soft coup Archives - The Automatic Earth

How do I know I can win? Because there’s never been an independent candidate in American history who’s been in as strong a position as I am right now.

Thanks for having me on, @DrPhil. pic.twitter.com/sVwoyCLRXN

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 2, 2024

Trump Taliban
https://twitter.com/i/status/1808179617397719127

All the charges and indictments appear to be -slowly- falling apart.

• Trump Sentencing Delayed Two Months, ‘If Such Is Still Necessary’ (ZH)

Update (1505ET): Donald Trump’s sentencing date has been kicked down the road more than two months – from July 11th to September 18th, ‘if such is still necessary.’

https://twitter.com/james_jinnette1/status/1808215098797838392

Interestingly, New York prosecutors agreed to a delay.

[..] Hours after the US Supreme Court granted Donald Trump immunity for official acts committed in office, the former president began an effort to toss his recent conviction in Manhattan and postpone his upcoming sentencing over 34 felony counts related to his cover-up of a sex scandal leading up to the 2016 US election. In a letter to judge Juan Merchan just hours after the Supreme Court ruling – and 10 days before he’s set for sentencing, Trump’s lawyers sought permission to file a motion to set aside the verdict while Merchan considers whether the Supreme Court ruling affects the conviction. That said, Trump’s attempt might be a long shot given the fact that the Manhattan case revolves around acts Trump took as a candidate, not as president.

As the NY Times notes, however, Trump’s lawyers are likely to argue that prosecutors partially built their case using evidence from his time in office. Under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors may not charge a president for official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts that affect other accusations. It is unclear how the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which brought the case, will respond, or whether the judge will delay the first sentencing of an American president. But Mr. Trump’s effort appeared to cause at least a brief interruption: The district attorney’s office did not on Monday make a sentencing recommendation to the judge about whether to imprison Mr. Trump, as was expected. Merchan may also punt on the request, as the deadline for filing post-trial motions ended last month. Instead, Merchan may instruct Trump’s attorneys to raise the issue when they appeal the conviction post-sentencing.

As the Times further notes, Merchan faces an ‘unprecedented conundrum’ with massive legal and political ramifications. Imprisoning Trump would drop-kick a hornet’s nest, while sparing Trump from prison would immediately draw the wrath of vengeful Democrats who say he gave Trump special treatment. While there’s no requirement that Trump be sentenced to time behind bars, Merchan could sentence him to months or several years in prison – or he could be sentenced to home confinement or probation. He could also postpone any sentence until after the election, or after Trump serves another term in office, should be he reelected. Meanwhile, Trump’s other criminal cases have been largely derailed or otherwise postponed – including his trial in Washington DC, where he stands accused of mishandling classified information while still in office.

“..the legal machinery the corrupt Democrats have employed against Trump is too corrupt to be able to do its assigned political assassination.”

• SCOTUS Ruled For The Office of the President, Not Trump (Paul Craig Roberts)

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a president has immunity for official acts, but not for personal acts. Which is which will be a contentious issue. For example, if a president were to have the CIA, FBI, or Secret Service murder a political rival that would be a personal act. But when President Obama had the US military murder a US citizen suspected of being a terrorist, it was an official act. But was it? The justification for the murder was suspicion alone, a bare-faced accusation unconfirmed by a trial and therefore in violation of due process. Has it ever been established that it is an official act for a president to have a US citizen murdered without due process? Perhaps it has happened secretly by the CIA but my impression is that President Obama’s murder of the Muslim religious leader who was an American citizen was the first public murder without due process and conviction delivering a death penalty.

Nothing was made of the murder because Americans had been indoctrinated with fear of Muslim terrorists and regarded the murder as an act of war. When vice president Biden bragged on TV that he forced by withholding billions of dollars in US aid from the Ukraine government unless it fired the prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company that paid his son $50,000 a month as a director, was it an official act or a personal act? Why has there been no investigation of this self-serving use of presidential authority? The Supreme Court majority emphasized that a president must have immunity for official acts or he can be stopped by law suits and politically motivated charges from performing his designated functions. In other words, the Court’s decision is based on elementary common sense.

If a president believes an election is fraudulent, it is his responsibility, and thereby an official act, for him to have the election verified. However, the Democrats and whore media defined the issue as “Trump overthrowing the election.” Even experts with the evidence in their hands were indicted for aiding and abetting Trump’s attempted overthrow of the election. In other words, the criminal indictment brought against Trump assumed without justification that there was no evidence of election fraud. As Trump had appointed a Justice Department and an entire government consisting of his enemies, his own government treated his official action as his private action. A rally in support of Trump was mischaracterized by Democrats, whore media, and Republicans such as Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell as an “insurrection.”

What we should be disturbed about is the ability of the Democrats and the whore media to disrupt the 4-year term of a US president with a series of false charges that were never confirmed and then to use unconfirmed charges to indict a former president in an effort to prevent him from again running for president. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the indictments against Trump were falling apart. The biased “special counsel” prosecuting Trump was caught lying to the federal judge, who has put the case on hold. Fani Willis entrusted by the White House with Trump’s prosecution in Atlanta has been found to have given her lover $700,000 of taxpayers’ money with which he took Fani on vacations. Her case against Trump is also on hold. In other words, the legal machinery the corrupt Democrats have employed against Trump is too corrupt to be able to do its assigned political assassination.

“The Supreme Court was designed to be unpopular; to take stands that are politically unpopular but constitutionally correct.”

• Age of Rage: Critics Unleash Threats and Abuse on the Supreme Court (Turley)

Within minutes of the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, liberal politicians and pundits seemed to move from hyperbole to hyperventilation. When not breathing into paper bags, critics predicted, again, the end of the republic. CNN’s Van Jones declared that it was “almost a license to thug, in a way.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) declared: “My stomach turns with fear and anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out-of-control court” and denounced six justices as “extreme and nakedly partisan hacks — politicians in robes.” Blumenthal has previously shown greater intestinal fortitude, as when he threatened the justices that they would either rule as Democrats demanded or face “seismic” changes to their court. Jones warned the justices that “politically it’s bad” for them to rule this way. The comment captures the misguided analysis of many media outlets. The Supreme Court was designed to be unpopular; to take stands that are politically unpopular but constitutionally correct.

Indeed, the Democrats have become the very threat that the court was meant to resist. Recently, senators demanded that Chief Justice John Roberts appear to answer to them for his own decisions. (Roberts wisely declined.) Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer previously declared in front of the Supreme Court, “I want to tell you, [Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Brett] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” Now Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced that she will seek the impeachment of all six of the conservative justices. She was immediately joined by other Democratic members. Notably, scholars have long disagreed where to draw the line on presidential immunity. The court adopted a middle approach that rejected extreme arguments on both sides. Yet, because Ocasio-Cortez disagrees with their decision, she has declared that this “is an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.”

Previously, Ocasio-Cortez admitted that she does not understand why we even have a Supreme Court. She asked “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” Other members, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have called for packing the Court with additional members to immediately secure a liberal majority to rule as she desires. For these pundits and politicians, justice is merely an extension of politics and subject to the whims of the majority. These are same voices who chastised Judge Aileen Cannon for “slowwalking” her decisions by holding hearings on constitutional questions. They pointed to Judge Tanya Chutkan, who supported the efforts of special counsel Jack Smith to try Trump before the election, turning her court into a rocket docket. Chutkan quickly set aside this challenge, as well as other objections from Trump.

Indeed, at the oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts marveled at the conclusory analysis by Patricia Ann Millett in upholding Chutkan. He referred to the opinion celebrated by the left as little more than declaring “a former president can be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted.” Chutkan and the DC Circuit were fast but ultimately wrong. Indeed, the Supreme Court noted that the judge created little record for the basis of her decisions. In a perverted sense, Democrats are giving the public a powerful lesson in constitutional law. As Alexander Hamilton stated in The Federalist No. 78, judicial independence “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.” This is the moment that the Framers envisioned in creating the Court under Article III of the Constitution. It would be our bulwark even when politicians lose faith in our Constitution and seek to dictate justice for those who they dislike.

“President Biden’s hyper-ventilated response is crushingly ironic. He was vice president when President Barack Obama killed an American citizen without a trial or a charge. ”

• No, The Supreme Court Did Not Remove All Limits on the Presidency (Turley)

One of the most glaring moments in the address came when President Biden declared that “for all…for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.” That is not true. The Court found that there was absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions. The Court has often adopted tiered approaches in balancing the powers of the branches. For example, in his famous concurrence to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson broke down the line of authority between Congress and the White House into three groups where the President is acting with express or implied authority from Congress; where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area); and where the President is acting in defiance of Congress.

Here the Court separated cases into actions taken in core areas of executive authority, official actions taken outside those core areas, and unofficial actions. Actions deemed personal or unofficial are not protected under this ruling. It is certainly true that the case affords considerable immunity, including for conversations with subordinates. However, this did not spring suddenly from the head Zeus. As Chief Justice John Roberts lays out in the majority opinion, there has long been robust protections afforded to presidents. There are also a host of checks and balances on executive authority in our constitutional system. This includes judicial intervention to prevent violations of the law as well as impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. President Biden’s hyper-ventilated response is crushingly ironic. He was vice president when President Barack Obama killed an American citizen without a trial or a charge.

When former Attorney General Eric Holder announced the “kill list” policy (that included the right to kill any American citizen), he was met with applause, not condemnation. The Obama-Biden administration then fought every effort by the family to sue the government. President Biden would have been outraged by any attempt of a Republican district attorney to charge him or President Obama with murder. He would also be outraged by prosecutors pursuing criminal charges for the deaths associated with the deluge of undocumented persons over the Southern border. In his address, President Biden also claimed that “the law would no longer” define “the limits of the presidency.” That is also untrue. This case was remanded for the purpose of defining what of these functions would be deemed private as opposed to official. Even on official actions, former president Donald Trump could be prosecuted if the presumptive immunity is rebutted by prosecutors.

What was most glaring for many civil libertarians was President Biden’s portrayal of himself as a paragon of constitutional fealty. He declared that “I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers as I have for the last three-and-a-half years.” That was also untrue. President Biden has racked up an impressive array of losses in federal courts where he was found to have violated the constitution. This includes rulings that his administration has exceeded his authority and engaged in racial discrimination in federal programs. Indeed, Biden has often displayed a cavalier attitude toward such violations. For example, the Biden administration was found to have violated the Constitution in its imposition of a nationwide eviction moratorium through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Biden admitted that his White House counsel and most legal experts told him the move was unconstitutional.

But he ignored their advice and went with that of Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe, the one person who would tell him what he wanted to hear. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional. Biden showed the same disregard over the unconstitutionality of his effort to unilaterally forgive roughly half a trillion dollars in student debt. Courts have already enjoined that effort as presumptively unconstitutional (though an appellate court in one of those cases relaxed aspects of the injunction). The address was used to reinforce his “democracy is on the ballot” 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.

“They wanted to test him against Trump early while there was still time to replace him if he failed to rise to the occasion. Which, of course, he did spectacularly..”

• Ex-Hillary Aide: Debate Setup “Soft Coup” By Democrats To Replace Biden (MN)

Sources close to the Democratic Party have claimed that the debate last week was purposefully setup for Biden to fail as part of a “soft coup,” by insiders who know he is incapable of winning or serving a second term. A former Hillary Clinton aide told The Daily Mail that they wanted Biden to be exposed so he can be replaced by a more capable candidate. “There has never been a debate this early before,” the source stated, adding Traditionally, the debates are held after the Republican and Democratic conventions, which are in July and August.” “There is a growing belief this was a ‘soft coup’ because they know he isn’t fit to govern and have known for some time,” the aide further asserted. “They wanted to test him against Trump early while there was still time to replace him if he failed to rise to the occasion. Which, of course, he did spectacularly,” the source added.

Another insider told the Mail that “Publicly, the Democratic leadership has been backing Biden because they can’t appear to be disloyal to the President. But privately, there have been discussions going on for a long time that he’s too old to beat Trump.” “There were whispers for weeks that ‘Joe’s going down at the debate,’” the source further stated. The Mail also claims that Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer “secretly” sent out an advance team to Washington DC weeks ago to prepare a snap presidential campaign.

The report claims “The team has been ‘on manoeuvres’ and meeting with Democratic officials,” with one source saying “Gretchen was the first to act. Now the floodgates have been opened.” Despite these claims, prominent Democrats including the Clintons, Obama and Nancy Pelosi are still defending Biden and publicly stating he remain the nominee. Pelosi told CNN Sunday that Biden “has the stamina (to continue)” and that “there are uh, uh, health care professionals, who think that uh, Trump has dementia. That his connection, his thoughts do not go together.” Meanwhile, despite his public support for Biden, Obama is privately lobbying to get rid of him, telling insiders he cannot defeat Trump, according to another insider.

“..72% of Americans say Biden does not have the mental and cognitive health capabilities to serve as president.”

• Major US Democrat Donors Threatening Party Over Biden (RT)

A growing number of top Democratic donors are fuming over US President Joe Biden’s performance in his debate with GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, the Daily Mail reported on Tuesday. Biden’s performance during Thursday’s face-off with Trump, widely seen as incoherent and fumbling, has also highlighted concerns about the US president’s ability to govern. Several US media outlets reported that the showdown had left many Democrats and their donors scrambling to find a replacement for Biden as the party’s presumptive presidential nominee. The British daily claimed that the discontent “appears to be turning into a full-blown party revolt” in the wake of the event, adding that key Democratic donors are threatening to “pull the plug” unless Biden drops out of the race.

Former hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson, who has donated several hundred thousand dollars to the Democratic Party, lashed out at the US president, telling the Daily Mail: “For Biden’s own good and the good of the country, he should step aside immediately.” He added that the incumbent had so far failed to reassure any party donors, which he claimed “confirms my worst fears.” Meanwhile, several Democrats interviewed by the tabloid vented their frustration at what they called attempts by Biden’s team to “gaslight” them into believing there was nothing to worry about. Tilson echoed this sentiment, saying: “They’re p**sing on our legs and telling us it’s raining… How stupid do they think we are?” An Axios report also provided insight into the campaign’s push to reassure donors during a Zoom call on Monday. The outlet claimed, citing sources, that while “there wasn’t much panic” during the call, there was a lot of skepticism. “It was a damage-control call,” one source said.

However, the report said Biden’s team had not tried to put a positive spin on the debate debacle, instead echoing the president’s own assessment, in which he acknowledged that “I don’t debate as well as I used to.” At the same time, Biden officials reportedly gave donors data and made arguments designed to prove that the president still has a chance of beating Trump. A CNN flash poll conducted after the debate found that 67% of the viewers thought Trump had performed better. Meanwhile, according to a CBS News poll, 72% of Americans say Biden does not have the mental and cognitive health capabilities to serve as president.

“If you have a piece of crack cocaine no bigger than this quarter that I’m holding in my hand, one quarter of one dollar, we passed a law — with leadership of Sen. Thurmond and myself and others — a law that says: you’re caught with that, you go to jail for five years..”

• The Long Sordid Career of Creepy Joe Biden (Jeffries)

[..] people might not remember quite everything about Joe Biden’s lengthy career as a beloved resident of the Washington, D.C. swamp that Trump promised to drain. Biden was first elected as a U.S. Senator from Delaware in 1973. Even I was very young then. In 1981, the great “liberal” senator strongly supported the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, passed in the wake of CIA whistleblower Philip Agee’s disclosures about the Agency is his best-selling book Inside the Company. Biden declared that “I do not think anybody has any doubt about Mr. Agee. We should lock him away in my opinion.” The good senator really liked locking people up, it seems. As a strong supporter of the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, he took credit for a draconian provision that mandated a five year sentence for possessing small amounts of crack cocaine.

Little did Biden know that, decades later his own troubled son Hunter would be caught with enough crack cocaine to garner a long prison sentence under the original 1986 Act, which was softened a bit in 2010. With every ounce of “liberal” ardor that he could muster, Biden bragged at the time, “If you have a piece of crack cocaine no bigger than this quarter that I’m holding in my hand, one quarter of one dollar, we passed a law — with leadership of Sen. Thurmond and myself and others — a law that says: you’re caught with that, you go to jail for five years. You get no probation, you get nothing, other than five years in jail. Judge doesn’t have a choice.” Senator Biden also authored the horrendous 1994 crime bill which featured “three strike you’re out” and mandatory sentencing, significantly increasing the prison population.

A JFK assassination researcher attended a Joe Biden seminar in 2005. He was able to briefly question Biden about the assassination. As recounted on a discussion forum, this was the short conversation: “Senator Biden, do you believe JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy?” Answer: “No.” “So do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone and unaided, killed President Kennedy?” Answer: “Yes.” This is hardly surprising, of course, but reflects Biden’s ironclad establishment mindset. In 2019, the American Prospect published a piece headlined, “Joe Biden’s Love Affair With the CIA.” Biden was very helpful to Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey, who praised him in a classified early 1980s memo to his intelligence staff. Biden would state, in a speech at Stanford, that the intelligence community had been compromised by leaks.

Nasty piece of work

A Memo for anyone "Feeling Sorry" for poor old Sleepy Joe

He's always been a nasty piece of work, crooked, aggressive and controlling.

Watch. pic.twitter.com/b1F86eoycv

— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) July 1, 2024

So Joe Biden was never one of the Democratic Party politicians I admired back in my misguided youth. He wasn’t going to expose the abuses of the intelligence agencies, like a Frank Church. He wasn’t interested in any “sunshine” laws that would make it easier for the People to be informed about their government. His concern then about “leaks” would evolve into concern over whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. In a January, 2023 tweet, Snowden would comment on Biden’s classified documents scandal, accusing the Department of Justice of suppressing the story until after the election, and declared, “Worth noting that the President seems to have absconded with more classified documents than many whistleblowers.” Biden is on the record as saying that Snowden should “face the consequences of his actions.”

Following Julian Assange’s release from exile last week, some assumed that the Biden administration had been responsible for it, given Biden’s recent statements that he was “considering” dropping the charges against the Wikileaks founder. However, the White House would issue a statement maintaining that they had not played a role in Assange’s plea deal. A deal which, incidentally, made the disappearance of all those troubling DNC emails a prerequisite for his release. So if you’re tempted to think that perhaps, after over fifty years of serving the interests of the corrupt Deep State, Joe Biden finally did something good, you’d be wrong. Why spoil a perfect record? Even Barack Obama commuted Bradley/Chelsea Manning’s sentence.

“..Democratic Party apparatchiks are engaging in Orwellian falsifications to cover Biden’s catastrophic cognitive failure..”

• What US Allies Should Learn From The Biden-Trump Debate (Amar)

There is very little to say about the content of the recent televised debate between the current American president, Joe Biden, and the former and likely next president, Donald Trump. That’s because the one feature that mattered was so obvious: Biden is, as those with eyes to see have known for a long time, deeply senile. That is a personal if not uncommon tragedy. Given Biden’s many sins – a lifelong record of systematic, almost compulsive lying, of policies that have, for decades, abused the weak and the poor and pandered to the rich, and, last but not least, the Gaza genocide co-perpetrated with his Zionist friends – it is impossible to feel pity for him. But given the unfortunate power of America, his mental decline is also a global scourge. Yet another one the ‘indispensable’ nation is inflicting on the rest of us on this planet.

The difference between before and after the debate is simply that now even the most mendacious Democratic Party hacks and behind-the-scenes manipulators cannot deny this fact any longer. Don’t get me wrong: Many of them are at least pretending to try, including former president Barack Obama, despite ongoing, widespread, and irrepressible speculation that Michelle Obama, his wife, might enter the fray at the last minute in the melodramatic role of – nobly reluctant – savior. And, of course, Democrats are also blaming anyone but themselves and their atrocious president. Yet their efforts are largely in vain. Even in America, with its post-truth media, the “secret” that never really was, is out, and the taboo is broken.

Panicked by the return of Donald Trump, key outlets of extreme Centrism, such as, to name only three, the very popular TV ‘news’ (really, agitation and propaganda) show Morning Joe, the de facto Democratic Party newspaper the New York Times, and The Economist, the British Pravda of the American empire, are openly and insistently calling for Biden to quit. Polls in the US indicate that the public has had enough, too: According to a CBS News poll, only 28% of registered voters think Biden should stay in the race, while 72% acknowledge the obvious: Biden is mentally unfit for the presidency.

Yet none of this is a surprise. What is more interesting now is what the political fallout of Biden’s debate fiasco reveals about the nature of two things that, unfortunately, still shape much of our world: American ‘democracy’ and American empire. Regarding ‘democracy’, even in the US, some observers – such former President Jimmy Carter and researchers at Princeton University, have long understood that it’s silly to describe their country as a democracy. Instead, any halfway objective assessment of its real political system has to start from the fact that it is an oligarchy. But Carter and the Princeton researchers acknowledged that fact a decade ago. The question is where are we now?

Spoiler alert: Things have only gotten worse. Exhibit A – the manner in which the Biden dementia debate debacle is being handled. It is not only the fact that Democratic Party apparatchiks are engaging in Orwellian falsifications to cover Biden’s catastrophic cognitive failure that enables us to see with our own eyes. It is also the way in which Biden’s family (or would clan be a more exact term?) is still widely treated as having the apparently divine privilege to help him decide whether finally to drop out or not. A family matter? A political system in which issues of obvious and extremely urgent public interest are up to a totally unaccountable ‘family council’ – such as whether a dementia case should have final say over almost 5,000 nuclear weapons – does not qualify as a democracy. Indeed, it does not even qualify as a republic anymore. It may, with a ginormous dose of generosity, pass as a rather rotten monarchy. Less charitable observers would class it as a form of mafia or mobster rule.

“..these “theories” on how Biden could respond to the Supreme Court are not simple hypotheticals for the sake of argument, there is an element of desperation and bloodlust.”

• Democrats Hint At Assassination In Response To SCOTUS Immunity Decision (ZH)

Nobody likes to lose but leftists take indignant defeat to a whole new level. Though they claim to “defend democracy” in their spare time, Democrats also have a tendency to abandon the democratic process when that process interferes with their intentions to remain in power. Case in point: The Supreme Court’s recent decision to give immunity from prosecution to Donald Trump in the case of “some official acts” taken during his tenure in office. Leftists have responded with outrage at the 6-3 decision with much of their political hopes resting on the strategy of burying Trump in as many legal battles as possible to keep him from running for president again. Democrats are now flooding social media and the news feeds with suggestions that the SC decision makes it possible for Joe Biden as president to eliminate the conservative competition “as a part of his official duties.”

The tools for legally punishing presidents already exist, including impeachment and charges of treason. And, keep in mind, if Trump does not have immunity for previous actions as president, then neither does any other president. How many skeletons are in the closets of men like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama? Beyond this, assassination of a political opponent or the conservative members of the Supreme Court is not recognized as an official duty of the presidency. Democrats, as usual, take their conclusions to the dramatic extreme in order to provoke public fear through emotionally energized disinformation. Leftists have been fantasizing publicly about murdering Trump for some time now. However, these “theories” on how Biden could respond to the Supreme Court are not simple hypotheticals for the sake of argument, there is an element of desperation and bloodlust.

Satire? Switch around the names Trump and Biden, and see how that feels.

• BBC Presenter Calls For Trump To Be Assassinated (RT)

BBC presenter David Aaronovitch has called for the “murder” of former US President Donald Trump in a post on X (formerly Twitter). Aaronovitch later deleted his message following a backlash, claiming it had been “satire.” Aaronovitch, the voice behind the British state broadcaster’s Radio 4 program ‘The Briefing Room’, tweeted on Monday: “If I was Biden I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security.” The post was accompanied by the hashtag #SCOTUS, indicating that the comment had been triggered by Monday’s confirmation from the US Supreme Court that former presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for their official actions. Aaronovitch was forced to delete the post after an online backlash, and claimed in a follow-up message that he had been accused of inciting violence by “a far right pile.” The presenter insisted his tweet was “plainly a satire.”

On Monday, the highest US court ruled that under “our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”In an interview with Fox News Digital, Trump touted the verdict on presidential immunity as a “big win for our Constitution and for democracy.” President Biden attacked the Supreme Court ruling, urging citizens to “di ssent” against the verdict. US federal prosecutors have charged Trump with four criminal counts related to the 2020 presidential election, alleging that he “conspired” to overturn the results. The Supreme Court verdict still grants lower courts the right to hold evidentiary hearings to determine whether the actions are official or unofficial. Unofficial acts by the president are not covered by immunity from prosecution. Trump has repeatedly called his prosecution politically motivated, describing it as a “witch hunt” launched by Biden and his administration.

“..EU countries are “plainly not prepared to fill a dramatically expanded military role anytime soon..”

• Trump Could End NATO Expansion – Politico (RT)

The former and possibly future US President Donald Trump is reportedly considering a deal with Russia not to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, according to a Politico article citing anonymous sources. Trump is the presumptive Republican challenger to the incumbent President Joe Biden in the November election. His campaign has not yet named a national security team, or published a new agenda for NATO, but Politico Magazine pieced together a possible one in a story published on Tuesday. “As part of a plan for Ukraine that has not been previously reported, the presumptive GOP nominee is mulling a deal whereby NATO commits to no further eastward expansion — specifically into Ukraine and Georgia — and negotiates with Russian President Vladimir Putin over how much Ukrainian territory Moscow can keep,” the story said, citing two “Trump-aligned national security experts.”

One anonymous source supposedly familiar with Trump’s thinking said he was “open to something foreclosing NATO expansion and not going back to the 1991 borders for Ukraine,” but did not exclude any other options, “including supplying large amounts of weapons” to Kiev. While Trump is “unlikely” to quit NATO outright, he is likely to overhaul the US-led bloc to make its European members take on more responsibilities – something Politico’s sources worry they are not actually capable of. European members of the bloc that don’t spend at least 2% of their GDP on the military “wouldn’t enjoy the defense largess and security guarantee” of the US, according to one anonymous Trump-aligned source. The US “does not have enough military forces to go around,” Elbridge Colby, Trump’s deputy assistant defense secretary for strategy, told Politico. “We can’t break our spear in Europe against the Russians when we know the Chinese and Russians are collaborating, and the Chinese are a more dangerous and significant threat.”

European members of the bloc “need to be producing combat credible forces to deal with a Russian attack, like now,” Colby added. As part of a “radical reorientation” of NATO under Trump, the US would maintain its air and naval bases in Europe, but leave the “bulk of infantry, armor, logistics and artillery” to be handled by the continental allies. According to Politico, EU countries are “plainly not prepared to fill a dramatically expanded military role anytime soon,” while the continent is “weaker economically and more dependent on US energy supplies than ever before.” “It’s important to note that all these opinions are not from Donald Trump,” Richard Grenell, his former acting director of national intelligence, said on X (formerly Twitter) in response to the Politico article. The Trump campaign did not respond to the outlet’s requests for comment.

True for all of NATO. Yes, including the US.

• UK Military Unprepared For Conflict Of Any Kind – Ex-Defense Official (RT)

Britain’s military is in such a bad state that it may not be able to defend the country, let alone mount an expeditionary force of any significant strength, a former official tasked with assessing the armed forces has told the Financial Times. Rob Johnson, director of the Oxford Changing Character of War Centre, was appointed in May 2022 for a two-year term as head of the Defense Ministry’s Office for Net Assessment and Challenge (SONAC). The researcher told the FT he wanted to share his grim conclusions with the public because he is “deeply worried” about what he discovered. He insisted his assessment is realistic, rather than alarmist. The armed forces “cannot defend the British homelands properly” and have a “bare minimum” to conduct small-scale peacekeeping missions, disaster relief operations, evacuations of civilians from war zones and anti-sabotage activities, according to the article published on Monday.

“In any larger-scale operation, we would run out of ammunition rapidly” Johnson warned. “Our defenses are too thin, and we are not prepared to fight and win an armed conflict of any scale.” If the UK were to deploy an expeditionary force comparable to those dispatched during the Falklands (Malvinas) War of 1982 or the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it “would be under-equipped, leaving troops at risk.” The deficiencies are spread across the military branches, according to Johnson. British air defenses could be unable to stop large-scale long-range missile strikes, the Royal Navy does not have enough ships to patrol the North Atlantic, while the Royal Air Force needs to double its fleet of fighter jets.

“The government is not taking the public into its confidence about the scale of the threat because it knows it’s not ready,” Johnson said. The revelations do not damage national security because “the Russians already know this anyway,” he claimed, referring to the fact that London considers Russia an imminent military threat to Britain. The British government last year set out to restore the UK’s global prominence as part of its foreign policy. The state of the military does not support that, Johnson indicated, saying: “We have to cut our coat to fit our cloth.” The warning adds to a plethora of similar British media reports and remarks by officials, who advocate ramping up defense spending.

“..still based in the fantasy land that he can dictate terms to Russia while losing the war..”

• Zelensky’s New ‘Plan’ Possible ‘First Step’ To Negotiations (DeMartino)

Ukraine’s illegitimate President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent promise to put forth a new “comprehensive plan” to end the conflict in Ukraine may be the first tentative steps by the regime to sit down at the negotiating table with Russia. Zelensky announced on Friday during a press conference in Kiev that he was creating a new plan that should be “supported by the majority of the world.” He also used the opportunity to, for the first time, admit high casualties on the battlefield. International relations and security expert Mark Sleboda told Sputnik’s Final Countdown that while Zelensky’s comments are still based in the fantasy land that he can dictate terms to Russia while losing the war, the change in tone could represent the regime’s first tentative steps towards admitting reality. “The fact that he said he’s willing to speak to Russia through an intermediary at some undisclosed point months in the future, I guess that is progress, but not much,” Sleboda explained.

“There is a possibility that this is a first tentative, one step forward, two steps back in the direction of eventual negotiations to end the conflict.” Zelensky made the comments not long after his so-called “peace summit” fell flat on its face, with China declining to attend and several influential countries outside of the West refusing to sign the final document, including Brazil, South Africa, India and Saudi Arabia. Iraq and Jordan asked for their signatures to be removed the day after they signed. “Certainly, I think [Zelensky’s] statement is representative of coming out of the failed Kiev regime war rally. Sentiment within the rest of the world outside of the West, i.e. the real international community – the global majority, that [said] they want real peace negotiations, and, perhaps, at least this is a nod in that direction,” Sleboda speculated.

The change in Zelensky’s tone is not just a reflection of the failed so-called “peace summit” but also the reality on the battlefield, where Ukraine is losing significant ground regularly. On Monday, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that they had liberated Stepovaya Novoselovka in the Kharkov region and Novopokrovskoye in the Donbass People’s Republic. “Even if [Zelensky’s comments] are a symbolic step in that direction [of negotiations], it is driven by the desperate state on the battlefield that the Kiev regime is facing,” Sleboda argued. “Once again, [Ukraine] stripped veteran troops from Toretsk in Nyu-York, they moved them to Kharkov. Russia knew about it immediately, of course, and launched a significant offensive in the area and has made significant progress. Now, the Kiev regime is scrambling and shuffling troops around again and again.”

“Le Pen said that if her party came to power, it would reverse these appointments so it “could govern.”

• Le Pen Accuses Macron Of Preparing ‘Coup d’État’ (RT)

French President Emmanuel Macron is undertaking a last-minute reshuffling in government agencies in order to prevent National Rally leader Jordan Bardella from governing as he wishes, former party leader Marine Le Pen believes. The RN is widely expected to gain a plurality in this Sunday’s runoff. RN and its allies secured the lead in the first round of the snap parliamentary election last week, while projections in the French media anticipate the party ultimately winning between 230 and 280 seats in the 577-seat National Assembly. “It’s a kind of administrative coup d’état,” Le Pen told France Inter radio on Tuesday, commenting on press reports that claimed Macron was rushing to appoint senior civil servants, including to top EU jobs.

Over the past days, Macron reportedly appointed several top officials, including the military governor of Paris, the new chief of the General Staff of the French Air Force, the new director of the EU at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and three ambassadors. He also proposed in Brussels last week reappointing Thierry Breton as France’s European commissioner. According to Le Pen, “the aim” of such appointments is “to prevent Jordan Bardella from governing the country as he wishes,” should the RN win a majority in Sunday’s runoff. Le Pen said that if her party came to power, it would reverse these appointments so it “could govern.”

“When you want to counter the electorate’s vote, the results of elections, by appointing people of your own, so that they prevent you within the state from being able to carry out the policy that the French want … I call that an administrative coup d’état,” Le Pen concluded. Macron called early parliamentary elections after the RN’s strong performance in last month’s European Parliament elections. The party formerly led by Le Pen and now by Bardella won 30 of the 81 French seats in the EU legislature. The first round of early parliamentary elections was held on June 30. The RN and its allies came in first with 33.15% of the vote. The left-wing alliance New Popular Front took second place with 27.99%, while Macron’s Ensemble coalition garnered just 20.04%.

“I remind you that France has an official public debt of 3,000 billion euros, and that this sum is absolutely non-repayable..”

• France Rapidly Being ‘Brought to its Knees’ Regardless of Vote Outcome (Sp.)

President Emmanuel Macron’s center-right alliance Ensemble was practically wiped out by Marine Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally (RN) in the first round of France’s snap legislative elections. Projections regarding the outcome of the second round on July 7 suggest that Macron’s coalition is set to hemorrhage seats in the National Assembly. Whatever the outcome of the parliamentary elections, France today “no longer has the means for its policy,” Emmanuel Leroy, president of the Institut 1717, for a new Franco-Russian alliance, told Sputnik. He underscored that quite possibly next Sunday, Marine Le Pen’s right-wing National Rally (RN) will not obtain an absolute majority required to govern in the country, creating “an objectively uncontrollable situation.” “Without an absolute majority, the country will be in a state of incapacity to be governed in a valid manner and we will probably observe a crisis situation which will bring France completely to its knees on the international political level,” speculated the French political scientist.

“Emmanuel Macron’s bet today is to play on the victory of this party [RN] in such a way as to create a situation of political chaos in France,” Leroy suggested. Prime Minister Gabriel Attal has already stated that Macron’s centrist coalition will pull out around 60 of its candidates to allow other contenders to have a chance at defeating the RN. But this could be nothing more than a “window dressing,” said Leroy. The analyst noted that whether France switches to a right-wing or left-wing policy, this wouldn’t change the fundamentals. And these fundamentals are that the France of Emmanuel Macron, which has been “at the forefront in the desire to completely engage in this war in Ukraine to help the regime [led] by Zelensky,” is in phenomenal debt. “I remind you that France has an official public debt of 3,000 billion euros, and that this sum is absolutely non-repayable,” the former Russia adviser to Marine Le Pen stressed.

Too expensive.

• UniCredit Challenges Order To Leave Russia (RT)

UniCredit has appealed to the EU’s top court to clarify an order issued by the European Central Bank (ECB) for the Italian institution to reduce its presence in Russia. The lender has applied to the General Court of the European Union for “definitive legal clarification” of obligations set by the ECB for winding down its Russian business, UniCredit said in a statement on Monday. UniCredit said that while it is complying with the regulator’s request to slash its activities in Russia, it is concerned “about the terms upon which this reduction has to take place as provided for in the decision issued by ECB, that goes beyond the current legal framework.” The ECB has pressured EU banks with operations in Russia to speed up their exit from the country amid the threat of harsher US sanctions on Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine.

In May, the Frankfurt-based regulator sent letters to lenders with a request for an “action plan” to end their business in Russia as early as June. UniCredit currently has the second largest exposure to the Russian market among EU-based banks, and is included in the Russian central bank’s list of 13 systemically important credit institutions. Other EU banks – including Austria’s Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI), Dutch lender ING, Germany’s Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank, Hungary’s OTP Bank, Italy’s Intesa SanPaolo, and Sweden’s SEB – also maintain a presence in the Russian market despite Western sanctions. Announcing its legal challenge, the bank noted that it had reduced its cross-border exposure to Russia by 91% and its domestic exposure by 65% since February 2022. The Italian lender said the application could take several months and asked for an interim suspension of the regulator’s decision.

“Unprecedented circumstances, the complexities inherent in the geo-political and economic scenario and the lack of a harmonized regulatory framework applicable to it and the potential for serious unintended consequences of implementing the decision that would impact not only the Russian subsidiaries” compelled UniCredit to seek clarity. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani welcomed the bank’s challenge, saying the ECB “must take into account the situation in which Italian companies operate in Russia, in compliance with EU sanctions.” “Hasty decisions merely risk damaging Italian and EU companies,” Reuters quoted him as saying. UniCredit operates in Russia through a subsidiary, with some 3,100 employees and more than 50 branches.

X thread. “It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we’ll all be better of for it. And that’s why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.”

• Chevron Deference (Spike Cohen)

For those who don’t understand what is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here’s the long and short of it: A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn’t afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company. The thing is, federal law doesn’t authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013. Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization? Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the “experts” in their field, and the courts should just defer to their “interpretation” of the law. So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to “interpret” laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.

It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country. It’s how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired. No law gave them that authority, they just made it up. It’s how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a “machine gun”. It’s how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a “protected wetlands”.

It’s how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the “experts”. Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you’d actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go. That’s what Chevron Deference was. It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone. Thankfully, it’s now gone. We haven’t even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we’ll all be better of for it. And that’s why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.

SNL

HYSTERICAL SNL: If B*den Is NOT Going To Run, Who Will? pic.twitter.com/smOoWOX5da

— Dustie (@DustieDahl) July 1, 2024

Spaghetti dance

pic.twitter.com/Rrl9wDuZe4

— Photographer (@photo5065) July 1, 2024

Dogslide

absolutely the best thing you'll see all day.. pic.twitter.com/Gpb8iEhpGz

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) July 2, 2024

McDo
https://twitter.com/i/status/1807747770314588287

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

Debt Rattle February 19 2017

Feb 192017

February 19, 2017 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:23 am Finance Tagged with: Deep State, eurodollar, Fed, GMO, Greece, Lavrov, Obama, sacred, soft coup, Trump 4 Responses »

John Vachon Beer signs on truck, Little Falls, Minnesota 1940

• Fed: From Lender Of Last Resort To Destroyer Of American Wealth (DDMB)

• “There’s Something Weird Going On”: The Global Dollar Shortage (ZH)

• Merkel Suggests Euro Is Too Low For Germany (R.)

• Empowering “Deep State” is Prescription for Destroying Democracy (Greenwald)

• Sekulow: Obama Should Be “Held Accountable” For “Soft Coup” Against Trump (ZH)

• Russia Calls For ‘Post-West’ World Order – Lavrov (R.)

• Lavrov on US Election Hacking Claims: ‘Give Us Some Facts’ (BBG)

• Nine People Flee US Border Patrol To Seek Asylum In Canada (R.)

• GMO Crops Are Driving Genocide And Ecocide – Keep Them Out Of The EU! (Paul)

• ‘From Bad To Worse’: Greece Hurtles Towards A Final Reckoning (O.)

• Greek Banks Worry Over Sudden Bad Loan Spike In January (K.)

• Greeks Turn to the Black Market as Another Bailout Showdown Looms (NYT)

• Tensions Escalate In Aegean As Turkish Boat Fires Shots in Greek Waters (K.)

• Defend The Sacred (Bell)

Looks like a must read: [..] a special preview excerpt from FED UP: An Insider’s Take on Why The Federal Reserve is Bad for America by Danielle DiMartino Booth.

She agrees with me: “The one true growth industry? That would be all that high cotton harvested in high finance. Since 2007, world debt has grown by about $60 trillion, enriching legions of investment bankers one bond deal at a time.”

• Fed: From Lender Of Last Resort To Destroyer Of American Wealth (DDMB)

Created in 1913 after the Panic of 1907, the Federal Reserve was founded to keep the public’s faith in the buying power of the U.S. dollar. After failing miserably in the 1930s, the Fed aimed to be more responsive. This led the institution to find discipline in the rising macroeconomic models championed by top monetary theorists. During the ensuing “Quiet Period” in American banking, deposit insurance prevented panics, the Fed controlled interest rates and manipulated the money supply, and though occasional disruptions flared, like the failure of Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company in 1984, no systemic risk erupted for seventy years. The Fed had tamed the volatile U.S. economy.

Until September 2008, when all hell broke loose in a worldwide panic that completely blindsided and, embarrassed the Federal Reserve. The Fed had used billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to bail out Wall Street fat cats. Everyone blamed the Fed. Just before 9 a.m., the door to the chairman’s office opened. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke took his place in an armchair at the center of a massive oval table. The members of the FOMC found their designated places around the table; aides sat in chairs or couches against the wall. With staff, the room contained fifty or sixty people, far more than normal for this momentous occasion. In front of each FOMC member was a microphone to record their words for posterity. To a casual observer, the content of their conversation would be obscured by economic jargon.

This day, their essential task was to vote on whether to take the “fed funds” rate—the interest rate at which banks lent money to each other in the overnight market—to the zero bound. The history-making low rate would ripple throughout the economy, affecting the price to borrow for businesses and consumers alike. Bernanke was calm but insistent. His lifetime of study of the Great Depression indicated this was the only way. His sheer depth of knowledge about the Fed’s mishandling of that tragic period was undoubtedly intimidating. By the end of the meeting, the vote was unanimous. The FOMC officially adopted a zero-interest-rate policy in the hopes that companies teetering on the brink of insolvency would keep the lights on, keep employees on their payrolls, and keep consumers spending. It would even pay banks interest on deposits.

Free cash. We’ll even pay you to take it! As they gathered their belongings, everyone shook hands, all very collegial despite the sometimes vigorous discussion. They journeyed back to their nice homes in the toniest neighborhoods of America’s richest cities: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, Washington, DC. They returned to their lofty perches, some at the Eccles Building, others to the executive floors of Federal Reserve District Bank buildings, safely cushioned from the decision they had just made. Most of them were wealthy or had hefty defined benefit pensions. Their investments were socked away in blind trusts. They would feel no pain in their ivory towers.

A Eurodollar is a dollar held anywhere outside the US.

• “There’s Something Weird Going On”: The Global Dollar Shortage (ZH)

While we urge readers to listen to the full interview below, here are some of the highlights, starting with “why the Dollar shortage a symptom of an inherently unstable system.” As Snider explains, “the dollar shortage isn’t so much the shortage per se, it’s the fact that it’s a symptom of what is an inherently unstable system.” He notes that “the reason banks are withdrawing from the system is that it’s just is no longer tenable” and “so there has to be some kind of – whether you want to look at it like another Bretton Woods – conference, a global monetary system, a global monetary get together where people start to analyze solutions to the problem as they are rather than keep trying to apply band aids that are not going to work. ” But, he concludes, “step one of that task is to actually recognize the problem as it is and so doing more stimulus or doing more QE isn’t going to solve anything it isn’t do anything just like prior QEs and prior stimulus haven’t done anything either because the problem is an unstable system.”

Snider focuses on the Eurodollar system, which he defines as a problem of “decay and dysfunction” and explains that “nothing ever happens in a straight line even the Eurodollar problem has not been a singular event. It’s not been a decade long straight line of decay and dysfunction.” He goes on to say that the fact that after enough time these markets have adjusted to the fact that the economy’s going to be bad for a very long time until something actually changes and so true reflation is predicated on something actually changing rather than the hope that something might change.

Looking at history, Snider observes that “what happened in July 2008 obviously was the fact that everyone decided almost all at once that wasn’t the right interpretation of what the Fed was doing nor was it the right interpretation of the dollar system overall. So, that reflation ended in reality which was the dollar system was eroding and it was eroding in a very dangerous way and that’s why oil prices essentially crashed from July till I think January 2009.” An implication of the ongoing reserve currency funding shortage is that, according to Snider, despite the occasional blip (arguably funded by massive Chinese credit creation), “reflation is going to fail and there’s nothing the Fed can do about it.” He goes on to state that “until they fix the global dollar problem we’re not going to fix the global economy and so we’re kind of stuck gyrating between various levels of really bad. We go from the lack of recovery to what looks like a global recession to the lack of recovery and back again” as a result he thinks that “reflation is going to fail.”

[..] Snider summarizes by saying that “the fact that these markets realize that there’s a problem in Eurodollar system, there’s no banking to be had, no additional marginal banking capacity being added and without it none of these stuff really matters, none of these other stuff really matters. That’s the only thing that truly matters” and concludes gloomily that “the probability scenarios for economic and financial future are much darker now than they were three years ago.”

It’s blowing the EU apart but its de facto leader says she has “no power to address this problem”. That’s just great.

• Merkel Suggests Euro Is Too Low For Germany (R.)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel suggested on Saturday that the euro was too low for Germany but made clear that Berlin had no power to address this “problem” because monetary policy was set by the independent ECB. Merkel made her remarks at the Munich Security Conference as U.S. Vice President Mike Pence looked on. They seemed aimed at addressing recent criticism from a top trade adviser to President Donald Trump, who has accused Germany of profiting from a “grossly undervalued” euro. “We have at the moment in the euro zone of course a problem with the value of the euro,” Merkel said in an unusual foray into foreign exchange rate policy.

“The ECB has a monetary policy that is not geared to Germany, rather it is tailored (to countries) from Portugal to Slovenia or Slovakia. If we still had the (German) D-Mark it would surely have a different value than the euro does at the moment. But this is an independent monetary policy over which I have no influence as German chancellor.” The euro has fallen nearly 25% against the dollar over the past three years, touching a 14-year low of $1.034 in January. But it has since risen to roughly $1.061. In late January, Peter Navarro, the head of Trump’s new National Trade Council, said the euro’s low valuation was giving Germany an edge over the United States and its European Union partners. His comments came weeks after Trump himself said the dollar’s strength against the Chinese yuan “is killing us”, deepening concerns that his administration could pursue a more confrontational, protectionist approach to trade. Merkel and other German officials pushed back forcefully at the time.

Lots of Deep State pieces these days. Greenwald provides some balance.

• Empowering “Deep State” is Prescription for Destroying Democracy (Greenwald)

The deep state, although there’s no precise or scientific definition, generally refers to the agencies in Washington that are permanent power factions. They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are elected come and go. They typically exercise their power in secret, in the dark, and so they’re barely subject to democratic accountability, if they’re subject to it at all. It’s agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world’s worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol, but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from—in fact, in opposition to—the political officials to whom they’re supposed to be subordinate.

And you go—this is not just about Russia. You go all the way back to the campaign, and what you saw was that leading members of the intelligence community, including Mike Morell, who was the acting CIA chief under President Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and the NSA under George W. Bush, were very outspoken supporters of Hillary Clinton. In fact, Michael Morell went to The New York Times, and Michael Hayden went to The Washington Post, during the campaign to praise Hillary Clinton and to say that Donald Trump had become a recruit of Russia. The CIA and the intelligence community were vehemently in support of Clinton and vehemently opposed to Trump, from the beginning. And the reason was, was because they liked Hillary Clinton’s policies better than they liked Donald Trump’s.

One of the main priorities of the CIA for the last five years has been a proxy war in Syria, designed to achieve regime change with the Assad regime. Hillary Clinton was not only for that, she was critical of Obama for not allowing it to go further, and wanted to impose a no-fly zone in Syria and confront the Russians. Donald Trump took exactly the opposite view. He said we shouldn’t care who rules Syria; we should allow the Russians, and even help the Russians, kill ISIS and al-Qaeda and other people in Syria. So, Trump’s agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted. Clinton’s was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they’ve been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him. There’s claims that they’re withholding information from him, on the grounds that they don’t think he should have it and can be trusted with it. They are empowering themselves to enact policy.

Now, I happen to think that the Trump presidency is extremely dangerous. You just listed off in your news—in your newscast that led the show, many reasons. They want to dismantle the environment. They want to eliminate the safety net. They want to empower billionaires. They want to enact bigoted policies against Muslims and immigrants and so many others. And it is important to resist them. And there are lots of really great ways to resist them, such as getting courts to restrain them, citizen activism and, most important of all, having the Democratic Party engage in self-critique to ask itself how it can be a more effective political force in the United States after it has collapsed on all levels. That isn’t what this resistance is now doing.

The timing is indeed very peculiar.

• Sekulow: Obama Should Be “Held Accountable” For “Soft Coup” Against Trump (ZH)

[..] what until recently was a trickle of private data captured about US individuals by the NSA with only a handful of people having full, immersive access, suddenly became a firehose with thousands of potential witnesses across 16 other agencies, each of whom suddenly became a potential source of leaks about ideological political opponents. And with the universe of potential “leaking” culprits suddenly exploding exponentially, good luck finding the responsible party. However, the implications are far more serious than just loss of privacy rights. According to civil right expert and prominent First Amendement Supreme Court lawyer, Jay Sekulow, what the agencies did by leaking the Trump Administration information was not only illegal but “almost becomes a soft coup”, one which was spurred by the last minute rule-change by Obama, who intentionally made it far easier for leaks to propagate, and next to impossible to catch those responsible for the leaks.

This is his explanation: “There was a sea-change here at the NSA with an order that came from president Obama 17 days before he left office where he allowed the NSA who used to control the data, it now goes to 16 other agencies and that just festered this whole leaking situation, and that happened on the way out, as the president was leaving the office. Why did the Obama administration wait until it had 17 days left in their administration to put this order in place if they thought it was so important. They had 8 years, they didn’t do it, number one. Number two, it changed the exiting rule which was an executive order dating back to Ronald Reagan, that has been in place until 17 days before the Obama administration was going to end, that said the NSA gets the raw data, and they determine dissemination.

Instead, this change that the president put in place, signed off by the way by James Clapper on December 15, 2016, signed off by Loretta Lynch the Attorney General January 3, 2017, they decide that now 16 agencies can get the raw data and what that does is almost creates a shadow government. You have all these people who are not agreeing with President Trump’s position, so it just festers more leaks. If they had a justification for this, wonderful, why didn’t they do it 8 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago. Yet they wait until 17 days left. One potential answer: they knew they had a “smoking gun”, and were working to make it easier to enable the information to be “leaked” despite the clearly criminal consequences of such dissemination.

As this point Hannity correctly points out, “it makes it that much more difficult by spreading out the information among 16 other agencies, if they want to target or take away the privacy rights, and illegally tap the phones, in this case General Flynn, it’s going to be much harder to find the perpetrator. Sekulow confirms, noting that back when only the NSA had access to this kind of raw data, there would be a very small amount of people who have access to this kind of data. “But this change in the Obama Administration was so significant that they allowed dissemination to 16 other agencies, and we wonder why there’s leaks.” Sekulow’s conclusion: “President Obama, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch should be held accountable for this.”

Russia’s no big fan of -unfetterred- globalization either: “I hope that (the world) will choose a democratic world order – a post-West one – in which each country is defined by its sovereignty.”

• Russia Calls For ‘Post-West’ World Order – Lavrov (R.)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called Saturday for an end to a world order dominated by the West and said Moscow wanted to establish a “pragmatic” relationship with the United States. Lavrov was speaking at the Munich Security Conference shortly after US Vice President Mike Pence told the audience Washington remained “unwavering” in its commitment to the US-led NATO military alliance as it faced a more assertive Russia. Lavrov said that the time when the West called the shots was over and, dismissing NATO as a relic of the Cold War, added: “I hope that (the world) will choose a democratic world order – a post-West one – in which each country is defined by its sovereignty.”

Lavrov said Moscow wanted to build relations with Washington which would be “pragmatic with mutual respect and acknowledgement of our responsibility for global stability.” The two countries had never been in direct conflict, he said, noting that they were actually close neighbours across the Baring Straits. Russia wanted to see a “common space of good neighbour relations from Vancouver to Vladivostok,” he added. Pence was in Europe along with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and defence chief James Mattis as part of efforts to reassure allies rattled by President Donald Trump’s “America First” stance and his calls for improved ties with Russia despite the continuing crisis in Ukraine.

“He said Russia had “many years ago” initiated work at the United Nations to discuss information security. “Our western partners evaded that work..”

• Lavrov on US Election Hacking Claims: ‘Give Us Some Facts’ (BBG)

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pushed back against accusations that Russian hackers meddled in last year’s U.S. presidential election, saying no one had put forward any proof and former President Barack Obama’s administration ignored repeated overtures to discuss cyber-security norms. “Somehow when we are blamed, no one asked for facts,” Lavrov said at the Munich Security Summit on Saturday. “Give us some facts.” In his remarks, made in response to an audience question about whether Russia interferes in other countries’ elections, Lavrov portrayed Russia as a leader in efforts to focus on information security. He said Russia had “many years ago” initiated work at the United Nations to discuss information security. “Our western partners evaded that work,” he said.

After Donald Trump won the election in November, the U.S. intelligence community issued an assessment that Russia sought to sway the election in his favor through the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff. In the waning days of his administration, Obama imposed new sanctions on Russia’s military intelligence agency and the successor agency to the KGB, saying the actions had been directed “at the highest level” of the government. [..] “I have seen no facts, there were just some accusations that we tried to hack some Democratic party website; that’s happening in France, Germany, Italy,” Lavrov said. He went on to point blame at the U.S. and make a reference to recent leaks that the CIA may have spied on French political parties before the 2012 election there. WikiLeaks released e-mails making that claim this week.

Lavrov said he had suggested to the Obama administration in 2015 that the two countries discuss working together on cyber-security, and repeatedly asked former Secretary of State John Kerry about the proposal. “For a year we had no reaction from them,” he said. “Then in December last year they said let’s meet, and later they said now we have transitional administration let’s postpone it.”

Not the first time in history people flee from the US to Canada.

• Nine People Flee US Border Patrol To Seek Asylum In Canada (R.)

Nine asylum-seekers, including four children, barely made it across the Canadian border on Friday as a U.S. border patrol officer tried to stop them and a Reuters photographer captured the scene. As a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officer seized their passports and questioned a man in the front passenger seat of a taxi that had pulled up to the border in Champlain, New York, four adults and four young children fled the cab and ran to Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the other side. One by one they scrambled across the snowy gully separating the two countries. RCMP officers watching from the other side helped them up, lifting the younger children and asking a woman, who leaned on her fellow passenger as she walked, if she needed medical care. The children looked back from where they had come as the U.S. officer held the first man, saying his papers needed to be verified.

The man turned to a pile of belongings and heaved pieces of luggage two at a time into the gully – enormous wheeled suitcases, plastic shopping bags, a black backpack. “Nobody cares about us,” he told journalists. He said they were all from Sudan and had been living and working in Delaware for two years. The RCMP declined on Friday to confirm the nationalities of the people. A Reuters photo showed that at least one of their passports was Sudanese. The man then appeared to grab their passports from the U.S. officer before making a run for the border. The officer yelled and gave chase but stopped at the border marker. Canadian police took hold of the man’s arm as he crossed. The border patrol officer told his counterpart that the man was in the United States illegally and that he would have detained him. Officers on both sides momentarily eyed the luggage strewn in the snow before the U.S. officer took it, and a walker left on the road, to the border line.

Overview of the damage done across the world by GMO.

• GMO Crops Are Driving Genocide And Ecocide – Keep Them Out Of The EU! (Paul)

We currently face a desperate, almost farcical push for GM crops in the UK and Europe, characterised by hyperbolic and inaccurate claims. So rather than taking those claims on trust, let’s look at the impacts of GM crops in countries that have adopted them. That means North and South America, where GM crops were first launched in 1996. The cultivation of herbicide tolerant crops in Argentina began in 1996 with GM soya and spread swiftly through the country. As Argentina’s Grupo Reflexion Rural (GRR) wrote to the Vatican in April 2013, “The model was based on the political decision that Argentina, which had once been the grain basket of the world and a producer of healthy and high-quality foods, would be transformed into a producer of animal forage, firstly, to provide fodder for European livestock, and then for livestock in China.”

At first, herbicide tolerant crops seemed to simplify the farming process, especially for larger mechanised farms. Instead of skillful weed management, farmers applied large quantities of the herbicide glyphosate, mainly from the air. Powerful groups of investors helped drive GM soya production. Small farmers could not compete and many have left or been driven off their land, often into urban slums. People who remain in the countryside and small towns find themselves bombarded from the air with increasingly complex mixtures of chemicals intended to combat the problem of increasing weed and pest resistance. Although GM crops were promoted as a means to reduce levels of pesticides used, pesticide use in Argentina has increased massively, “from nine million gallons (34 million litres) in 1990 to more than 84 million gallons (317 million litres) today”.

[..] Europe has been wise to resist the pressure to adopt GM crops for cultivation except for a GM maize mainly grown in Spain. In the face of the evidence from countries with experience of these crops, and their associated cocktails of agrotoxics, why should Europe be forced to consider another GM crop for cultivation? But Europe should go further. The soya boom is driven by markets for animal feed, in the form of soya meal or cake, and biodiesel from soya oil. Vast quantities of both are imported into Europe, making it a major driver of South America’s unfolding GM disaster. The EU should surely stop importing GM animal feeds and oils from North and South America.

Indeed Europe should change its whole approach to livestock and crop production to address human health impacts, biodiversity loss and climate change. Far from being a “museum of world farming” as the UK’s current environment minister, Owen Paterson, likes to claim, Europe could show the way to a rich and varied GM free agriculture that provides nutritious, healthy food and jobs. It would at the same time address the profound degradation of soils and accelerating biodiversity loss, caused to a great extent by the industrial model of agriculture to which genetically engineered crops belong.

“All I know is that we are all being pushed,” he said, searching for the right words. “Pushed in the direction of somewhere very explosive, somewhere we do not want to be.”

• ‘From Bad To Worse’: Greece Hurtles Towards A Final Reckoning (O.)

The assumption is that the prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, will cave in, just as he did when the country came closest yet to leaving the euro at the height of the crisis in the summer of 2015. But the 41-year-old leader, like Syriza, has been pummelled in the polls. Persuading disaffected backbenchers to support more measures, and then selling them to a populace exhausted by repeated rounds of austerity, will be extremely difficult. Disappointment has increasingly given way to the death of hope – a sentiment reinforced by the realisation that Cyprus and other bailed-out countries, by contrast, are no longer under international supervision.

In his city centre office, the former finance minister Evangelos Venizelos pondered where Greece’s predicament was now. “[We are] at the same point we were several years ago,” he joked. “The only difference is that anti-European sentiment is growing. What was once a very friendly country towards Europe is becoming increasingly less so, and with that comes a lot of danger, a lot of risk.” When historians look back they, too, may conclude that Greece has expended a great deal of energy not moving forward at all.

The arc of crisis that has swept the country – coursing like a cancer through its body politic, devastating its public health system, shattering lives – has been an exercise in the absurd. The feat of pulling off the greatest fiscal adjustment in modern times has spawned a slump longer and deeper than the Great Depression, with the Greek economy shrinking more than 25% since the crisis began. Even if the latest impasse is broken and a deal is reached with creditors soon, few believe that in a country of weak governance and institutions it will be easy to enforce. Political turbulence will almost certainly beckon; the prospect of “Grexit” will grow.

“Grexit is the last thing we want, but we may arrive at a point of serious dilemmas,” said Venizelos. “Whatever deal is reached will be very difficult to implement, but that notwithstanding, it is not the memoranda [the bailout accords] that caused the crisis. The crisis was born in Greece long before.” Like every crisis government before it, Tsipras’s administration is acutely aware that salvation will come only when Greece can return to the markets and raise funds. What happens in the weeks ahead could determine if that is likely to happen at all. Back in Syntagma, Costopoulos the good-natured farmer ponders what lies ahead. Like every Greek, he stands to be deeply affected. “All I know is that we are all being pushed,” he said, searching for the right words. “Pushed in the direction of somewhere very explosive, somewhere we do not want to be.”

Greek banks never recovered.

• Greek Banks Worry Over Sudden Bad Loan Spike In January (K.)

Nonperforming loans last month posted a major spike of almost 1 billion euros, reversing the downward course set in the last few months of 2016. This has generated major concerns among local lenders regarding the achievement of targets for reducing bad loans, as agreed with the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) of the ECB for the first quarter of this year. Bank sources say that after several months of stabilization and of a negative growth rate in new nonperforming exposure,the picture deteriorated rapidly in January, as new bad loans estimated at €800 million in total were created. This increase in a period of just one month is considered particularly high, and is a trend that appears to be continuing this month as well.

Bank officials attribute the phenomenon to uncertainty from the government’s inability to complete the second bailout review, fears for a rekindling of the crisis and mainly the expectations of borrowers for extrajudicial settlements of bad loans. Senior bank officials note that a large number of borrowers will not cooperate with their lenders in reaching an agreement for the restructuring of their debts, in the hope that the introduction by the government of the extrajudicial compromise could lead to better terms and possibly even to a debt haircut

Banks further observe that the issue of the extrajudicial settlement, along with the matter of the deferred tax assets for the tackling of banks’ losses from the write-off or sale of bad loans, are of major significance to the general issue of dealing with the NPL problem, so they have to be arranged rapidly. Even more important to the banking sector is the completion of the pending bailout review, as uncertainty and the re-emergence of fears over a possible Greek exit from the eurozone have frozen the market and encouraged many people to avoid paying their dues in anticipation of negotiations. This unexpected deterioration in the quality of loan portfolios in recent weeks has banks on edge, as NPLs will have to be reduced by €2.5 billion by end-March, which will be particularly difficult to achieve given the fresh addition of another €800 million.

Forced out of work by Troika demands.

• Greeks Turn to the Black Market as Another Bailout Showdown Looms (NYT)

During seven years of a grinding economic crisis, Dimitri Tsamopoulos has lost at least half the clients from his once bustling tax consultancy. But in the past few months, business has jumped, not because the Greek economy is finally recovering but because it is falling even deeper into the abyss. With the Greek government pushing through more tax increases to comply with austerity requirements, more than 21,000 self-employed workers and small firms have shut down in the past two months, with many seeking help from accountants like Mr. Tsamopoulos to close their books. Yet many are not actually closing their businesses. “Most of these people will keep working,” Mr. Tsamopoulous said, arching an eyebrow from behind his desk as clients waited in a smoky room outside. “But now, they’ll do it on the black market. They’re saying they need a way to survive.”

Greece is the crisis that never quite goes away for the EU, and with another tense negotiation with creditors scheduled for this coming week, the country is struggling to recover from the longest downturn in the eurozone. The budget-slashing policies and reform medicine required by creditors have done little to revive growth, leaving Greece even more dependent on the three international bailouts the country has received since 2010. Few problems are more ingrained, or harder to combat, than the shadow economy, which appears to be growing again as new austerity measures compel once law-abiding Greeks to go off the books. Greece’s black market is estimated at 20 to 25% of the gross domestic product, as more people have stopped reporting their income to avoid paying taxes that, by some estimates, have risen to 70% of an individual’s gross income.

As of last month, unpaid taxes in Greece had soared to €95 billion, up from €76 billion two years ago. Most of that is considered uncollectable. “The heart of the matter for an ever-rising number of citizens and businesses is that they simply do not have the financial resources anymore to meet their rising tax obligations,” said Jens Bastian, an economist and a member of a team of European Union specialists that helped supervise the country’s earlier bailouts. Short on alternatives, he said, “many are falling back into the gray economy.”

Again: US and EU need to be very careful about this. And act.

• Tensions Escalate In Aegean As Turkish Boat Fires Shots in Greek Waters (K.)

Tension between Greece and Turkey escalated further on Friday after a Turkish coastal patrol boat fired live ammunition during a military exercise in Greek territorial waters in the eastern Aegean Sea. [..] a Greek diplomatic source described the incident in the area around the eastern Aegean island of Farmakonisi, as “a grave violation of international law.” “Turkey’s unacceptable act raises serious concerns about the potential consequences of its behavior on the stability of the wider region,” the same source said. Greek defense officials were reportedly preparing to lodge a demarche with Ankara and brief allies and international organizations on the incident.

According to the Defense Ministry, Turkish authorities issued a navigational telex, or Navtex, the day before informing of a military exercise with live ammunition within Greek territorial waters, east of Farmakonisi, on Friday [yesterday] morning between 7 and 9 a.m. The Greek Defense Ministry responded by issuing a Navtex turning down the Turkish notification, saying it covered Greek territorial waters. Turkish authorities have previously issued similar notifications without executing them. The Greek gunboat Nikiforos was sent to the area to monitor the Turkish Kusadasi vessel, which fired a volley of shots from small caliber (up to 40mm) guns between 7.40 and 7.55 a.m., until it left the area just before 8 a.m.

[..] Friday’s incident occurred in the wake of repeated Turkish violations of Greek air space and increased tensions between Athens and Ankara, which were further fueled last month when Greece’s highest court blocked the extradition of eight Turkish officers to Turkey for their alleged involvement in July’s failed coup. Reacting to the development on Friday, Greece’s conservative opposition requested a meeting of the country’s National Council of Foreign Policy. “We are deeply concerned to witness Turkey’s insistence on provoking [Athens] and maintaining a climate of tension in the Aegean,” New Democracy shadow foreign minister Giorgos Koumoutsakos said in a letter to Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias.

“How do you capture Spirit?”

• Defend The Sacred (Bell)

Defend The Sacred: Documentary from Kyle Bell on Vimeo.

Capturing the heart of a movement that is constantly evolving is difficult. How do you capture Spirit? “Defend The Sacred” is a short documentary that attempts to capture the spirit of Indigenous people at Standing Rock.