Keith Haring Untitled 1984
.@HillaryClinton: "I went to law school with [Justice Thomas]. He’s been a person of grievance for as long as I have known him — resentment, grievance, anger … Women are going to die, Gayle. Women will die.” pic.twitter.com/nUGWGFVJ3m
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) June 28, 2022
Greenwald: Sonia Sotomayor has worked closely with Clarence Thomas for 13 years — since she joined the Court in 2009 — and her description of Thomas from this month is the exact opposite of the ugly-trope-and-stereotype-heavy depiction Hillary Clinton spewed:
Sonia Sotomayor has worked closely with Clarence Thomas for 13 years — since she joined the Court in 2009 — and her description of Thomas from this month is the exact opposite of the ugly-trope-and-stereotype-heavy depiction Hillary Clinton spewed:pic.twitter.com/H1acAo3DSX
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 28, 2022
Clarence Thomas WaPo doc
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) June 27, 2022
She was 23 at the time, and had already worked for multiple Republican politicians?! All she said was based on hearsay. But there is no cross examination allowed. Still, she may well have committed perjury.
“He told me, that she heard from him, that she heard, from another guy, that she said he told her that she heard, that Trump may have said something, which was overheard, by her, about something, to the best of my knowledge.” -Cassidy Hutchinson
“BREAKING: Jan 6 Committee Video Shows President Trump was in an SUV after the rally, not the Beast.”
Either J6 committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson is currently working for Donald Trump in a weird effort to make the J6 committee look absolutely silly, or Cassidy Hutchinson is the latest Jussie Smollett or Christine Blasey-Ford. Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony was so outlandish only the most intellectually deficient left-wing loons could or would believe it. Ms. Hutchinson claimed she heard a story from some unknown person that President Trump was so insistent on traveling to the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, that he assaulted his secret service detail and grabbed the steering wheel on the presidential limousine. She heard it from someone, who heard it from someone, and so Ms. Hutchinson was pushed in front of the J6 cameras to proclaim it. The claim is so silly, it was impossible to believe. Yet the congressional committee media ran with it, and the media promoted the story, because Trump.
Within minutes of Cassidy Hutchinson’s unsubstantiated claims, the secret service was refuting it. Even NBC White House correspondent Peter Alexander was forced to refute it. “A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted, and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.” he tweeted. Whoops. Ms. Hutchinson also completely fabricated a story when she claimed she wrote a note with dictation from Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. ABC reported, “At Tuesday’s Jan. 6 committee hearing, Rep. Liz Cheney displayed a handwritten note which Hutchinson testified she wrote after Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows handed her a note card and pen to take his dictation.” Only there’s a problem, she never wrote it.
ABC News –” Former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann is claiming that a handwritten note regarding a potential statement for then-President Donald Trump to release during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was written by him during a meeting at the White House that afternoon, and not by White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.” As John Cardillo noted on Twitter, “Junior nobody Hutchinson testified under oath that Tony Ornato told her that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the presidential limo. Ornato, a 23-year veteran of the USSS is stating unequivocally that it never happened. Ornato is currently the Asst. Director of Training for the United States Secret Service.”
They liked Herschmann’s testimony when it suited them…
Still, “we understand that she and Mr. Herschmann may have differing recollections of who wrote the note”? It’s handwritten, easy to find out…
Former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann is claiming that a handwritten note regarding a potential statement for then-President Donald Trump to release during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was written by him during a meeting at the White House that afternoon, and not by White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News. At Tuesday’s Jan. 6 committee hearing, Rep. Liz Cheney displayed a handwritten note which Hutchinson testified she wrote after Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows handed her a note card and pen to take his dictation. Sources familiar with the matter said that Herschmann had previously told the committee that he had penned the note.
“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” a spokesperson for Herschmann told ABC News Tuesday evening. “All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann,” the spokesperson said. At Tuesday’s hearing, Hutchinson, testifying about the note, said, “That’s a note that I wrote at the direction of the chief of staff on Jan. 6, likely around 3 o’clock.” “And it’s written on the chief of staff note card, but that’s your handwriting, Ms. Hutchinson?” Rep. Cheney asked. “That’s my handwriting,” Hutchinson replied. Hutchinson, a former top aide to Meadows, said that Meadows handed her the note card and a pen and started dictating a potential statement for Trump to release amid the Capitol riot.
Hutchinson also said that Herschmann had suggested changing the statement and to “put ‘without legal authority.'” In response to Herschmann’s claim, a spokesperson for the Jan. 6 committee said, “The committee has done its diligence on this and found Ms. Hutchinson’s account of this matter credible. While we understand that she and Mr. Herschmann may have differing recollections of who wrote the note, what’s ultimately important is that both White House officials believed that the President should have immediately instructed his supporters to leave the Capitol building.” “The note memorialized this,” the committee spokesperson said. “But Mr. Trump did not take that action at the time.”
The Jan. 6 committee has repeatedly relied on Herschmann’s candid and sometimes vulgar testimony throughout the hearings in June, including when the former White House lawyer testified that he shot down former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark’s plan to overturn the 2020 election. Herschmann, a former Trump White House lawyer, also defended former President Trump during Trump’s first impeachment trial and worked in the West Wing as a senior adviser.
Democrats need a strong voice ready to fight to restore women’s rights, now that the Supreme Court has struck down Roe v. Wade. There’s only one Hillary Clinton. Right-wingers on the Supreme Court rescinding the constitutional right to abortion is incredibly dangerous and it is not just about a woman s right to choose. It is about much more than that, Clinton told CBS News back in May, when a draft version of Friday s decision emerged. Any American who says, Look, I m not a woman, this doesn t affect me. I m not Black, that doesn t affect me. I m not gay, that doesn t affect me once you allow this kind of extreme power to take hold, you have no idea who they will come for next, she said. Go, Hillary.
Unlike most Democrats at a loss for a midterms message, Clinton knows how to deal with the far right’s bullying. The GOP’s media echo chamber long ago demonized her. She still beat Donald Trump in the popular vote in 2016. Now it is her turn to lash the GOP extremists for ending nationwide abortion rights, putting more guns on the streets, punishing corporations for supporting gay rights and dismissing history lessons on race as upsetting to white children. Clinton is exactly the right person to put steel in the Democrats’ spine and bring attention to the reality that “ultra-MAGA” Republicans, as President Biden calls them, are tearing apart the nation. The Supreme Court justices last week acted as political enforcers for extremist views that are far out of line with public opinion on abortion and gun safety.
They opened the door to women losing control over their lives without the right to have an abortion. They also gave a pass to more violent shootings on the streets by striking down a New York safeguard that required people who want to carry a firearm in public to demonstrate a specific need. These decisions amount to a political powerplay by former President Trump’s three nominees. Biden measures his words about the far right out of fear of being charged with further polarizing the country. So let Hillary roar her message to suburban white women who will be key to deciding the outcome of the midterms.
Ihor Zhovkva, the deputy chief of staff for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said in an interview Tuesday that Kyiv was told by NATO that it is “not a member because we do not want you.” Zhovkva made the comment shortly after the Alliance announced that Turkey agreed to allow Finland and Sweden to join. “NATO is telling us we are not giving you anything,” he said in an interview with a local news outlet in Kyiv, according to Bloomberg. Finland and Sweden announced that they would seek membership shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and were greeted with open arms by Alliance leadership. They were even told that they would benefit from security guarantees during the waiting period.
But Ukraine has not benefited from its “partner” status in the Alliance. Sure, the country received billions in aid and weapons, but Kyiv has been forced to stand up to Russia on its own. Some could argue that Ukraine was the victim misleading public statements from the U.S. and NATO prior to the invasion. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Moscow would be met with a“forceful” response if there was an invasion. Blinken went further and said the U.S. has a “sacred obligation” to defend its allies. [..] Under Article 10 of the 1949 Washington Treaty, NATO has the right to invite any willing European country into the fold. But Stoltenberg made it clear, before the invasion, that there is a distinction between a NATO partner and ally. Kyiv is a partner. NATO is compelled to only defend allies. NATO countries never embraced Ukraine as an ally because it meant certain war with Russia.
“..by 2030, a quarter of the planet’s oil demand will come from China and India, with Russia as the major supplier.”
[..] there now exists what should be called a Tin Curtain, fabricated by the fearful, clueless, collective west, via G7 and NATO: this time, to essentially contain the integration of the Global South. The most recent and significant example of this integration has been the coming out of BRICS+ at last week’s online summit hosted by Beijing. This went far beyond establishing the lineaments of a ‘new G8,’ let alone an alternative to the G7. Just look at the interlocutors of the five historical BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa): we find a microcosm of the Global South, encompassing Southeast Asia, Central Asia, West Asia, Africa and South America – truly putting the “Global” in the Global South. Revealingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s clear messages during the Beijing summit, in sharp contrast to G7 propaganda, were actually addressed to the whole Global South:
– Russia will fulfill its obligations to supply energy and fertilizers. – Russia expects a good grain harvest – and to supply up to 50 million tons to world markets. – Russia will ensure passage of grain ships into international waters even as Kiev mined Ukrainian ports. – The negative situation on Ukrainian grain is artificially inflated. – The sharp increase in inflation around the world is the result of the irresponsibility of G7 countries, not Operation Z in Ukraine. – The imbalance of world relations has been brewing for a long time and has become an inevitable result of the erosion of international law. Putin also directly addressed one of the key themes that the BRICS have been discussing in depth since the 2000s — the design and implementation of an international reserve currency.
“The Russian Financial Messaging System is open for connection with banks of the BRICS countries.” “The Russian MIR payment system is expanding its presence. We are exploring the possibility of creating an international reserve currency based on the basket of BRICS currencies,” the Russian leader said. This is inevitable after the hysterical western sanctions post-Operation Z; the total de-dollarization imposed upon Moscow; and increasing trade between BRICS nations. For instance, by 2030, a quarter of the planet’s oil demand will come from China and India, with Russia as the major supplier. The “RIC” in BRICS simply cannot risk being locked out of a G7-dominated financial system. Even tightrope-walking India is starting to catch the drift.
At its current stage, BRICS represent 40 percent of world population, 25 percent of the global economy, 18 percent of world trade, and contribute over 50 percent for world economic growth. All indicators are on the way up. Sergey Storchak, CEO of Russian bank VEG, framed it quite diplomatically: “If the voices of emerging markets are not being heard in the coming years, we need to think very seriously about setting up a parallel regional system, or maybe a global system.” A “parallel regional system” is already being actively discussed between the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) and China, coordinated by Minister of Integration and Macroeconomics Sergey Glazyev, who has recently authored a stunning manifesto amplifying his ideas about world economic sovereignty.
“The Russians may not see the distinction and consider this news as further evidence that their war is more with Washington and NATO than with Ukraine.”
The Central Intelligence Agency is operating in Kyiv and has been for some time, according to new reporting by the New York Times. So, while Biden has insisted on “no U.S. boots on the ground” in Ukraine, there are soft-soled operatives, otherwise known as American spies, providing intelligence and other tactical assistance to Ukraine in its war with Russia. Sounds like Americans are in this war, like it or not. The news, based on sourcing from current and former U.S. government officials, is part of a broader report about a “stealthy network” of U.S. and European commandos and spies in “cells” run by the Pentagon’s European Command “to speed allied assistance to Ukrainian troops.” Much of this is operating from military bases in France and Germany and elsewhere. But as the NYT points out, there are European commandos and CIA agents working on the inside.
The commandos are not on the front lines with Ukrainian troops and instead advise from headquarters in other parts of the country or remotely by encrypted communications, according to American and other Western officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters. But the signs of their stealthy logistics, training and intelligence support are tangible on the battlefield. Several lower-level Ukrainian commanders recently expressed appreciation to the United States for intelligence gleaned from satellite imagery, which they can call up on tablet computers provided by the allies. The tablets run a battlefield mapping app that the Ukrainians use to target and attack Russian troops.
As usual it appears that the administration wants to have it both ways: assure the American people that it is being “restrained” and that we are not “at war” with the Russians, but doing everything but planting a U.S. soldier and a flag inside Ukraine. The CIA, as you will recall, has increasingly had an operational combat focus since 9/11, running elaborate secret prisons overseas, engaging in enhanced interrogations (torture) and manhunting with armed drones and commando teams over the last 20 years. There may be a sliver of daylight between the CIA operatives there today and the U.S. special forces that left Ukraine after Russia invaded, but given the circumstances, is it a meaningful one? Is it all about who is pulling the trigger? The Russians may not see the distinction and consider this news as further evidence that their war is more with Washington and NATO than with Ukraine.
“They are creating a new coalition for fighting, that is, for war with Russia. We will follow this very closely..”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on 06/24/2022 that the European Union and NATO appear to be carrying out a military coalition for a war against Russia. The statement was given in Baku in Azerbaijan during an interview. “They are creating a new coalition for fighting, that is, for war with Russia. We will follow this very closely,” the Minister rightly declared, because that is what has been happening anyway. But first let’s go to the archetypes of the entities mentioned. The European Union, in its initial design, may have come up with good proposals for the integration of Europeans, with some Balkan countries, for example, applying to be part of the economic and diplomatic bloc, but it so happens that few people pay attention to history, especially during World War II.
Hitler wanted a union of the European countries, what he called a “Pan-European Union”, a form of closer integration between countries that would naturally be against the Soviet Union and communism in general. No wonder Hitler set up puppet governments in some European countries such as Denmark, for example, which was under the tutelage of Nazi Germany during the period August 1943 until May 1945, after the success of Operation Weserübung. As for NATO for example, it is seen as a super aggressive military alliance that causes barbarism in various parts of the world, especially in the former Yugoslavia, which had its territory balkanized after an intervention in the country in 1999 where some war crimes were committed because those bombs would hit civilian buildings, such as the famous bombing of Serbian TV, which was not a legitimate military target, but turned out to be a Yugoslav “propaganda broadcast” (obviously) at the time.
So it didn’t take much effort on the part of some “non-aligned diplomats” (which is the case of Lavrov) to understand that the European Union and NATO act together to stand up to the former Soviet Union, now Russia. NATO even characterized the country as an “enemy” several times, emphasized by Vladimir Putin in his speeches. After NATO’s expansions into Eastern European countries, even after a verbal agreement made between Soviet and American diplomats at the time that they would not move “an inch east” in the early 2000s, the opposite was seen and this was stated several times before the start of Operation Z, and was characterized in various ways by Kremlin spokespersons that Ukraine’s entry into NATO was a criminal act. And it was.
And like any criminal act, the police power, even if governed by a country’s Armed Forces, needed to come into effect because after the NATO vs. Russia diplomatic rounds no documentary agreement of truth properly bound by international law was reached. And to make matters worse, Zelensky would state on 02/19/2022 in a speech at the European Security Conference in Munich (just 5 days before the start of Operation Z) that he would no longer ratify the Budapest Memorandum, which is a treaty that denuclearizes Ukraine since 1994.
Before Turkey gave in.
Just hours before NATO’s General-Secretary Jens Stoltenberg announced that Turkey now supports Sweden and Finland’s bid to join the Alliance, Russia issued a stark warning for the countries. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, said Moscow will have to strengthen its borders. “The Baltic region’s nonnuclear status will become a thing of the past, the group of land and naval forces in the northern sector will be seriously increased,” he said, according to The Wall Street Journal. “No one is happy with this, not the citizens of these two NATO candidate countries.” It’s not the best prospect for them to have our Iskanders, hypersonic missiles, warships with nuclear weapons on their doorstep,” he continued.
Shortly after Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden announced that they will begin the process of seeking NATO. Polls in both countries showed a palpable shift in public opinion about the two Nordic nations about joining the alliance. Finland has a formidable military although it only has a population of 5.5 million. The country has about the same number of reservists as Germany with a population of 83 million. Finland also shares an expansive, 830-mile border with Russia and was invaded by its neighbor during WWII, which resulted in a brutal confrontation that ultimately resulted in Helsinki and Moscow signing a peace treaty in 1948, which included Finland’s assurances that it will not join NATO. Pekka Haavisto, Finland’s foreign minister, said the security environment in the country has “dramatically changed.”
Haavisto told The Guardian that Russia has become “more unpredictable” and seems ready to take bolder risks than Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. He called those “calculated risks.” Stoltenberg said he is “confident” that Finland and Sweden will be able to join the Alliance after the agreement with Turkey. Ankara was seen as a roadblock in the effort by these countries to join NATO. Turkey accused the countries of harboring terrorists tied to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and it also sought to have an arms embargo lifted due to its incursions into Syria, DW.com reported. Turkey said in a statement that it “got what it wanted,” and “made significant gains in the fight against terrorist organizations.”
Boris likes the war. Better than his own country.
Boris Johnson warned Emmanuel Macron that to settle the conflict in Ukraine now would only cause “enduring instability,” according to the U.K. government. In a British account of the pair’s Sunday encounter at the G7 summit — disputed by the Elysée — Downing Street said Johnson had told Macron such a move would “give [Russian President Vladimir] Putin license to manipulate both sovereign countries and international markets in perpetuity.” In the lead-up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the French president was one of the few Western leaders who maintained dialogue with Vladimir Putin, and has regularly spoken to the Russian president since the conflict begun. Macron has also warned that Russia should not be “humiliated” over Putin’s “historic and fundamental mistake.”
An Elysée official said Macron and the British prime minister had “reaffirmed their strong determination to support Ukraine in the defense of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to prepare the reconstruction of the country.” But the French side disputed Downing Street’s version of events. “No, the prime minister [Johnson] did not warn the president [Macron],” the official said. “They had a discussion about Ukraine, during which the president strongly reaffirmed his determination to support Ukraine.” Downing Street said Johnson and Macron had agreed now is a “critical moment for the course of the conflict” and that there is an “opportunity to turn the tide in the war.”
“Vaccine failure in one map..”
This is the Omicron BA.5 wave in central Europe, and it is attended by a curious phenomenon: Every day, you can see more clearly the borders of the old DDR in the district-level data. I’ve traced these in green just to make the phenomenon clearer. Yes yes, there are systematic demographic differences between East and West Germans, and there are probably some differences in testing rates, but above all, there is an important difference in vaccine uptake. [..] East Germans have direct experience with government propaganda, and have proven more resistent to the vaccination campaign than Westerners. Their reward, after being much maligned by state media, is now higher levels of natural immunity and lower rates of BA.5 infection, which appears to prefer vaccinated populations. As the effects of vaccine failure grow clearer, you have to wonder how long the pandemicists will be able to publish even simple infection statistics, without raising extremely awkward questions.
“No results from the trial have yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.”
It was true. The Phase 3 trials of the vaccine were still ongoing, but the vaccine was now approved for use in the UK.”
On May 24th, the anonymous Twitter account JikkyLeaks claimed that data contained inside the massive Pfizer Documents release shows their vaccine had close to zero efficacy even when it launched. There is some correcting of the raw data required to reach this conclusion, but the raw data alone hints at an efficacy of 53%. The data contradicts Pfizer’s published claims the vaccine was 95% effective, a claim still published on gov.uk domains. The original data and specifically the “95% efficacy” claim was key to getting the vaccines onto global markets around the world. If Pfizer reached this conclusion dishonourably, there could be sizable implications. At least one other researcher has publicly reached the same results using data contained in the court-ordered Pfizer documents. I have already verified that the data exists, and using very simple public code, that the numbers add up to what Josh and Jikky claim.
[..] In November 2020, Pfizer started to make its successes with the vaccine known to the media. Towards the end of the month, they published a press release stating their vaccine was 95% effective. In the release, they said they planned “to submit within days to the FDA [and other regulators] for Emergency Use Authorisation.” With their guard down, the media didn’t hold these claims to account. Instead, and perhaps understandably, they choose to jump for joy. The regulators were pleased too; just two weeks after Pfizer’s press release, the UK regulator announced it had approved the Pfizer vaccine and that rollout would start within a week. Reporting the announcement, the British Medical Journal made note of something quite remarkable: “No results from the trial have yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.”
It was true. The Phase 3 trials of the vaccine were still ongoing, but the vaccine was now approved for use in the UK. The trials are still ongoing according to the registered protocol, which says they’re not scheduled to be complete until February 8, 2024. So how did the vaccine come to be approved before the full completion of Phase 3 trials? According to an FOI request, and a public article, the UK regulator addressed the question and said it had used a ‘rolling review’ process to approve the Pfizer vaccine. The review was done “as the packages of data become available from ongoing studies”. Whatever that regulatory process was, it wasn’t exactly public. To make matters worse, the trial had problems with impartiality and data sharing, which, two years later, is something that still frustrates Peter Doshi at the British Medical Journal.
Wait a few months.
The first “deceleration” and “signs of a tipping point” cropped up in the S&P CoreLogic Home Price Index, which was released today. But today’s data for “April” consists of the three-month average of closed home sales that were entered into public records in February, March, and April, representing deals that were made a few weeks earlier, roughly in January, February, and March, funded with mortgage rates prevalent at that time and earlier for home buyers with pre-approved mortgages with rate locks when they were pre-approved, so roughly based on the mortgage rates prevalent in December through March, ranging from 3.2% to 4.7% (green box):
Other indicators of the housing market that don’t lag as far behind have shown more advanced shifts in the underlying dynamics, including sagging sales amid a surge in supply in May, a sharp drop in mortgage applications in May and into June, and a surge in active listings in May. The S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Index will gradually begin to reflect those dynamics over the next few months. Today’s release for “April,” looking back at a period earlier this year, when mortgage rates were a lot lower, still reflects the mad scramble to buy a home and lock in the mortgage rates at the time before they rise even further.
The National Case-Shiller Index still jumped by 2.1% in April from March, but that was down from the 2.6% spike in March. Year-over-year, the index spiked by 20.4%, but that was down from the 20.6% spike in the prior month. This suggests “further deceleration ahead,” said CoreLogic Deputy Chief Economist Selma Hepp said in a note this morning. “In particular, there is a buildup in overall active inventory as fewer buyers are rushing to make offers, resulting in an increase in the share of homes that have reduced their prices from the original list price,” Hepp said. “Also, there is a notable deceleration of monthly gains in the Western markets where a rush to lock in favorable mortgage rates pushed home price growth higher in prior months,” Hepp said.
“Once we get to that level it’s going to be very difficult for us to reawaken the entire system we are sitting in a difficult situation as things stand.”
Energy analyst Sampson Mamphweli warns that South Africa is heading towards a total blackout. Earlier, Eskom warned of the possibility of Stage 6 power cuts. In a briefing earlier, the power utility explained it had suffered significant losses overnight. It adds the current strike by employees also poses a serious challenge. “The strike itself came at the wrong time because it came at a time when the system is heavily constrained with more than 40 megawatts that’s not available due to a number of factors like breakdowns,” Mamphweli said. “So, it is quite difficult. The coal fleet isn’t performing. They gave details in terms of the backlog and the maintenance. “We are moving towards a blackout. Stage 6 is one stage away from total blackout. “Once we get to that level it’s going to be very difficult for us to reawaken the entire system we are sitting in a difficult situation as things stand.”
Support the Automatic Earth in virustime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.