John Waterhouse Diogenes 1882
A father reviews a 4-month old baby and has an interesting perspective pic.twitter.com/a3wVnGpiD4
— Dudes Posting Their W’s (@DudespostingWs) August 8, 2025
https://twitter.com/officer_Lew/status/1953921928336400829
TRUMP'S RICO case was created by BILL BARR and FANI WILLIS.
New evidence including emails, notes, and texts expose that they both worked in conjunction to target and prosecute President Trump.
Take a wild guess who Bill Barr’s father, "Donald Barr," was close to and hired while… pic.twitter.com/gP7FtYUwcL
— The SCIF (@TheIntelSCIF) August 8, 2025
Diana Panchenko was “Journalist of the Year” in Ukraine and among Ukraine’s top 10 most influential women. However, she is persecuted by Zelensky for being critical of his government
– Today YouTube did its part, by cancelling her account with more than 2 million subscribers pic.twitter.com/Itd7cr9u4u— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) August 8, 2025
Jay
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1953985193921970535
Solomon
https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1954134932026180057
Cartel
https://twitter.com/JesseBWatters/status/1953993015132852474
“Alaska showdown: Who really needs this summit more?”
• Cold Hard Land, Cold Hard Bargain: Putin&Trump Head Off To Alaska (Poletaev)
Steve Witkoff’s visit to Moscow has marked a striking shift in American rhetoric. Just a couple of months ago, in June and July, Donald Trump was threatening the Kremlin with new sanctions and issuing ultimatums. Now the agenda includes a Putin-Trump summit scheduled for August 15 in Alaska. This 180-degree turn has been accompanied by leaks hinting at possible deals and a return to the “thaw” in relations we last saw in the spring. If the meeting goes ahead, the Russian president will come to it in a far stronger position than he did a few months ago. Back in the spring, Trump’s push for a peace deal looked like a personal whim, and the so-called ‘party of war’ and globalists still had cards to play: Senator Lindsey Graham’s sanctions package, fresh US arms deliveries to Ukraine, and the proposals floated by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer about sending Western troops to Ukraine.
Now it looks as if Trump is the one coming back to Vladimir Putin – driven by the failure of his oil embargo. On top of that, there’s an appearance – an illusion, perhaps – that Putin is backed by a united BRICS front, something Trump’s own moves have helped bring about. Whether that front actually exists, or can survive for long, is another matter. But at this moment, one of Trump’s key pillars of leverage looks shaky, if not entirely knocked out from under him. The other pillar is the war itself. In February and March, the front lines were static, and Ukrainian forces were still holding a foothold in Russia’s Kursk Region. Kiev was touting its ‘drone wall’ project, billed as an impenetrable shield against the Russian army.
Since then, Ukraine has suffered a major defeat in the Kursk border area, and the summer offensive that followed has gone Moscow’s way – more decisively than at the same point last year. The much-hyped ‘drone wall’ turned out to be far less sturdy than promised. Kiev still clings to the hope of holding the line, but barely. Even the most pro-Ukrainian Western analysts now admit, in so many words: We don’t understand how they’re still hanging on. From the rhetoric of even the fiercest globalist hawks, it’s clear they know no amount of weapons shipments can reverse the battlefield trend – at best, they can slow it. That’s why the ‘party of war’ in the West, and Kiev itself, have suddenly taken up Trump’s earlier call for a cease-fire. Which means Trump now needs talks with Putin not because he personally wants peace, but because the battlefield realities are pushing him there.
Nobody knows how much longer the Ukrainian military can hold. From Trump’s point of view, the sooner he can lock in some kind of deal with Moscow, the better. And that urgency is another advantage for Putin. If the second round of talks collapses, he loses nothing: the Russian army can simply keep advancing until the Ukrainian front breaks – or until the next peace initiative with Washington, whichever comes first. Does Moscow have vulnerabilities? Yes – and the biggest is the economy. Even without the oil embargo, a surging ruble has blown a hole in the federal budget: by the end of July, the deficit had already reached 4.9 trillion rubles ($61.4 billion) – 1.1 trillion rubles more than the planned deficit for the entire year. But Russia’s financial buffer is strong enough that it can run shortfalls like this for years without crippling the economy.
“No one will and no one can deviate from it. Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.”
Well, we saw a poll yesterday that said 69% (up from 20% in 2022) want peace talks. At least some of them must have been aware that could include giving up land.
• Zelensky Rejects Trump-Putin Meeting to Formulate Ceasefire Terms (CTH)
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is once again rejecting any consideration for President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss terms for a ceasefire without his involvement. On a Twitter storm Saturday, Zelenskyy rejected the thought of giving any Ukranian territory to Russia in exchange for peace. “The answer to the Ukrainian territorial question already is in the Constitution of Ukraine. No one will deviate from this—and no one will be able to. Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier,” Zelenskyy said. President Trump announced that he would meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15, in Alaska. Zelenskyy reacted, carrying the message from the global intelligence community who support the ongoing conflict, and does not like the idea of the USA and Russia determining the outcome for Ukraine.
Zelenskyy has banned opposition parties in Ukraine, taken control of media, targeted religious groups who he claims are subversive to his interests and cancelled elections in order to remain in power. Now Zelenskyy hides behind the claim of a constitution his regime modified in order to ensure he alone controls the pathways to peace. (Via NBC) – A defiant Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared Saturday that his countrymen “will not give their land to occupiers,” after President Donald Trump suggested that a peace deal would include some “swapping” of territories with Russia. “The answer to Ukraine’s territorial question is already in the constitution of Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said in a message on Telegram early Saturday. “No one will and no one can deviate from it. Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.”
It has been reported that Vladimir Putin’s ceasefire terms include Russia totally controlling the Donbas region. “WASHINGTON ‘ […] Under the proposal being floated by the Trump administration, Russia would agree to a freeze of the war along the contact line in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, where Moscow controls less land than in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, a person familiar with the matter told POLITICO. In return, Russia would be allowed to keep the Donbas, said the person, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy, as others in this article. U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff returned from a meeting with Putin earlier this week and told Trump that the Russian president had presented the terms under which the Kremlin would agree to stop hostilities in Ukraine, a White House official told POLITICO. The official declined to describe Russia’s terms, but Trump said land swaps between Russia and Ukraine are under discussion. (more)”
President Trump does not view a meeting with Putin as a concession.
Zelensky yesterday:
“..the answer to the Ukrainian territorial question is already there in the Constitution of Ukraine”.
Hmm. Little birdie tells me that according to the same constitution, you are not the legitimate president of Ukraine.
• Zelensky Trashes Trump’s Peace Terms (RT)
Vladimir Zelensky has rejected US President Donald Trump’s call for territorial concessions to Russia, claiming no such agreement would be accepted by the Ukrainian people. Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff visited Moscow this week and reportedly made significant progress toward a compromise aimed at ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The US president said the proposal includes “some swapping of territories to the betterment of both” sides and that Zelensky would need to find a way to approve such a deal under Ukrainian law. In his regular video address on Saturday, Zelensky stressed that Ukraine’s borders are defined by its constitution and that “nobody can or will” make concessions on the issue.
“The Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupiers,” he proclaimed. Zelensky added that Ukrainians will only respect a “real, living peace,” warning that “any decision taken against us and without us, without Ukraine, would be a decision against peace.” Earlier this week, Zelensky acknowledged that Ukraine is not in a position to forcibly retake Russian territories claimed by Kiev. The Ukrainian military relies heavily on Western weapons, funding and intelligence. The government is counting on sustained long-term support.
Russian officials have repeatedly accused Zelensky of denying reality and prolonging a conflict he cannot win. Moscow says it intends to achieve its core national security objectives, preferably through diplomacy. The Ukrainian Constitution, which Zelensky cited, also requires a president to hand power to either a newly elected successor or the parliament speaker when their term ends. Zelensky did neither when his term expired last year, retaining power under martial law. Last month, Zelensky clashed with Ukraine’s foreign backers after his administration pushed through legislation eliminating the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, created in 2015 under Western pressure. However, he quickly reversed the measure after aid donors threatened to suspend assistance.
“..Mr. Trump, who the newspaper noted previously criticized Kiev for being “not ready for peace.”
• Zelensky Risks Angering Trump – NYT (RT)
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky could find himself on the wrong side of the US president after he publicly criticized Donald Trump’s remark about the potential need for Kiev and Moscow to swap territories in order to end the Ukraine conflict, the New York Times has claimed. Trump will be meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in Alaska next Friday in a bid to find a way out of the conflict. Russia insists that the Lugansk People’s Republic, the Donetsk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions all became part of its territory following referendums held in 2022. However, Moscow currently controls only the former in its entirety, with active hostilities continuing in the neighboring DPR. Russian forces have so far secured only part of the other two regions.
Additionally, the Russian military is in control of patches of land along the border in the Ukrainian regions of Kharkov and Sumy. In an article on Saturday, the NYT conjectured that Zelensky’s “blunt rejection” of Trump’s suggestion “risks angering Mr. Trump,” who the newspaper noted previously criticized Kiev for being “not ready for peace.” In his regular video address on Saturday, Zelensky stressed that Ukraine’s borders are enshrined in its constitution and that “nobody can or will” make concessions on the issue. “The Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupiers,” he insisted.
Earlier this week Zelensky acknowledged, however, that Ukraine is not in a position to forcibly retake Russian territories it claims. On Friday, President Trump said that a peace agreement between the two belligerents would likely involve “some swapping of territories to the betterment of both” sides, but stopped short of providing any specifics. Following a meeting between President Putin and Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, in Moscow on Wednesday, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov told reporters that Washington had made an “acceptable” offer to Moscow, but declined to go into further detail. Moscow has long accused Zelensky of denying reality and unnecessarily prolonging a conflict he cannot win.
“Russia is demanding the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from these oblasts, but Witkoff thought the proposal was for Russian troops to withdraw from there..”
Smells like Witkoff didn’t get it right. Russia can’t throw new territory to the wolves. Who would ever trust them after?
• Witkoff May Have Misunderstood Putin’s Demands – Bild (Pravda.ua)
US President Donald Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff may have misrepresented Russia’s position on a possible ceasefire in Ukraine after he met with Vladimir Putin this week. Source: Bild, as reported by European Pravda
Details: Bild reports that Russia has not abandoned its demand for complete control over Crimea and Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk and Kherson oblasts prior to any ceasefire, and has only agreed to a “sectoral” ceasefire. However, in peace proposals leaked to the media Putin appeared willing to discuss a ceasefire after the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces only from Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Bild’s sources say this could have been the result of Witkoff misinterpreting what Putin said about a “peaceful withdrawal” from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts: Russia is demanding the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from these oblasts, but Witkoff thought the proposal was for Russian troops to withdraw from there. “Witkoff doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” the German tabloid quotes an anonymous Ukrainian official as saying. According to Bild, it’s an assessment shared by “representatives of the German government”.
Background:
Amid news of the upcoming meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska on 15 August, as well as media claims that Washington and Moscow want to reach an agreement to end the war in Ukraine that would lock in Russia’s occupation of part of the territories seized during its full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that “the answer to the Ukrainian territorial question is already there in the Constitution of Ukraine”.
“Yesterday,” the other “Tomorrow”.
“..the U.S. and Russia are just 2.4 miles apart between the Diomedes islands, divided by the International Date Line..”
• Alaska Perfect Stage for Historic Summit: Putin Envoy Dmitriev (Sp.)
Kremlin aid Yury Ushakov earlier confirmed that a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US counterpart Donald Trump will take place in Alska on August 15. The head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and Russian special presidential envoy for economic cooperation with foreign countries, Kirill Dmitriev, called Alaska a “perfect stage” for a historic summit of the leaders of Russia and the United States. “Historic [Russia-US] summit in Alaska on August 15. Perfect stage: the U.S. and Russia are just 2.4 miles apart between the Diomedes islands, divided by the International Date Line (one is “Yesterday,” the other “Tomorrow”). Let us go from yesterday to tomorrow in peace,” Dmitriev wrote on X. He also called for developing Arctic ties between Russia and the US.
“President Trump announces a [US-Russian] summit with President Putin in Alaska. Born as Russian America—Orthodox roots, forts, fur trade—Alaska echoes those ties & makes the US an Arctic nation. Let’s [Russia and the US] partner on environment, infrastructure & energy in Arctic and beyond,” Dmitriev stressed. The Kremlin and the White House previously said Russian and US presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump would meet in Alaska on August 15. Alaska’s authorities told Sputnik that they did not know the exact location of the upcoming meeting.
“Putin has said he is willing to meet the Ukrainian leader to finalize – but not negotiate – a truce.”
Note: Kirill Dmitriev, for Putin, is a bit what Steve Witkoff is for Trump. Witkoff is a real estate billionaire, Dmitriev heads the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF): both come from the world of finance. And they seem to push the political guys, Kellogg and Ushkanov, to the background.
• Risk of Sabotage of Putin-Trump Summit Is Real – Dmitriev (RT)
Countries with a vested interest in prolonging the Ukraine conflict will likely go to great lengths to derail the planned meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his American counterpart Donald Trump, Moscow’s senior negotiator Kirill Dmitriev warned on Saturday. The two leaders are set to meet next Friday in Alaska, with a possible resolution of the armed conflict between Kiev and Moscow at the top of the agenda. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has already rejected any truce that would involve territorial concessions, despite Trump saying they would be part of the proposed deal. “Certainly, several nations that have a vested interest in prolonging the conflict will take titanic efforts (provocations and disinformation) to torpedo the planned meeting,” Dmitriev wrote on social media.
Dmitriev, who serves as Putin’s aide for international economic cooperation and heads Moscow’s efforts to normalize ties with Washington, was responding to remarks by former US Defense Department adviser Dan Caldwell. Caldwell said there was a “concerted effort to undermine” the summit, reacting to a Wall Street Journal article which he noted was based largely on Ukrainian and European sources. Earlier this week, US media claimed Trump was pressuring Putin to meet with Zelensky before agreeing to a face-to-face meeting with the Russian leader. Trump denied imposing such conditions, saying, “They would like to meet me, and I’ll do whatever I can to stop the killing.”
Moscow has called Zelensky’s continued claim to the presidency unconstitutional since his term expired last year. Putin has said he is willing to meet the Ukrainian leader to finalize – but not negotiate – a truce. He also suggested that the question of Zelensky’s disputed status needs to be addressed to ensure the legality of any future treaty. Dmitriev has previously described the upcoming summit as a historic opportunity and praised the venue, noting Alaska’s historical ties to Russia before its sale to the United States in the 19th century.
‘Ok, everyone, listen up: this is the REAL meeting and as such the only two REAL actors with REAL power will be there..”
• In Alaska Trump & Putin Could Lay Groundwork For End Of Ukraine Conflict (Sp.)
The upcoming Putin-Trump summit is going to be held in Alaska because it is a place with a “historical tie to both countries” and it is “out of the way’ enough to avoid inviting any third parties,” says Matthew Crosston, professor of national security and director of academic transformation at Bowie State University in the US. “To me, this is Putin and Trump saying, ‘ok, everyone, listen up: this is the REAL meeting and as such the only two REAL actors with REAL power will be there, namely Russia and the US’,” Prof. Crosston tells Sputnik. The choice of the summit’s location also highlights the recognition of Putin in the international arena, an acknowledgment of his “place on the world stage.”
As for the potential outcome of the summit, Prof. Crosston argues that any “immediate and substantial diplomatic achievement” should not be expected. “This does not mean, however, that the Alaska summit is a purely symbolic gesture carrying no real impact,” he points out. “More often than not in these situations the most significant outcomes appear publicly only some time later.” The Alaska summit will likely be the place where the groundwork for the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict is going to be laid out, so this is not just a formal ‘meet and greet’ event, he adds.
Trump doesn’t want to talk to the Europeans. They don’t want peace.
• Trump Sending Vance To Discuss Ukraine With Europeans (RT)
US Vice President J.D. Vance will meet UK Foreign Minister David Lammy and other European and Ukrainian officials in Britain as part of a renewed push for peace negotiations on the Ukraine conflict, Reuters reported on Saturday, citing a spokesperson for Downing Street. Vance’s trip seems intended to pave the way for a summit between the Russian and US presidents in Alaska on Friday, where resolving the conflict between Kiev and Moscow is expected to be at the top of the agenda. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has spoken to Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky ahead of the forum with Vance and the expected Putin-Trump meeting, according to the Reuters source.
Starmer and Zelensky discussed Trump’s proposals for a peace deal, the spokesperson said. “They agreed this [meeting in Britain] would be a vital forum to discuss progress towards securing a just and lasting peace,” he added. Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff visited Moscow earlier this week and reportedly made significant progress toward a compromise aimed at ending the fighting between Russia and Ukraine. The US president said the ideas under discussion include “some swapping of territories to the betterment of both” sides, adding that Zelensky would need to find a way to approve such a deal under Ukrainian law.
Zelensky has rejected any such agreement, claiming that “nobody can or will” make concessions on the issue. “The Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupiers,” he proclaimed. Moscow’s senior negotiator Kirill Dmitriev has also warned that countries trying to prolong the Ukraine conflict will likely go to great lengths to derail the planned meeting between Putin and Trump. Another warning came from former US Defense Department adviser Dan Caldwell, who said there was already a “concerted effort to undermine” the upcoming summit.
“..the “counterproposal” advocated a strictly “reciprocal” exchange of territory, and on condition that “ironclad security guarantees [be provided to Ukraine,] including potential NATO membership.”
Want to sabotage? Come up with what you know will be rejected.
• European Backers Make Counter-Offer Ahead Of Alaska Talks – WSJ (RT)
A number of European nations have joined Ukraine to present their own “counterproposal” for a resolution of the conflict with Russia, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing anonymous European officials. The plan was hastily drawn up after US President Donald Trump confirmed that he would be meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in Alaska next Friday. The Journal said on Saturday that representatives of Ukraine, the UK, France, and Germany had “scrambled to respond” to a proposal reportedly floated following a meeting between US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Wednesday. According to media reports, Ukraine would be required to cede all of the Donetsk People’s Republic to Russia as part of a peace agreement.
Moscow considers the DPR, as well as the Lugansk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, to be part of its territory following referendums held in 2022. However, Russia presently controls only the LPR in its entirety. During a meeting on Saturday in the UK, chief aides to European leaders presented the joint plan to US Vice President J.D. Vance, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with Trump’s Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg and Witkoff joining via video link, WSJ reported. Kiev’s European backers insisted that a “ceasefire must take place before any other steps are taken,” the newspaper claimed. Moscow has consistently stressed that any peace process should proceed the other way round.
The publication said that the “counterproposal” advocated a strictly “reciprocal” exchange of territory, and on condition that “ironclad security guarantees [be provided to Ukraine,] including potential NATO membership.” The Kremlin has repeatedly described such a scenario as a red line. Also on Saturday, Zelensky insisted that Ukraine’s borders are enshrined in its constitution and that “nobody can or will” make concessions on the issue. His remark came after President Trump said that a peace agreement between Kiev and Moscow would likely involve “some swapping of territories.”
“The officer acknowledged that NATO’s expansion towards Russia’s borders took place in the absence of a symmetrical military expansion on the Russian side..”
• NATO Targets Kaliningrad (Pacini)
In recent days, there has been an intensification of rhetoric from several NATO member countries, which have made new accusations against the Russian Federation, claiming that Moscow is planning a military attack against Europe, scheduled, according to these statements, for 2027. These statements, which appear surprisingly coordinated, seem to reflect more a Western communication strategy than a real alarm about imminent threats from Russia. A significant development concerns the hypothesis, put forward by some Western military authorities, of a possible simultaneous offensive conducted jointly by China and Russia: Beijing through an invasion of Taiwan, Moscow with a direct attack on Europe. This thesis was explicitly expressed by the new NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Alexus Grynkewich, and subsequently supported by Polish government officials, such as the deputy prime minister and defense minister.
The emphasis on 2027 as a reference date appears singular. According to some interpretations, this insistence stems from internal NATO simulations that predict a possible collapse of Ukraine in that year, which could require the opening of new fronts to contain the Russian advance. Alternatively, this narrative could reflect an attempt to generate a larger-scale military crisis in order to ease Russian military pressure on Ukraine. The Russian region of Kaliningrad, which has recently been the subject of increasing attention and hostile rhetoric from Atlantic Alliance officials, is of particular strategic importance. General Christopher Donahue, commander of the U.S. Army for Europe and Africa, has publicly stated that NATO would develop a detailed plan for the conquest of Kaliningrad “in unprecedented times” in the event of a large-scale conflict with Russia.
This announcement is part of the broader “eastern flank deterrence line” strategy, which aims to strengthen the Alliance’s land capabilities, harmonize industrial production in the defense sector, and introduce standardized digital systems to facilitate operational coordination. According to Donahue, land capabilities are now becoming increasingly important, to the point where they can effectively counter so-called A2/AD (anti-access/area denial) strategies and enable power projection in the maritime domain. The implicit message emerging from this strategic narrative is that some of NATO’s statements and postures seem designed to provoke an armed response from Russia, which would allow the Alliance to characterize that response as “aggression” and thus justify its own escalation.
The key factor is timing: the year 2027 plays a perhaps highly symbolic role and, above all, is close enough to the implementation of the war plans that NATO has developed in recent years. There is one significant problem: the EU has planned rearmament for 2030, not 2027… Who teaches math to the Alliance’s generals? NATO needs the EU to fight this war. There is a communication problem in the secretariat. Perhaps it is time to change the reception staff. However, there are also those who do not share this view, such as Admiral Rob Bauer, former chairman of NATO’s Military Committee, who recently stated that a limited Russian attack on a Baltic state would not automatically trigger a military response from the Alliance, but would instead trigger a consultation process among member states.
The officer acknowledged that NATO’s expansion towards Russia’s borders took place in the absence of a symmetrical military expansion on the Russian side and even admitted that Moscow is increasing arms production beyond operational needs in Ukraine, suggesting a military reserve capacity for future scenarios. This, let’s be clear, is the most logical thing a country can do when it has an entire military partnership threatening it for decades… but NATO’s high command is incapable of seeing this.
Another factor frequently cited as justification for the Western escalation is the so-called Russian ‘shadow fleet’, a group of ships used to transport energy resources in circumvention of sanctions. Former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Landsbergis has claimed that the Russian “ghost fleet” numbers around a thousand naval vessels. Some analysts also argue that the small Baltic states are seen as potential “sacrificial pioneers” in an attempt to drag Russia into a wider conflict and prolong Western hegemony through widespread militarization. Bauer’s own words seem to suggest that a limited Russian attack would not trigger an automatic response, but rather an opportunity to intensify propaganda, increase military spending, and gain time to manage internal crises.
“We will continue to take energy supply measures that are right for China based on our national interests.”
• Beijing Brushes Off Trump’s Tariff Threat (RT)
The Chinese Foreign Ministry has dismissed US threats of additional trade tariffs over its purchases of Russian oil, saying Beijing will continue to act in line with its national interests. US President Donald Trump has targeted major buyers of Russian crude, including India and China, claiming such trade helps sustain the conflict in Ukraine. His administration has also promoted tariffs as a way to counter what it considers unfair trade practices by other countries. Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said Friday that Beijing’s partnership with Moscow remains “consistent and clear.”
“It is legitimate and lawful for China to engage in economic, trade and energy cooperation with other countries, including Russia,” Guo told reporters at a regular briefing. “We will continue to take energy supply measures that are right for China based on our national interests.” China and Russia have described their relationship as an unprecedentedly close strategic partnership rooted in mutual respect and compromise toward shared goals. Both have accused Washington of pursuing unilateral gains at the expense of others and seeking to derail the emergence of a multipolar world order.
India has also rejected Washington’s tariff pressure, calling it “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable.” Brazil, another major economy hit by the US tariffs, has criticized the measures as well. Trump has linked his late July move against Brazil to the prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of plotting to overthrow his successor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Brazil, China, India and Russia are the founding members of BRICS, a group of large non-Western economies. Trump has accused the organization of trying to undermine the US dollar’s role as the global reserve currency, and has threatened to introduce punitive tariffs against its members.
“..those who control power within the Oval Office keep Tulsi isolated and away from the President.”
• Tulsi Gabbard Is All Alone (CTH)
The least understood issue right now, is how isolated and alone Tulsi Gabbard is on her mission to bring sunlight to the Intelligence Community weaponization and corruption.…”There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things”… The IC uses various media leaks and narrative engineers as the tools against their enemy; in this case DNI Tulsi Gabbard. The most common arrow in their manipulative quiver is the term “sources and methods.” The Washington Post notes how the Intelligence Community is upset about DNI Tulsi Gabbard compromising their ‘sources and methods’ by releasing the House Intelligence Report that deconstructed the Russiagate Intelligence Community Assessment. What has them so upset is Tulsi’s release of the House Intel report. This is the report that drove the FBI to raid Mar-a-Lago in an effort to retrieve it from Trump. This is the report that outlines how the CIA fabricated the Russiagate claims. Tulsi is being targeted for releasing this specific report. That tells you how important it is to the CIA.
“WASHINGTON DC – […] The document that Gabbard ordered released on July 23 is a 46-page report stemming from a review begun in 2017 by majority Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. It takes issue with U.S. intelligence agencies’ finding earlier that year that Russian President Vladimir Putin developed a preference for Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton and aspired to help him win the election.
[…] The House report is the most sensitive document the Trump administration has yet released, and details of how its publication occurred have not been previously reported.
[…] The document contains multiple references to CIA human sources reporting on Putin’s plans. Such sources are among the agency’s most closely guarded secrets. After the report was completed in 2020, it was considered so sensitive that it remained in storage at the CIA rather than on Capitol Hill.
[…] as the Trump administration prepared to release the report publicly, there were multiple versions of it circulating, some with more redactions to protect sensitive information, current and former U.S. officials said. Gabbard, who has led the administration’s effort to relitigate the 2016 campaign, pushed to release as much as possible, they said. “CIA put forward their proposed redactions and edits to the document,” said a person familiar with the process. Gabbard “has greater declassification authority than all other intelligence elements and is not required to get their approval prior to release.” Trump then approved the publication of the version from Gabbard’s office “with minimal redactions and no edits,” this person said.
[…] It is unclear exactly how Trump gave his approval, or if he examined the competing versions of the House report beforehand. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. (READ MORE)”The HPSCI report release is what is driving the CIA bananas. Despite efforts by Donald Trump to declassify the HPSCI report before leaving office, the CIA never released it. No one except the internal Intelligence Community (CIA/DNI) had seen the HPSCI report until Tulsi Gabbard released it on July 22nd. This is a key point, because the HPSCI report touches on all of the other declassified evidence recently released. The authors of the HPSCI report had reviewed all of the same information John Durham reviewed. The HPSCI report walks through the entire construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment ordered by President Obama on December 6, 2016.
Arguably, because of the underlying evidence reviewed to produce it, the HPSCI report is the most critical of the declassified release in the last few months. The HPSCI report walks through the timeline, as the ICA was created between early to late December 2016. Do NOT forget. Tulsi Gabbard is essentially all alone on this mission of sunlight. Tulsi’s isolation is the one issue people do not quite seem to understand. Pam Bondi (AG) isn’t with her. Director Kash Patel (FBI) and Director John Ratcliffe (CIA) are not with her. Susie Wiles (CoS) is not with her. In all of these efforts DNI Tulsi Gabbard is all alone. The Israel-First media and activist group is also aligned against her.
If you doubt that’s the scenario, show me a single voice from inside the administration who stood up to (even gently) defend her when Tulsi was attacked about her position on the Iran nuclear capabilities. Tulsi is all alone. She is all alone on this mission and even physically all alone when on task within the administration. Watch for it and you can clearly see it. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it. This is not about President Trump per se’. The Office of the President is not a significant participant at the moment, and those who control power within the Oval Office keep Tulsi isolated and away from the President. However, if DNI Tulsi Gabbard turns against Palantir, she will be removed. Full stop. We saw those Palantir boundary rails surface when DNI Gabbard was not fully behind the bombing of Iran.
People argue against the power of the ODNI, saying the office is a functionary only. These are historically old arguments by people who do not fully understand the nature of the silo system. Yes, this is the typical viewpoint; however, readers on these pages will note that I have said repeatedly for years now, the DNI position can be used for powerfully good purposes. The DNI can look at anything in Washington DC. Anything, inside any silo. As noted by the angered WaPo, “Gabbard has greater declassification authority than all other intelligence elements and is not required to get their approval prior to release.” The DNI can look at anything in any silo and put sunlight upon it. Yet, people claim the DNI has no power. lol The ability to bring sunlight is power. Go Tulsi!
“..urging his side to choose sanity before it’s too late, warning that the alternative is a permanent descent into madness..”
• Bill Maher: Democrats Must Choose Sanity Over Wokeness (Margolis)
Bill Maher continues to carve out a unique position as a leftist who openly challenges the woke left from within his own party. As I’ve pointed out before, Bill Maher may be a leftist, but he’s spoken out repeatedly against the woke left, and that’s a good thing that I hope helps move the party away from crazy. It’s not working yet, but dare to dream. His critiques have been sharp and unrelenting, exposing the destructive elements that have taken hold in portions of the Democratic Party. Yet Maher’s disdain for the woke left is not just comic disdain; it’s rooted in a deep frustration with how the progressive wing is unraveling the party and the nation. Whether it’s calling out the ridiculous outrage over the Sydney Sweeney ads or admitting that President Donald Trump was right about tariffs, Maher has shown an ability to be honest about the issues without blindly following the party line.
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1951495192185368991
Yes, Maher may be a leftist who hates Trump, but he recognizes that woke activists are destroying his party. Maher is not just mocking woke excess; he’s demanding a serious reckoning. His most recent monologue challenged Democrats to confront a fundamental question: Do they support the values of Western civilization? “The world is a complicated place, and it’s not just about oppressor and oppressed,” Maher said recently. “They have a thought in their head that white people did some very bad things — and white people did some very bad things — but so did everybody else in the world. But they don’t know that. They just see the world through this one prism. And until they do, I don’t think you’re gonna get them off this issue, and I don’t think the Democratic Party is gonna be able to go forward until they make a decision. Whose side are you on here? Are you on the side of Western civilization and Western values, or are you on the side of the terrorists?”
Maher zeroed in on intersectionality as the first wave of the woke “infection,” an idea that repackages historical grievances into racial hierarchy dogma that unfairly demonizes white people alone. Maher’s challenge to Democrats is radical in its clarity: it’s time to decide if you stand with the values that built the West or if you side with terrorists. He warned chillingly that many Democrats are only a step away from aligning with Hamas, with some already there. That is the stark reality Maher is laying bare. In his words, “Are you with those kids because, you know, Mandami, he’s the perfect candidate for them?” The warning here is not subtle. If Democrats continue to embrace the woke core that sympathizes with radical ideologies over patriotism and Western values, their collapse is assured.
Bill Maher cuts through the absurdity of the woke left’s claims. Whether you agree with his broader politics or not, Maher is signaling that the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party and America is no longer a game. It’s a choice between sanity and self-immolation. And so far, Bill Maher is shouting for sanity to prevail. Bill Maher slices right through the woke left’s nonsense with the kind of blunt honesty that’s becoming rare in his party. Whether you agree with his broader politics or not, he couldn’t be clearer: the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party and the future of the country are no longer a sideshow. We’ve reached a crossroads between common sense and political self-destruction. And right now, Maher is one of the loudest voices urging his side to choose sanity before it’s too late, warning that the alternative is a permanent descent into madness.
“..nothing’s more dangerous than bad advice from people who never face the consequences.”
• The Experts Bet Against Trump and Lost (Margolis)
For years, the self-anointed experts in economics have been catastrophically, almost comically wrong about Donald Trump’s tariff strategy. They were wrong during his first term, and he is proving them wrong again in his second. They didn’t just miss the mark; they weren’t even aiming at the right target. Now, with new data and landmark trade agreements in hand, the world has every reason to demand accountability from the academic class that branded Trump’s trade policies as reckless economic self-sabotage. Remember the parade of Nobel laureates and Ivy League economists lining up to denounce Trump’s tariffs as a singular threat to American prosperity? All those economic apocalyptic predictions that they repeated endlessly like gospel. They were wrong, and it’s about time they all admit it, don’t you think?
Economist John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, explained in the New York Post how the orthodoxy went from smug certainty to stunned confusion. And as he makes clear, it’s time those so-called experts learn to eat a little crow. As Lott notes, the anti-tariff hysteria never made logical sense. Experts from the right and left were quick to denounce Trump’s trade policy.
“On the left, Nobel laureate and Columbia professor Joseph Stiglitz declared in January that Trump’s policy was “very bad for America and for the world,” while University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers called it “impressively destructive.” On the right, prominent free-market advocates like George Mason’s Donald Boudreaux also voiced strong opposition. Yet their arguments against tariffs revealed a fundamental misunderstanding: They decried tariffs as uniquely harmful, while ignoring that the same logic applies to all taxes.
Take the common critique that tariffs, as a tax on trade, reduce trade overall. Phil Gramm and Larry Summers — one conservative, one liberal — jointly argued that tariffs “distort domestic production” by pushing resources toward less efficient uses. They warned that tariffs would slow economic growth.”
Critics love to warn that tariffs slow growth and hurt consumers. Fair enough, but so do all taxes. Sales taxes discourage spending, income taxes discourage work, and corporate taxes drive away investment. Every tax distorts the economy, and tariffs are no different. If you oppose tariffs just because they raise prices, you’d have to oppose every tax. With Washington spending $7 trillion this year, taxes aren’t going anywhere. The real goal should be minimizing the damage, and Trump understood that. Before his policies, the average U.S. tariff rate was just 2.5% — tiny compared to top personal income tax rates over 43% and corporate taxes around 27.5%. If tariffs can offset other taxes, they might lower the overall burden.
Experts painted tariffs as economic sabotage, ignoring that all taxes chip away at prosperity. They also swore that Trump’s tough tactics would kill trade deals. Instead, he opened markets once thought unreachable. Trump played hardball, and other countries blinked. The refusal to admit America’s leverage isn’t analysis; it’s just laziness. “Trump began with aggressive tariff threats, horrifying many economists — but the results speak for themselves. The United States has secured deals that dramatically opened foreign markets representing 55% of global GDP. Even critics have had to acknowledge the shift. “To avoid worst of Trump tariffs, [the European Union] accepted a lopsided deal,” the Washington Post conceded, while the London-based Financial Times described how the EU “succumbed to Trump’s tariff steamroller.”
The evidence shows that it’s time for a reckoning. The doomsaying economists who swore tariffs would trigger disaster were wrong: not just on the math but on the realities of power and negotiation. When tariffs can cut other taxes, open markets, and give America leverage, it’s worth reevaluating instead of parroting outdated talking points. But expecting these “experts” to admit it is like expecting the media to apologize for the Russian collusion hoax; it’s not going to happen. The lesson is simple: don’t outsource your common sense to the ivory tower. Trump’s tariffs weren’t a gamble; they were a masterclass in real-world leadership. And nothing’s more dangerous than bad advice from people who never face the consequences.
“..It seemed only brief interaction was occurring – in some cases, no unauthorized access, or even attempted access, was detected on ‘victim’ systems.”
• Whistleblower Ties Clinton Campaign to Fake Russia Hack (Paul Sperry)
A whistleblower report declassified last week suggests that Hillary Clinton’s campaign efforts to manufacture evidence tying Donald Trump to alleged Russian hacking in 2016 were deeper than previously known – as were Obama administration efforts to conceal them. According to the report, a former senior U.S. intelligence analyst who investigated alleged Russian attempts to breach state voting systems during the 2016 election suspected the breaches may have been “related to activities” of the computer contractors involved in the Alfa Bank hoax, who were accused of manipulating Internet traffic data. In that well-publicized case, a Clinton campaign lawyer worked with federal computer contractors and the FBI to create suspicions that Russia was communicating with Donald Trump through a secret server shared by Alfa Bank of Russia and Trump Tower in Manhattan.
The anonymous whistleblower – who served as the deputy national intelligence officer for cyber issues in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from 2015 to 2020 – told Special Counsel John Durham he stumbled onto “enigmatic” data while leading the investigation of alleged Russian cyber activity for the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. He said that his discovery took place in December 2016 when President Obama ordered the ICA. After examining state-reported breaches of election networks, the whistleblower said, “It seemed only brief interaction was occurring – in some cases, no unauthorized access, or even attempted access, was detected on ‘victim’ systems.” Though the suspicious activity initially was attributed to Russian actors, further analysis raised doubts.
But when he brought his findings to his boss, ODNI’s national intelligence officer for cyber issues, he was ordered to stop investigating and not include his findings in the final ICA draft. “After being directed to conduct analysis of Russian-attributed cyber activity for the ICA, I had been abruptly directed to abandon further investigation,” the whistleblower analyst said. He added that his boss, whose name was blacked out in the whistleblower statement, “directed me to abandon analysis of these events, stating reports of Russia-attributed cyber activity were ‘something else.'” While the names of the whistleblower and his boss are blacked out in the report, a RealClearInvestigations search of federal records shows Vinh Nguyen was the national intelligence officer for cyber issues at the time. The whistleblower would have been Nguyen’s deputy.
The whistleblower’s 2023 complaint, declassified last week by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, also seems to contradict the recent claims of Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, and his CIA Director, John Brennan, among others that the ICA was a neutral document prepared according to the highest standards whose conclusions were widely supported by the intelligence community. The whistleblower said his supervisor also “pressured me to accept the ICA’s judgment of a decisive Russian preference for then President-elect Trump, and stated to me that he sought my concurrence as means to sway the position of” another intelligence agency. “I was pressured to alter my views on the key judgment,” he said. But, he added, “I could not concur in good conscience based on information available, and my professional analytic judgment.”
“..the hospital averaged one fetal death per month, she said in the lawsuit. However, beginning in spring 2021, the number of stillbirths skyrocketed to about 20 per month, and remains at that level today..”
• California Hospital Covered Up Surge In Stillbirths After Covid Shots (CHD)
A California hospital concealed data linking a “catastrophic surge” in stillbirths among women who received COVID-19 vaccines, according to a lawsuit filed last week in the Superior Court of California, Fresno County. Michelle Spencer, a nurse at Community Medical Centers’ (CMC) Community Regional Medical Center, said the hospital “deliberately and selectively” concealed from staff, patients and regulators a spike in unborn baby deaths that began in spring 2021, and retaliated against her when she publicized the information. The lawsuit also says the hospital concealed medical data related to the fetal deaths that showed a link to COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant mothers. The data include hospital-wide medical records documenting the number of stillbirths and the vaccination histories of those babies’ mothers.
One managing nurse at the hospital told a staff member that nearly all of the stillbirths occurred among vaccinated mothers. According to the complaint, Spencer “witnessed firsthand the exponential increase in unborn baby deaths directly correlating with pregnant women who received a Covid vaccine and then would deliver a dead baby a close number of days or weeks following their injection.” Spencer’s attorney, Greg Glaser, said: “The essence of this case is that the truth shall set you free. The hospital possessed vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparison data. The numbers proved the vaccines were causing miscarriages and more in the vaccinated group. “We know hospital management analyzed the data because they said so, and we see they concealed it from regulators because that file [requested by regulators] is empty.”
Children’s Health Defense is funding the lawsuit, which accuses the hospital of fraud, retaliation and unethical business practices. Spencer, who has been employed with the hospital since 2017, works in the antepartum, postpartum and labor and delivery units, all located on the hospital’s third floor. Before the COVID-19 vaccination rollouts, the hospital averaged one fetal death per month, she said in the lawsuit. However, beginning in spring 2021, the number of stillbirths skyrocketed to about 20 per month, and remains at that level today, Spencer said. The number is an estimate because Spencer can’t access the hospital’s full medical records.
Aphasia
"Cholesterol Lowering Statins Steal Your Health & Your Memory…They Also Steal Your Ability To Speak."
Dr Bryan Ardis"Published Studies & The FDA Quietly Admit That Statins Cause Aphasia…The Disease Actor Bruce Willis Is Suffering From."
The Truth Big Pharma Wants Buried…… pic.twitter.com/OjJ1v4kcna
— Valerie Anne Smith (@ValerieAnne1970) August 9, 2025
IVM
RFK Jr. Unloads the Truth About Ivermectin to The Hill: “It Was Really a Miracle Drug”
“There are now 100 studies that show that Ivermectin had profound benefits. Generally speaking, a 70% to 85% reduction in hospitalizations and deaths,” reported Kennedy. “It was really a… pic.twitter.com/ojEkohMJ9j
— IvermectinKart | Ivermectin & Cancer cure store (@Ivermectinkart) August 7, 2025
Every dog needs this.
Bro makes $200k a year for just "walking Dogs" pic.twitter.com/dgouKbuUEK
— Dudes Posting Their W’s (@DudespostingWs) August 7, 2025
Bellamy
Legendary botanist David Bellamy lost his position at the BBC after dismissing the man-made climate change narrative as "poppycock".
Interviewer: "Do you believe man-made climate change is happening?"
Bellamy: "Absolutely not… There is no actual proof. There are a whole… pic.twitter.com/j4gmRExXhS
— Camus (@newstart_2024) August 8, 2025
Click for the whole photo- worth it.
Humpback whales keep interrupting orca hunts — and no one knows why.
They apparently protect seals, sea lions, even sunfish. Are they acting on instinct — or empathy? One scientist puts it simply: «It’s almost like humpbacks just don’t like bullies» pic.twitter.com/vyyAYzQWVO
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 9, 2025
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
