other people familiar with the move said Thursday, a major reversal that will help Ukraine to better defend its second-largest city.” An anonymous US official was cited a saying, “The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them.”

The same official stipulated that the policy of not allowing long-range strikes inside Russia “has not changed.” However, this is surely going to be a distinction without substance or meaning from Russia’s point of view, as it makes attacking Russia’s sovereign territory with US weaponry ‘allowable’ for the first time. According to more details of what are expected to be the immediate implications: In effect, Ukraine can now use American-provided weapons, such as rockets and rocket launchers, to shoot down launched Russian missiles heading toward Kharkiv, at troops massing just over the Russian border near the city, or Russian bombers launching bombs toward Ukrainian territory. But the official said Ukraine cannot use those weapons to hit civilian infrastructure or launch long-range missiles, such as the Army Tactical Missile System, to hit military targets deep inside Russia.

It’s a stunning shift the administration initially said would escalate the war by more directly involving the U.S. in the fight. But worsening conditions for Ukraine on the battlefield –– namely Russia’s advances and improved position in Kharkiv –– led the president to change his mind.Ukraine has been complaining that all restrictions need to be taken off if it is to defend against Russia’s recent major offensive in Kharkiv, which was launched from across the border. For example, Russian artillery is able to fire from rear positions within the Belgorod region near the border. It meanwhile remains part of Moscow’s stated aim to push the border deeper into Ukraine to create a ‘buffer zone’ – making it harder for pro-Kiev forces to shell Russian towns and villages.

Politico’s fresh reporting is consistent with something Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Wednesday. While visiting Moldova – itself feeling the pressure of the war right next door – Blinken laid out that the US does not “encourage or enable” Ukrainian attacks inside Russia – but he then moved the goalpost by stressing the US would “adapt and adjust” this position based on developing battlefield needs. A reporter followed up by asking if he meant the White House will now support Ukrainian attacks inside Russia. Blinken responded with: “Adapt and adjust means exactly that.”

Read more …

“Despite a nearly $1 trillion budget, the United States military is unable to secure a major shipping lane from a government they don’t officially recognize in one of the poorest countries in the world..”

• US Leaders Pushing for Three-Front War When They Can’t Handle One (Sp.)

On Monday, a bipartisan group of US representatives visited Taiwan against the protests of Beijing, promising Taiwanese lawmakers that the US-supplied weapons would be coming soon and publicly warning China from invading the island. The meeting, which included the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), was the latest in a string of meetings between US and Taiwanese officials that have taken place during the Biden administration. The saber-rattling of China by the United States is insanity, as it cannot handle the crises it is already facing, retired senior policy analyst Michael Maloof told Sputnik’s The Critical Hour on Wednesday. “We don’t have the means to fight that [one-front] war, let alone, a three-front war. Right now, we’re doing very poorly. The United States is doing very poorly just trying to work through a proxy against Russia,” Maloof explained.

“If you have a direct confrontational approach to war with Russia, then China and… Iran, there’s no way the United States is going to be able to sustain that. On Wednesday, Yemeni Houthi forces announced that they had brought down a US MQ-9 Reaper reconnaissance and strike drone. The US claimed that the drone was lost due to technical problems but it was the sixth such drone to be lost over Yemen since the Houthi movement began blockading the Red Sea against ships it says are connected to Israel. Despite a nearly $1 trillion budget, the United States military is unable to secure a major shipping lane from a government they don’t officially recognize in one of the poorest countries in the world, resulting in a 50% reduction of shipping through the Suez Canal compared to last year. In 2022, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), then speaker of the House, visited Taiwan against the protests of Beijing. Then, US President Joe Biden claimed he did not authorize her visit, but this statement caused some reasonable doubts.

The next year, then-Taiwanese head of administration Tsai Ing-wen traveled to California where she and other Taiwanese politicians met with then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). Again, US and Taiwanese officials attempted to soften the diplomatic outcry from China by claiming it was just part of a layover on her tour of Central America. Again, China didn’t buy it. On this latest trip, Washington provided no pretenses. The bipartisan delegation met with the newly elected head of Taiwanese administration and publicly promised them weapons and further support. “There should be no doubt, there should be no skepticism in the United States, Taiwan or anywhere in the world, of American resolve to maintain the status quo and peace in the Taiwan Strait,” Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), the co-chair of the Taiwan caucus said while meeting Taiwan’s new head of administration Lai Ching-te. “If the island in an unprovoked manner was invaded, then it would be to the American people and the United States Congress and my committee that has the power to declare war, how to deal with that,” McCaul said.

Read more …

“..The parties should return to diplomacy and start talks, but Macron is preparing French society for the announcement he is sending troops to Ukraine, Le Pen said..”

• Le Pen: Backing of Ukraine Strikes Inside Russia Step Toward World War (Sp.)

French President Emmanuel Macron’s support for Ukraine’s targeting of military facilities in Russia’s internationally recognized territory is another step toward a world war, Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French right-wing National Rally party, said on Thursday. “Macron wants France to enter the war. This statement is an additional step in that direction. I am against it and I think it creates an enormous risk for the security of our citizens,” Le Pen told French radio broadcaster Franceinfo. The right-wing politician only supports the supplying of defensive weapons to Kiev, she added. “Similarly to the United States and Germany, I am against permitting Ukraine to use Western-supplied weapons to strike targets on the territory of Russia. This is a mechanism for entering the third world war. I am against anything that might create the risk of a global conflict, with France being on its front line,” she added.

The parties should return to diplomacy and start talks, but Macron is preparing French society for the announcement he is sending troops to Ukraine, Le Pen said. “It is necessary to find a way towards a dialogue. Everyone knows that the victory will not be a military one. The only way is to find paths for negotiations. We have to provide Ukraine with military aid without sending troops. But Macron is preparing us to send military personnel to Ukraine. It is another concerning step,” the politician told the radio station. France does not try to play a role of a mediator anymore while other countries are doing this, she said. “No one except Ukraine and Russia can resolve this [conflict], but some countries might try to bring their positions closer. Others are doing that instead of us, and France is not doing that,” Le Pen said On Tuesday, Macron said that Ukraine should be allowed to strike military sites in Russia. The supply of long-range weapons to Ukraine capable of hitting Russian military facilities is not an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, he said.

Read more …

“..high-ranking Swedish and Finnish officials are being trained, “like diligent students,” to repeat the “Russophobic mantras of their American patrons without hesitation..”

• US Preparing Major Propaganda Campaign Against Russia In Scandinavia (RT)

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service claims that the US is preparing a major propaganda campaign aimed at sparking fear among the population of Sweden and Finland about Moscow’s alleged “territorial appetites.” In a press release on Thursday, the service claimed that the US State Department, “gripped with anti-Russian hysteria,” has transformed into an “unprincipled propaganda mouthpiece” that is now striving to turn the entire international community against Russia. The first targets of this propaganda machine, according to Moscow, are the residents of Sweden and Finland, which recently joined NATO.

The Foreign Intelligence Service has claimed that, under the patronage of the US State Department, a series of short videos will soon flood social media networks and instant messengers to demonstrate “the ‘seriousness of the Russian threat’ and drum up ‘universal fear’ of Moscow’s ‘territorial appetites’” among the Scandinavian population. The campaign, according to the service, will be presented as a “spiritual impulse” of a team of independent experts and journalists, and will aim to spread panic among the residents of Sweden and Finland like the times of McCarthyism in the US. After that, Washington supposedly expects top officials in the two countries to “start throwing themselves out of the windows, shouting ‘the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! They are everywhere.’”

At the same time, high-ranking Swedish and Finnish officials are being trained, “like diligent students,” to repeat the “Russophobic mantras of their American patrons without hesitation,” the service wrote. Specifically, it mentioned the commander-in-chief of the Swedish Armed Forces, Micael Byden, who has recently claimed that Russia is planning to invade the island of Gotland to establish control in the Baltic Sea; and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who has been claiming that Russia poses an “existential threat” and has insisted that the only way to achieve peace is “through the battlefield.” Moscow has repeatedly stated that it has no plans to attack any NATO nations or revise its existing borders with the West. Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed such talk as “nonsense,” and an attempt to scare local citizens “to extract additional expenses from people.”

Read more …

“..The crime has a maximum sentence of four years in prison. That said, Merchan could also opt for home confinement, probation, supervised release, fines or community service..”

The appeal could take years. They just want to be able to call him a convicted felon.

• Trump Responds After NY Guilty Verdict (ZH)

Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty on all 34 counts in his New York ‘hush money’ trial. The outcome makes him the first former president to become a convicted felon. Trump reportedly stared ahead motionless as the verdict was read. The trial centered on allegations that Trump falsified business records in order to conceal a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 US election. Prosecutors under Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg argued that Trump oversaw a scheme to influence the 2016 election by using Trump Organization records to conceal the payments. “Everything Mr. Trump and his cohorts did in this case is cloaked in lies,” said prosecutor Joshua Steinglass. “The evidence is literally overwhelming.” “This is a rigged, disgraceful trial,” Trump said in response, adding “The real verdict will be on November 5.”

Judge Juan Merchan will now decide Trump’s sentence on July 11 – days before Republicans are set to select him as the 2024 nominee. The crime has a maximum sentence of four years in prison. That said, Merchan could also opt for home confinement, probation, supervised release, fines or community service. “In New York today, we saw that no one is above the law,” reads a statement. “Donald Trump has always mistakenly believed he would never face consequences for breaking the law for his own personal gain. But today’s verdict does not change the fact that American people face a simple reality. There is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box. Convicted felon or not, Trump will be the Republican nominee for president.”

Read more …

“It’s the people that surround him in the office. They’re smart. They’re fascists, they’re communist, but they’re smart.”

• ‘Mother Teresa Could Not Beat Those Charges’ – Trump (RT)

Former US President Donald Trump has decried the charges against him in the Manhattan hush-money trial as of the kind that even Mother Teresa would not beat. Trump made the comment while speaking to reporters on Wednesday after the jury started deliberating the verdict. The ex-president and presumptive Republican nominee in the 2024 election faces a litany of accusations in several separate cases. The proceedings, which concluded on Tuesday, revolved around hush money that the ex-president’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, claims to have paid in 2016 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet about an affair with the then-candidate. Speaking with the press after his fate was handed over to the 12 New Yorkers constituting the jury, Trump reiterated his claims that the trial was politically motivated and meant to disrupt his bid to retake the White House.

“Mother Teresa could not beat those charges, but we’ll see,” he fumed. “We’ll see how we do. It’s a very disgraceful situation.” He criticized judge Juan Merchan for supposedly being “conflicted and corrupt,” placing a gag order on him and allegedly barring some of the people that Trump’s defense wanted to testify from doing so. The judge significantly limited what election law expert Brad Smith, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, could talk about during the trial. Merchan said he wanted to avoid a “battle of the experts” in the courtroom. Trump claimed that “the whole thing is rigged” and amounts to weaponization of the justice system by the Democratic Party against its political opponent. The trial has kept him from campaigning, he complained. “This is all because of Joe Biden,” he claimed, pointing the finger at the incumbent president. “It’s the people that surround him in the office. They’re smart. They’re fascists, they’re communist, but they’re smart.”

Read more …

“Putting aside that the federal government found no basis to impose a civil fine, let alone bring a criminal charge, the court barred a legal expert who could have shown that no such violation occurred. The jury does not know that. Instead, the judge allowed them to be repeatedly told a false fact that could make it difficult for anyone to acquit.”

• Canned Hunt: The Trump Jury is Out But is the Case in the Bag? (Turley)

Today the jury began its deliberations in the trial of former president Donald Trump. Before jurors left, however, Judge Juan Merchan framed their deliberations in a way that seemed less like a jury deliberation than a canned hunt. For many of us, the Trump trial has seemed otherworldly, a vaguely familiar proceeding where common elements of a trial seem to have been flipped. Even before the jury instructions, the trial was controversial for both liberal and conservative commentators. At the start of closing arguments, most honest observers were still wondering what the prosecutors were alleging as to the crime that Trump was allegedly concealing with the falsification of business records. Then came the closing arguments. Around the country, it is standard for the government to go first with a closing to allow the defense to respond. The government is then given the privilege of a rebuttal after the defense rests.

In New York, the defense must go first, giving the government free rein over its closing with no risk of contradiction from the defense. With the exception of objections, any abusive or improper arguments are left to the judge to address.In the case of Judge Merchan, that protection was all but absent as the prosecution engaged in flagrant violations from offering testimony on unestablished facts to directly contradicting prior instructions. In one of the most egregious moments, Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that it is an established fact that former Trump counsel Michael Cohen committed a federal election law violation on the direct orders of Donald Trump. Merchan had repeatedly said that Cohen’s earlier plea could not be used to imply the guilt of Trump. Merchan overruled an objection and Steinglass proceeded, as he did earlier in trial, to repeat the false statement. Merchan did nothing as Steinglass told the jury that Hope Hicks cried in court because she knew that she had destroyed Trump’s defense (Hicks has never explained why she cried).

Merchan did nothing as Steinglass falsely told the jury that the media and political campaigns do not do what Trump did in seeking to kill and plant stories. (This ignored, for example, that the Clinton campaign did precisely that repeatedly in the very same election, including with the false Russian collusion allegations).mIt was only when Steinglass repeatedly instructed the jury on the law that Merchan finally sustained objections, at the end of his closing arguments. So going into the deliberations, the court allowed the jury to be told repeatedly that there were federal campaign violations committed by Trump. That is not true. Putting aside that the federal government found no basis to impose a civil fine, let alone bring a criminal charge, the court barred a legal expert who could have shown that no such violation occurred. The jury does not know that. Instead, the judge allowed them to be repeatedly told a false fact that could make it difficult for anyone to acquit.

Read more …

In every trial, there are always two opinions: the prosecution and the defense. In this trial there are three: anti-Trump, pro-Trump, and anti-Trump but concerned about the rule of law..”

• Hush Money Trial To Boost Trump’s Odds Of Winning, Taking House, Senate (Every)

The Financial Times main headline is that ‘NATO has just 5% of air defences needed to protect eastern flank.’ No, NATO doesn’t have an eastern flank but an eastern FRONT: it faces east, so its vulnerable flanks are to the north and south. Regardless, it urgently needs to spend 20x more on air defence alone. Meanwhile, Poland is reinforcing its border with Belarus and Russia, as the former withdrew from the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaty, and the Baltics and Scandinavia plan a ‘drone wall’. Many EU countries will also now allow Ukraine to use their donated weapons to attack Russian forces inside Russia proper. Militarily, that’s the best strategy; geopolitically, it m”eans the West escalating to deescalate – which Russia will only mirror. The UK Telegraph is running a series of articles starting today on the topic ‘What if Putin Wins?’ The first argues, “A Russian victory would unleash a cascade of events triggering irreversible changes, pushing the world to the brink of chaos.”

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” (Dick the Butcher, Henry VI, Part 2). We can also expect imminent market headlines from the Trump trial in New York, where the jury are still out. In every trial, there are always two opinions: the prosecution and the defense. In this trial there are three: anti-Trump, pro-Trump, and anti-Trump but concerned about the rule of law. Alan Dershowitz, a Democrat, has been withering in his criticism of how this trial has been prosecuted. Legal expert Jonathan Turley notes it “has seemed otherworldly, a vaguely familiar proceeding where common elements of a trial seem to have been flipped,” listing the numerous ways normal practice has not been followed – which those pro-Trump naturally allege have occurred for nefarious political purposes. Given how the judge –‘The Merchan of Vengeance’– instructed the jury, experts think the most likely outcomes are a hung jury or a conviction.

If it’s the former, Trump will gain huge publicity, and cry he was wronged by Democrat ‘lawfare’; and if he’s convicted, that is arguably even more the case (even if the latter will prompt a rapid appeal, potentially all the way up to the Supreme Court, which many observers think will then see the verdict overturned). To presume, as White House strategists must do(?) that being able to call Trump a “convicted felon” on TV will necessarily dent his electoral prospects rather than boosting them may be to totally misread the current situation, as in 2016. This matters for markets more than some reading the very Beige Book realize. Not only could this trial potentially increase the likelihood of Trump winning in 2024, which would already shift the US, the world, and world markets, but it might boost his odds of taking the Senate and the House too, ensuring that he could shift them all if he wants to. It might also convince him that he needs to (as the Wall Street Journal says Elon Musk might take an advisory role at the White House were Trump to win: what might that mean for US policy: Orange Cybertrucks? CyberTrump? Trumpcoin? Camp Trump on Mars?)

More broadly, it’s a further dent in the reputation of US law just as (contrived?) media controversy rages over a Supreme Court judge for flying a flag, again politicizing the highest echelons of the US justice system. Following previous controversial court cases involving Trump there, it doesn’t do New York many favors as an investment destination unless one’s business is in the anti-Trump camp. Yet that points to a polarization in the US mirroring past ones in emerging markets. Indeed, Dershowitz and Turley fear precisely the political rule BY law, not OF law if precedent is set: could future presidents find partisan judges and juries to rustle up court cases to take out potential opposition legally, as happens elsewhere? That still seems unlikely given the checks and balances in the US system, but for some this is all a worrying step in that direction. US businesses and markets players, even those anti-Trump, should be aware that those kinds of legal environments are partly why so much foreign capital ends up in the US in the first place.

Moreover, when The Economist is worrying about the collapse of global liberal institutions, and the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice have mired themselves in controversy, splitting the West internally and vs. the Global South in a new Cold War –as Mexico joins South Africa’s case vs. Israel at the ICJ, The Australian says “The ICC issuing warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and his defence minister is grandstanding by this toothless, bloated court”– the last thing the West needs is for its rule of law to be brought into ill-repute. ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers’ is how you destabilise things in Shakespeare’s eyes: but so is letting all the lawyers kill us.

Read more …

Too early for any set roles. But big takeaway: “Musk and Trump speak on the phone several times per month..” As Mike Benz said in the video posted yesterday: “if it’s true, it would be the most natural pairing since peanut butter & jelly.”

• Musk Denies Report Of Trump Admin Advisory Role (ZH)

There have not been any discussions of a role for me in a potential Trump Presidency

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 30, 2024

Musk denied today’s report that he’s been in discussions about a possible advisory role in a future Trump administration. “There have not been any discussions of a role for me in a potential Trump Presidency,” Musk posted on X in response to user Herbert Ong, who posted a CNBC segment discussing the report. * * * In a notable shift from past acrimony, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has engaged in discussions with Elon Musk about a possible advisory role for the Tesla mogul should Trump retake the White House, the Wall Street Journal reports. The move could see Musk influencing policies on border security and the economy. Musk, known for his outspoken views and innovative leadership at Tesla and SpaceX, has increasingly voiced his concerns over national issues, aligning more with conservative viewpoints in recent months. Alongside billionaire investor Nelson Peltz, Musk has also taken a proactive stance against what they perceive as electoral vulnerabilities, briefing Trump on a data-centric project aimed at curbing voter fraud—a topic of significant controversy and debate.

“The discussion around the advisory role and voting project took place at a March gathering at Montsorrel, Peltz’s sprawling oceanfront estate in Palm Beach, Fla., with a group of wealthy and powerful friends, some of the people familiar with the discussions said. The New York Times earlier reported the meeting had occurred, but details of the discussions haven’t been previously disclosed. As guests nibbled on a Sunday morning breakfast of eggs, bacon and fresh fruit served by Peltz’s household staff, Peltz, Trump and Musk held forth on the November elections, criticizing Biden’s stewardship of the country, the people said.” -WSJ. The discussions, still in preliminary stages and without definitive roles, would mark a notable pivot in Trump’s strategy – embracing influential tech and business leaders to bolster his campaign promises of economic revitalization and stringent border controls. The meeting with Peltz suggests a concerted effort to integrate Musk’s technological prowess and worldview into the fabric of Trump’s policy initiatives.

According to the report, “the role hasn’t been fully hammered out and might not happen.” During a March interview, former CNN host (and failed X contributor) Don Lemon asked Musk about the meeting with Trump – to which Musk replied: “I was at a breakfast at a friend’s place and Donald Trump came by—that’s it,” adding “I went to a friend of mine’s house and he said, ‘Donald Trump’s coming by for breakfast, just so you know.’ I said, ‘Okay, fine.'” “Let’s just say he did most of the talking,” Musk said of Trump – adding that the former president did not ask him for donations, nor help with mounting legal bills. Musk doesn’t simply want to write a check to a super PAC – he wants to use his clout within elite business and technology circles to steer the US in a better direction.

Musk’s potential involvement in Trump’s orbit marks a stark contrast from their previous public exchanges, which included a series of sharp criticisms and disagreements over policies like the Paris climate accord. However, their relationship has evolved, with Musk not only reevaluating his political allegiance—publicly shifting his support to the Republican party in 2022—but also seeking to exert his influence through more direct and personal engagements with Trump. Now, according to the report, Musk and Trump speak on the phone several times per month. The potential collaboration also extends to Musk’s broader ambitions in the political arena, where he has expressed dissatisfaction with the current administration’s direction, particularly criticizing the so-called “woke mind virus” that he argues undermines societal cohesion and economic progress. Musk says he’s a centrist, who wants secure borders, safe & clean cities, and to stop ‘sterilization below age of consent,’ among other things.

Read more …

He wants it denied so he can appeal it?!

• Judge Denies Hunter Biden’s ‘Frivolous’ Bid to Halt Delaware Gun Case (ET)

A federal judge on Wednesday denied Hunter Biden’s bid to halt the prosecution of his Delaware gun case, deeming it unconvincing and “frivolous.” U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika issued the ruling on Wednesday, rejecting Mr. Biden’s request to enjoin the investigation led by Special Counsel David Weiss. Mr. Biden contended that Mr. Weiss’s appointment violated the Appropriations Clause, arguing that he is not an “independent counsel” and was not approved by Congress. “The Court should enjoin the Special Counsel from continuing to fund his investigation and prosecution of Mr. Biden without an appropriation from Congress or promptly deny the motion so it can be appealed,” Mr. Biden’s motion, filed on May 14, stated. The judge found no merit in Mr. Biden’s claims, stating that the use of permanent appropriations to fund special counsels has been well-established and previously upheld.

“Mr. Weiss was lawfully appointed,” under relevant statutes, “to serve as special counsel to conduct investigations and prosecutions relating to this criminal matter,” Judge Noreika wrote in her decision, “and he is an ‘independent counsel’ appointed pursuant to ‘other law’ within the mining of the permanent appropriation.” Judge Noreika ruled that Mr. Biden’s motion was not presented as a “serious request” but rather as a necessary procedural step before he could appeal. Mr. Biden contended that Mr. Weiss lacked authority from Congress because he “is not an independent counsel and that is by design.” In their response motion, the prosecution highlighted that Mr. Biden’s attempts to claim Appropriations Clause violations had been struck down in two district and two circuit courts, using the same arguments. Additionally, they contended that Mr. Biden “now offers no new facts or law” to support his motion for an injunction.

Mr. Biden acknowledged that his motion relied on previously rejected arguments. He asked the judge to either enjoin Mr. Weiss “or promptly deny the motion so it can be appealed.” His motion filed on May 14 stated that if the district court found against him regarding his argument of Appropriations Clause violations, “as it did previously,” then he would “have the basis” to take it to the Third Circuit “to address this issue when considering Mr. Biden’s forthcoming petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.” In calling his request unserious, the judge highlighted the motion’s length, at four and a half pages, and noted that half of it was dedicated to “explaining why the Third Circuit would have jurisdiction over an appeal should this Court deny the requested injunction.” “The Court has no reason to believe that Defendant’s inevitable appeal of this denial of his motion for an injunction is any more meritorious than his prior efforts,” Judge Noreika wrote.

Read more …

“Zelensky recently sacked several government and military officials that the US was “working closely” with, without much of an explanation..”

• ‘Paranoid’ Zelensky Lashing Out At US – FT (RT)

Vladimir Zelensky has instructed Ukrainian officials to publicly criticize US President Joe Biden for not attending the upcoming “peace summit” in Switzerland, the Financial Times has reported, citing documents from Kiev. Neither Biden nor his VP Kamala Harris is scheduled to attend the gathering in Lucerne, where Kiev hopes to win non-Western countries to its “peace formula” for resolving the conflict with Russia. According to FT, the Ukrainian leader specifically instructed MPs and officials in a May 26 memo to “pile public pressure” on Biden, as well as Chinese President Xi Jinping, for not attending the summit. “It is unlikely that the world will understand President Biden and President Xi if they do not join in the realization of such undeniably just goals and [in] bringing peace closer,” said the memo, as quoted by the outlet. While China has shown understanding for Russia in the conflict, the US has been one of Ukraine’s most prominent supporters.

According to FT, however, there have been “many points of friction” between the leadership in Kiev and Washington lately, as Russian troops have continued to advance on the battlefield. Zelensky recently sacked several government and military officials that the US was “working closely” with, without much of an explanation. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s recent visit to Kiev, during which he lectured Zelensky on corruption and played rock music on stage at a club, also reportedly rubbed the Ukrainian leadership the wrong way. One senior Kiev official described the feeling in Zelensky’s office as “paranoia” and said the Ukrainian leader had “deep anxiety” about both the military situation and the peace summit, which is scheduled for mid-June in Lucerne.

Another Ukrainian official told FT that Zelensky has become more “emotional and nervous” over the situation at the front, convinced that the US is eager to start talks with Russia because Washington wants the conflict “to go away before the [US] election.” Polls currently show Biden losing support as he faces a rematch with former US President Donald Trump in November. Zelensky is “very irritated” with Biden, said one member of his government, noting that many Ukrainian officials are worried about Kiev “openly provoking” the White House. “What do you say in America? Do not bite the hand that feeds you,” a fourth Ukrainian government official told FT. Zelensky has infuriated Washington before. His social media rant last July, after NATO did not formally invite Ukraine to join, reportedly almost caused a backlash from the White House. In the end, however, the US and its allies continued to fund Kiev’s war effort.

Read more …

“You must choose between Zionism and cynicism, between unity and division, between responsibility and neglect – and between victory and disaster.”

• Israel’s Gantz Moves To Dissolve Knesset, Hold New Elections (ZH)

Israeli war cabinet minister Benny Gantz is mounting a new challenge against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the coalition government, on Thursday announcing his centrist party is proposing holding a parliamentary vote on dissolving the Knesset. “The head of the National Union Party, Pnina Tamano-Shata, has put forward a bill to dissolve the 25th Knesset. This follows the request of party leader Minister Benny Gantz to move forward in broad agreement to an election before October, a year since the massacre,” the fresh statement from Gantz’s party said. Gantz had already previously verbalized a plan to hold new elections by October, and two weeks ago he demanded in a provocative ultimatum that Netanyahu has until June 8 to present a clear strategic plan for the Gaza war. Below is the outline that Gantz previously articulated while lambasting the lack of a clear plan from Netanyahu:

”Bring our hostages home, topple the Hamas regime, strip the Gaza Strip, and ensure Israeli security control. Alongside maintaining Israeli security control, establish an American-European-Arab-Palestinian administration to civilly manage the Strip and lay the foundation for a future alternative to Hamas and Abbas, return the residents of the north to their homes by September 1, and rehabilitate the Western Negev, promote normalization with Saudi Arabia as part of an overall move that will create an alliance with the free world and the Arab world against Iran and adopt a service plan that will lead to all Israelis serving the state and contributing to the supreme national effort.” Gantz had continued in that prior statement: “The people of Israel are watching you. You must choose between Zionism and cynicism, between unity and division, between responsibility and neglect – and between victory and disaster.”

Huge anti-Netanyahu protests have continued in Tel Aviv and in front of government buildings and even Netanyahu’s residence, and have been led by hostage victims’ families. They are outraged there’s been lack of clarity or prioritization of getting the rest of the hostages home, also as truce negotiations with Hamas have all but collapsed. It is anything but clear if Gantz has the votes to dissolve Knesset, but Netanyahu’s Likud party quickly shot back on Thursday with a terse statement: “The dissolution of the unity government is a reward for [Hamas leader Yahya] Sinwar, a capitulation to international pressure and a fatal blow to efforts to free our hostages.” But Gantz Tamano-Shata party reasoned that “The 7th of October is a disaster that requires us to go back in order to receive the public’s trust, to establish a broad and stable unity government that can lead us safely in the face of the enormous challenges in security, the economy and, above all, in Israeli society. Submitting the bill now will allow us to bring it up in the current session.”

Read more …

“..we have agreed with our Chinese partners to increase cooperation to counteract Washington’s irresponsible behavior, which undermines international stability..”

• Sergey Lavrov Full Interview (Sp.)

Russian strategic objects, including nuclear ones, may come under threat from American short-range missiles if the US deploys ground-based intermediate and shorter-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. What additional nuclear deterrence measures might Moscow take in this case? Would a reciprocal response from the Russian side be sufficient?
Sergey Lavrov: You are undoubtedly correct that the deployment of American ground-based intermediate and shorter-range missiles (INF) in the mentioned regions would pose a serious security challenge for us. This issue is not only significant for us. In a joint statement following the recent visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to China, it was noted that such destabilizing actions by the US represent a direct threat to both our country and China. Therefore, we have agreed with our Chinese partners to increase cooperation to counteract Washington’s irresponsible behavior, which undermines international stability. The implementation of US plans to deploy ground-based INF missiles will not go unanswered by us. Specifically, in this scenario, the abandonment of unilateral self-imposed restrictions introduced by Russia after a US withdrawal from the INF Treaty is inevitable. Additional steps in the field of nuclear deterrence are also not ruled out, as forward-deployed American missiles could target our command posts and locations of our nuclear forces. Decisions on these matters are within the competence of the president of the Russian Federation.

Is Russia considering increasing joint military exercises with China in response to US actions in the Asia-Pacific Region?
Sergey Lavrov: The foundation of our military cooperation with China is a high level of mutual trust. Russian-Chinese collaboration aims to strengthen international security and is conducted in accordance with international law. Our joint efforts are not directed against third countries. However, both Russia and our Chinese friends must consider the negative military-political trends in the Asia-Pacific region and take measures to mitigate their effects. We agree on the importance of enhancing defense cooperation not only bilaterally but also within multilateral formats. This understanding was recorded in the joint statement signed following the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to China. Specifically, this involves expanding the scale of joint exercises and combat training, conducting naval and aerial patrols, and developing joint response capabilities.

With the end of Volodymyr Zelensky’s presidential term, does Russia see any forces in Ukraine with whom it is ready to engage in dialogue for peace? Is there any understanding of when the special military operation might be concluded?
Sergey Lavrov: In Kiev, the “party of war” is in power, striving, at least rhetorically, to defeat Russia “on the battlefield.” Under these conditions, a dialogue for peace is hard to imagine. Furthermore, since September 30, 2022, a legal ban on negotiations with Russia’s leadership has been in place in Ukraine. Regarding Volodymyr Zelensky’s legal status after May 20, when his presidential term ended, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke clearly on this matter at a press conference in Minsk on May 24. Let’s hope that sooner or later, political forces will emerge in Ukraine that care about the interests of the people. For now, there is no other option but to continue the special military operation until its goals are achieved.

Is there a possibility to speed up the process of political settlement of the situation around Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: Theoretically, yes. For this to happen, the West must stop supplying Ukraine with weapons, and Kiev must cease hostilities. The sooner this occurs, the quicker a political resolution will begin. We have repeatedly stated, including at the highest level, that Russia remains open to negotiations. However, it is crucial to understand that we seek peace, not just a ceasefire. There is no point in granting the opponent a pause, which they will use once again for regrouping and rearming. Negotiations must be based on the principle of indivisible security and the realities on the ground.

Read more …

Ryan Cole
https://twitter.com/i/status/1795817867167826293

Gabriel Shipton

Julian Assange brother explains to RFK Jr’s running mate, Nicole Shanahan, how Biden is the reason Edward Snowden is stuck in Russia:

“The person who was calling these countries to stop these asylum requests was Joe Biden.”

“It was his mission to keep Snowden in Russia because… pic.twitter.com/gKB1eYxElC

— End Tribalism in Politics (@EndTribalism) May 29, 2024

Elephants and Oranges
https://twitter.com/i/status/1795938706278293725

Tom and Jerry

Tom and Jerry's friendship.

pic.twitter.com/oyT6K4lwXk

— Figen (@TheFigen_) May 30, 2024

Late for work

Imagine telling your boss this was the reason you were late for work. pic.twitter.com/qWc2wJR3jS

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

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