Aug 162025
 


Edward Hopper Tables for ladies 1930

 

Putin & Trump Find Common Ground as West’s War Party Shut Out (Sp.)
Trump Pushes Peace Over Ceasefire After Putin Meeting (RT)
Western Media In Frenzy Over Putin-Trump Summit – Moscow (RT)
Putin-Trump Summit Went Much Better than Expected — Pepe Escobar (Sp.)
Zelensky Should ‘Make A Deal’ – Trump (RT)
Trump Praises ‘Warm’ Meeting With Putin (RT)
Talks with Trump ‘Constructive’ – Putin (RT)
‘Next Time In Moscow’ – Putin to Trump (RT)
Lasting Settlement Essential In Ukraine Conflict – Putin (RT)
Judge Napolitano: the Chance for a ‘Grand Reset’ in Russia-US Ties (Sp.)
A New Security Order Is On The Table In Alaska (Lukyanov)
Why Putin and Trump Had To Talk In Person (Bordachev)
The EU Throws An Epic Tantrum As Trump Meets With Putin (Marsden)
Carefully and Gracefully (James Howard Kunstler)
Scott Ritter: Two Things Need to Happen for Trump to Get His Ceasefire (Sp.)
US Has ‘No Right’ To Tell India Who To Trade With – Jeffrey Sachs (RT)
US Gov’t Ditches Musk’s AI Over ‘Anti-Semitism’ (RT)
EU Leaders Want To Overthrow Three European Governments – Budapest (RT)

 

 

Loon wing

Wray

Kash

DC

275

 

 

Turley

 

 

 

 

It’s funny. How do you summarize this summit? It’s like there was no tangible “big breakthrough”, but at the same time everything about it was a giant breakthrough.

“..CNN said: “Putin’s isolation ended when his plane landed in Anchorage..”

Putin & Trump Find Common Ground as West’s War Party Shut Out (Sp.)

Talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump took place at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage, Alaska. Russia acknowledged positive, constructive dialogue between the sides, while Donald Trump hailed significant progress toward a Ukraine settlement. The Putin-Trump meeting shows the West “gambled on an easy victory over Russia and lost,” Mikael Valtersson, a Swedish Armed Forces veteran, told Sputnik. Both Russia and America have signalled satisfaction with the summit as a step forward towards a real peaceful solution of the Ukraine conflict, he noted. “Those that wanted more isolation and sanctions against Russia, if Russia didn’t agree to Western demands, didn’t have their way,” the former defence politician and chief of staff with Sweden Democrats emphasized.

The “Western war party” had hoped for new harsh sanctions on Russia and those trading with it, but instead what can be seen is improving relations between Russia and the US, as well as a continued peace process. After Donald Trump talks with his European allies and Ukraine, they will be faced with a choice, Valtersson said. They can either support the peace process by accepting the realities on the ground and legitimate interests of Russia, or reject it. If they choose the latter, they will isolate themselves from not only the majority of the world, but especially from the US. “Hopefully the cooler heads in Ukraine and Europe will realize that it’s better to follow the US and accept reality, than continue a lost war,” Valtersson concluded.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump’s reunion made clear they’d missed the bond from years past, psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman told Sputnik. “When President Putin and President Trump approached each other… their body language showed a very open and warm receptiveness,” the Beverly Hills best-selling author said. The two leaders shook hands multiple times, touched each other’s arms, and smiled—a clear signal they’d missed the connection they had during Trump’s first presidency. Lieberman noted the direct eye contact, standing close marked an “auspicious beginning that foretold a positive meeting.” Even after three hours of serious talks, their joint press conference carried the same energy. Both turned slightly toward one another, as if to emphasize unity. “They gave the impression that they were facing the press together, on the same team,” Lieberman observed.

Read more …

“..not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up..”

Trump Pushes Peace Over Ceasefire After Putin Meeting (RT)

The Ukraine conflict should be ended through a permanent agreement rather than a mere ceasefire, US President Donald Trump has said, following his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. In a post on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump said his almost three-hour talks with Putin in Anchorage “went very well,” adding that it was “a great and very successful day.” He confirmed that he had discussed the summit with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, several EU leaders, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.

“It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up,” Trump said. The US president also confirmed that he and Zelensky would hold talks on Monday, adding that “if all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin.”

Read more …

“..plunged into “frenzy bordering on complete madness” over the honors given to the Russian leader..”

Western Media In Frenzy Over Putin-Trump Summit – Moscow (RT)

Western media have erupted in hysteria over US President Donald Trump’s cordial welcome for his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in Alaska on Friday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. Zakharova weighed in on the three-hour negotiations in Anchorage that brought Putin to US soil for the first time in more than a decade. The Russian leader was greeted at the airport with a red carpet and a flyover of US fighter jets. He and Trump then rode together in the US president’s limousine to the summit venue. While the sides did not announce any deal on Ukraine, Putin described the talks as constructive, with Trump calling the meeting “warm” and suggesting that Moscow and Washington “are pretty close” to settling the Ukraine conflict.

Zakharova noted that Western media had plunged into “frenzy bordering on complete madness” over the honors given to the Russian leader. “For three years they spoke of Russia’s isolation, and today they saw a red carpet rolled out to meet the Russian president in the US,” she said. Western media is attempting to frame the Alaska summit as a diplomatic win for Moscow. The Washington Post wrote that “the warmth of the welcome sent shock through Ukraine and Europe” while pointing to a stark contrast with the reception of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky at the White House in February, when Trump accused the Ukrainian leader of disrespect, ingratitude over US aid, and of “gambling with World War III.”

Sky News correspondent Ivor Bennett, a former RT reporter, voiced surprise that Putin was first to speak at the media conference “as if he was the host rather than Donald Trump.” Another Sky News reporter had suggested prior to the talks that Putin would “use his KGB-trained powers of deception and seduction” on his US counterpart. Bloomberg reported that “by inviting the Russian president onto American soil and giving him an audience, Trump had already delivered a diplomatic win” for a seemingly isolated leader. The agency also published a separate piece headlined “US-Russia Summit Shows How Little Europe Matters in Trumpworld”, referencing the fact that no EU leaders were invited to the summit. Politico ran the headline “Putin’s Alaska triumph,” while CNN said: “Putin’s isolation ended when his plane landed in Anchorage,” adding, the Russian president “[is] back in from the cold.”

Read more …

“There were even some indications that a serious US-Russia reset could be on the horizon..”

Putin-Trump Summit Went Much Better than Expected — Pepe Escobar (Sp.)

There are few details about what exactly was discussed in the meeting, but Russian officials have made it clear that they’re pleased with how it went, says veteran geopolitical analyst, Pepe Escobar. There were even some indications that a serious US-Russia reset could be on the horizon. Even according to President Trump himself, they came to agreement on several important points and only a few are left. So this implies. serious discussions not only about Ukraine, a possible resolution in Ukraine, and of course we we have no idea about the terms and the parameters, but a reset, a serious reset of US-Russia relations. [..] The Russian delegation featured Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov, and RDIF head Kirill Dmitriev. The US delegation included senior diplomatic and security officials.

Read more …

He would have to give up Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye. That would be the end of him.

Zelensky Should ‘Make A Deal’ – Trump (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky should “make the deal” to settle Kiev’s conflict with Moscow, US President Donald Trump has said following three-hour talks in Anchorage with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, their first summit since Helsinki in 2018. In an interview with Fox News on Friday, Trump reflected on “a very warm meeting,” adding that the sides are “pretty close” to resolving the conflict. He stressed that Kiev should be on board with the push for peace, for it to have any chance of success. When asked what advice he would give Zelensky, Trump replied: “Make the deal”, adding that he believes that Putin “wants to see it done.”

“It’s really up to President Zelensky to get it done. And I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit,” the US president added. Trump said that he was ready to mediate direct talks between Putin and Zelensky. “If they’d like, I’ll be at that next meeting… Not that I want to be there, but I want to make sure it gets done. And we have a pretty good chance of getting it done.” Both leaders described the meeting as productive, although no agreement on Ukraine was announced. Putin earlier did not rule out direct talks with Zelensky, but stressed that it must be preceded by significant progress on settling the conflict.

Moscow has also voiced concerns about Zelensky’s right to sign any binding agreements, given that his presidential term expired last year, and that the Ukrainian leader has refused to call a new election, citing martial law. Ukrainian troops have been on the back foot for months, with Moscow making advances in Donbass and elsewhere. Moscow has insisted that any settlement should see Ukraine commit to bloc neutrality, demilitarization and denazification, as well as recognize the new territorial reality on the ground, including the status of Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye Regions, all of which have voted to become parts of Russia.

Read more …

“The US leader earlier suggested that he would “give today a ten” when it came to the outcome of the summit..”

Trump Praises ‘Warm’ Meeting With Putin (RT)

US President Donald Trump has described his summit in Alaska with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, as a “warm meeting,” and suggested that the Ukraine conflict is close to being resolved. In an interview with Fox News, the US leader praised the three-hour talks with Putin in Anchorage on Friday, noting that they had made progress in talks mainly focused on ending the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine. “Actually, I think we agree on a lot. I can tell you, the meeting was… warm,” Trump said, calling Putin a “strong guy.” The US leader earlier suggested that he would “give today a ten” when it came to the outcome of the summit. According to Trump, the sides are “pretty close to the end” of the conflict, although he added that “Ukraine has to agree” to any potential peace deal.

He would not provide any details of the discussions, saying only that “there’s one or two pretty significant items, but I think they can be reached.” The US president also noted that he had “always had a great relationship with President Putin, and we would have done great things together,” while praising Russia as a land brimming with natural resources. Putin similarly described the talks with Trump as “constructive” and “useful,” saying Moscow was “sincerely interested in putting an end” to the hostilities. He also suggested that the two leaders could hold their next meeting in Moscow, with Trump replying that he could “see it possibly happening.”

Read more …

“We have always considered the Ukrainian people…fraternal, as strange as it may sound in today’s conditions.”

Talks with Trump ‘Constructive’ – Putin (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called his talks with US President Donald Trump in Anchorage on Friday “constructive” and “useful.” The discussions focused largely on the Ukraine conflict. Moscow is “sincerely interested in putting an end” to the ongoing hostilities, Putin stressed. “We have always considered the Ukrainian people…fraternal, as strange as it may sound in today’s conditions. We have the same roots and everything that is happening is a tragedy and a great pain for us,” he said. Speaking at the press conference, Trump remarked that the meeting was highly productive, although the two sides didn’t reached full agreement and no deal was finalized yet.

He highlighted the significant progress made during the discussions and affirmed his strong relationship with President Putin. Putin said that in recent years – under the administration of Joe Biden – US-Russia relations had sunk “to their lowest point since the Cold War,” which benefits neither the two countries nor the world as a whole. “It is obvious that sooner or later it was necessary to correct the situation and the transition from confrontation to dialogue had to take place. In this regard, a personal meeting of the heads of the two states was really overdue,” he said. The negotiations at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson lasted nearly three hours.

The Russian delegation for the Alaska summit also included Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, and presidential economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who has been a key figure in the Ukraine settlement process. Trump was accompanied by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

Read more …

“Next time in Moscow,” Putin said in English. “That’s an interesting one,” Trump replied. “I’ll get a little heat for that one. But I can see it possibly happening.”

‘Next Time In Moscow’ – Putin to Trump (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin made a rare public switch to English to invite US President Donald Trump to Moscow for the next round of peace talks, following their summit in Anchorage, Alaska on Friday. Trump said he could see the meeting taking place though it would likely face political pushback. Speaking at the press conference, Trump called the meeting “extremely productive” and said, “we didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there,” implying no deal had been reached yet. He said the talks marked significant progress and reaffirmed what he described as his strong relationship with Putin. “Today’s agreements will help us restart pragmatic relations,” Trump said.

At the close of the press conference, Trump thanked Putin and said he expected to speak with him again soon. “Next time in Moscow,” Putin said in English. “That’s an interesting one,” Trump replied. “I’ll get a little heat for that one. But I can see it possibly happening.” Putin thanked Trump for what he called a “friendly” tone and “results-oriented” approach, saying it could “start us on the path towards a resolution in Ukraine.” He described the talks as “constructive” and reiterated his view that there would have been no war in Ukraine if Trump had been president when the conflict broke out. No details of any deal were provided, and neither Putin nor Trump took questions from reporters.

Read more …

Zelensky tweeted he’ll be in Washington on Monday. He’ll try and bring the entire EU.

Lasting Settlement Essential In Ukraine Conflict – Putin (RT)

For a lasting resolution to the Ukraine conflict to be achieved, all of its root causes must be addressed, Russia’s legitimate concerns taken into account, and a fair global security balance restored, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a joint press conference with his US counterpart, Donald Trump, on Friday. The two men met in Alaska for a much-anticipated summit, to discuss restoring bilateral relations and to work toward a resolution of the Ukraine conflict. Putin acknowledged the willingness of the US administration and President Trump to engage in dialogue and seek solutions, noting their commitment to understanding the complexities of the situation.

He reiterated his view that Russians and Ukrainians are brotherly peoples and described the current circumstances as a tragedy, stressing Moscow’s sincere desire to bring the conflict to an end. Putin said that any sustainable resolution must address the root causes of the crisis while taking into account Russia’s legitimate concerns. “A fair balance of security in Europe and globally must be restored,” he stated. Putin agreed with Trump that ensuring Ukraine’s security is imperative and expressed a readiness to collaborate on the issue. He expressed hope that the mutual understanding reached during the discussions will pave the way toward peace.

“We hope that this will be perceived constructively in Kiev and European capitals, and that no obstacles will be created,” Putin stressed. “There should be no attempts to undermine the anticipated progress through provocations or behind-the-scenes intrigue.” Trump stressed that the key takeaway of the talks is that there is a reasonable opportunity to achieve peace. He expressed hope to meet Putin again soon, noting that the Russian president shares his desire to bring the conflict to an end.

Read more …

“..that puts “President Putin in what Americans call the catbird seat,”

Judge Napolitano: the Chance for a ‘Grand Reset’ in Russia-US Ties (Sp.)

Presidents Putin and Trump are meeting for the first time in over six years.The main topics on the agenda? Ukraine and Russia-US relations. Veteran journalist and Judging Freedom host Andrew Napolitano shares his insights. The US is “in no position to consent to the very reasonable, intellectually honest and consistent Russian demands” in Ukraine, as its officials don’t seem to fully understand or appreciate Russia’s national security needs, Napolitano told Sputnik, when asked whether the meeting could lead to a speedy cessation of hostilities. The Russian military is already very close to achieving its objectives in the special military operation, Trump knows it, and that puts “President Putin in what Americans call the catbird seat,” Napolitano said.

“Add to those reasons the recent Russian triumphs in the battlefield, which are rather extraordinary and which have left the Ukrainians with very, very little manpower with which to resist the Russian military,” he added. The Putin-Trump meeting could be the “first of many steps” toward a new era “commercial, political, diplomatic, cultural integration” between the two nations, a “grand reset” that could require help from other rising global powers to fully realize. “That’s not going to happen today, and it may have to involve other countries like China, Brazil and India, maybe even Iran, but the grand reset between Russia and the United States, I believe, is a personal goal of President Putin and an aspiration of Donald Trump,” Napolitano said.

Read more …

Written pre-summit.

A New Security Order Is On The Table In Alaska (Lukyanov)

It has been a long time since a diplomatic event drew as much global attention as Friday’s meeting between the Russian and US presidents in Alaska. In terms of its significance for the international balance, it is comparable only to the negotiations on German reunification 35 years ago. That process laid the foundations for political developments in the decades that followed. The Alaska talks could prove a similar milestone – not just for the Ukraine conflict, but for the principles on which a broader settlement between the world’s leading powers might be reached. Ukraine has become the most visible arena for historical shifts that go far beyond its borders. But if the German analogy holds, no one should expect a breakthrough from a single meeting. The marathon of high-level diplomacy in 1990 lasted many months, and the mood then was far less acute and far more optimistic than today.

The dense fog of leaks and speculation surrounding Alaska underlines its importance. Much of this “white noise” comes from two sources: commentators eager to sound informed, and political actors seeking to shape public opinion. In reality, the substantive preparation for the talks appears to have little to do with the propaganda framing. This is why official announcements so often catch outside observers by surprise. That may be a good sign. In recent decades, especially in Europe, diplomacy has often been accompanied by a steady drip of confidential details to the press – a habit that may serve tactical purposes but rarely produces lasting results. In this case, it is better to wait for the outcome, or the lack of one, without giving in to the temptation to guess what will happen behind closed doors.

There is also a broader backdrop that cannot be ignored: the shifts in the global order catalyzed by the Ukraine crisis, though not caused by it. For years, I have been skeptical of claims that the world is dividing neatly into two opposing camps – “the West” versus “the rest.” Economic interdependence remains too deep for even sharp political and military conflicts to sever ties entirely. Yet contradictions between these blocs are growing, and they are increasingly material rather than ideological. A key trigger was US President Donald Trump’s recent attempt to pressure the largest states of the so-called “global majority” – China, India, Brazil, and South Africa – to fall in line with Washington’s instructions. The old liberal order promised universality and some benefits to participants. Now, purely American mercantile interests dominate.

As before, Washington dresses its demands in political justifications – criticizing Brazil and South Africa over their treatment of the opposition, or attacking India and China over their ties with Moscow. But the inconsistencies are obvious. Trump, unlike his predecessors, prefers tariffs to sanctions. Tariffs are an explicitly economic tool, but they are now being wielded for political ends.

Read more …

“..they have often stood on the brink of a path from which there would be no return. This is why Alaska matters, even if it does not yield a breakthrough…”

Why Putin and Trump Had To Talk In Person (Bordachev)

The meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States in Alaska is not an end point, but the beginning of a long journey. It will not resolve the turbulence that has gripped humanity – but it matters to everyone. In international politics, there have been few moments when meetings between the leaders of major powers have decided questions of universal importance. This is partly because situations requiring attention at such a level are rare. We are living through one now: since the start of Russia’s military operation against Ukraine, Washington has declared its aim to be the “strategic defeat” of Russia, while Moscow has challenged the West’s monopoly over world affairs. Another reason is practical. Leaders of the world’s most powerful states do not waste time on problems that can be solved by subordinates.

And history shows that even when top-level meetings do occur, they rarely change the overall course of international politics. It is no surprise, then, that the Alaska meeting has been compared to famous encounters from the past – notably the 1807 meeting between the Russian and French emperors on a raft in the Neman River. That summit did not prevent Napoleon from attacking Russia five years later – an act that ultimately brought about his own downfall. Later, at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, Russia was the only power represented by its ruler on a regular basis. Tsar Alexander I insisted on presenting his personal vision for Europe’s political structure. It failed to win over the other great powers, who, as Henry Kissinger once noted, preferred to discuss interests rather than ideals.

History is full of high-level talks that preceded war rather than preventing it. European monarchs would meet, fail to agree, and then march their armies. Once the fighting ended, their envoys would sit down to negotiate. Everyone understood that “eternal peace” was usually just a pause before the next conflict. The 2021 Geneva summit between Russia and the US may well be remembered in this way – as a meeting that took place on the eve of confrontation. Both sides left convinced their disputes could not be resolved at the time. In its aftermath, Kiev was armed, sanctions were readied, and Moscow accelerated military-technical preparations. Russia’s own history offers parallels. The most famous “summit” of ancient Rus was the 971 meeting between Prince Svyatoslav and Byzantine Emperor John Tzimiskes, following a peace treaty.

According to historian Nikolay Karamzin, they “parted as friends” – but that did not stop the Byzantines from unleashing the Pechenegs against Svyatoslav on his journey home. In Asia, traditions were different. The status of Chinese and Japanese emperors did not permit meetings with equals; such encounters were legally and culturally impossible. When the modern European “world order” was created – most famously in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia – it was not through grand encounters of rulers but through years of negotiations among hundreds of envoys. By then, after 30 years of war, all sides were too exhausted to continue fighting. That exhaustion made it possible to agree on a comprehensive set of rules for relations between states.

Seen in this historical light, top-level summits are exceedingly rare, and those that produce fundamental change are rarer still. The tradition of two leaders speaking on behalf of the entire global system is a product of the Cold War, when Moscow and Washington alone had the ability to destroy or save the world. Even if Roman and Chinese emperors had met in the third century, it would not have transformed the fate of the world. The great empires of antiquity could not conquer the planet in a single war with each other. Russia – as the USSR before it – and the United States can. In the last three years, they have often stood on the brink of a path from which there would be no return. This is why Alaska matters, even if it does not yield a breakthrough.

Read more …

“..when Kiev loses, they say, “Ok, well this sucks – how about if everyone just pretends that none of this happened and we dial all the territorial gains and losses back to a point of our choosing, okay?”

The EU Throws An Epic Tantrum As Trump Meets With Putin (Marsden)

The European Union had been wailing about “transatlantic unity” in the run-up to US President Trump heading to the negotiating table with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday – without it. It sounded like a toddler stomping their feet because Daddy let go of their hand in the mall and now they’re lost between Cinnabon and Burger King. A lot of good their dogmatic rhetoric has done them so far. If it wasn’t for Brussels getting drunk on its own transatlantic solidarity and unity propaganda, maybe it wouldn’t currently be in economic and political dire straits. The kind where you’re trying to duct-tape your economy back together with overpriced American gas.

They could have charted a different path vis-a-vis Russia. Maybe one that involved spearheading diplomacy rather than marching in lockstep behind the US-led NATO parade of weapons and fighters on Russia’s border with Ukraine, which helped supercharge the conflict in the first place. They could have insisted on keeping their cheap Russian energy instead of sanctioning their own imports like they were vying for a Nobel Prize in masochism. Now, the US is daring them to even close their clever little loophole in their own anti-Russian sanctions. The one that lets them moralize about helping Ukraine and the need to avoid negotiations with Russia while guzzling Russian fuel on the down-low. Trump Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told them to “put up or shut up” and sanction the Indian and Chinese importers of Russian petroleum through which the EU still buys Russian fuel.

While the EU indulges itself in rhetorical games, Trump has dropped all pretexts of serving any interests but America’s first, and isn’t following any agenda beyond trying to wrap things up with Russia in Ukraine and to score some economic wins in the process. Brussels has had more than three years to do the same. Instead, it kept repeating the mantra that Kiev had to win on the battlefield. There were no other options, it said. Whoops! Now that the option has materialized, the Europeans are relegated to running behind Trump, pleading with him to indulge them by letting Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky decide where the post-conflict borders will be. What did they think the downside of their “win by force” gamble would be, if not changed borders?

The EU insists on Ukraine fighting Russia with EU cash and weapons, and when Kiev loses, they say, “Ok, well this sucks – how about if everyone just pretends that none of this happened and we dial all the territorial gains and losses back to a point of our choosing, okay?” The EU insisted on waiting for someone else to take the initiative for peace. Now all it can do is pick up its pom-poms and cheer Trump on. Then hope that he rewards it. As Zelensky’s self-appointed babysitters, instead of spending the past week in the run-up to the Alaska summit insisting that Putin and Trump allow a high chair booster seat and a pack of crayons at the negotiating table so he can show them where he wants the borders, maybe the Europeans should have been calming him down and managing expectations.

He sounded like he was treating his phone like a toy, calling up everyone in the contacts under “EU” – Estonia, Denmark, probably a few pizza places. The EU has tried to gaslight Trump with the same rhetoric that it constantly firehoses onto European citizens about peace in Ukraine being a dangerous gateway drug for Russia to invade Western Europe – a convenient marketing pitch to justify boosting the weapons industry to the detriment of domestic priorities. Not even warhawk US Senator Lindsey Graham is saying that now, telling NBC News that “Russia is not going to Kiev”…let alone the EU. European leaders treated Wednesday’s video call with Trump like a win. Perhaps because he didn’t explicitly tell them off, for once. But they really have no idea what he’ll actually discuss with Putin, nor do they have leverage over any eventual US–Russia deal.

They don’t know whether Trump is just placating them because he doesn’t need a bunch of hysterical circus clowns in the mix. So how could the EU spin this to avoid looking completely irrelevant? “Today Europe, the US and NATO have strengthened the common ground for Ukraine, we will remain in close coordination. Nobody wants peace more than us. A just and lasting peace,” said unelected EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Yeah, sounds desperate for peace, alright. Which must be why the EU is building weapons factories at breakneck speed, according to the Financial Times. Nothing says “we’re committed to ending the war” like tripling down on weapons. What are you going to do with all those if peace breaks out? Toss them in the landfill and hope that taxpayers forget about the boondoggle, like you did with the hundreds of millions of unused Covid jabs?

Read more …

“It’s funny they call [intel] a ‘community.’ That sounds so benign and beneficial. Everybody likes communities.” —Doug Casey

Carefully and Gracefully (James Howard Kunstler)

And so, now, in Alaska, Mr. Trump sits down with Vlad Putin to attempt a settling of Ukraine’s hash. This war has been a three-year bloody grind, millions killed, mostly Ukrainians, provoked underhandedly by US State Dept / CIA neocons, Britain’s MI6 apparatus, and the girl-bosses of the EU, for no good reason, namely, to weaken and possibly break-up Russia so as to get at its vast mineral and energy resources. This has been tried before in history, always to the grief of the triers. From our country’s point of view, the dynamics in play at this moment are delicate to an extreme. In the background of the Trump-Putin meet-up, amid an eerie silence in the DOJ and FBI, an epic, sweeping prosecution of the RussiaGate hoaxers creeps forward.

RussiaGate, of course, was born in the false charge (by America’s highest officials, derived from nonsense cooked up by Hillary Clinton) that Donald Trump was a Russian agent. It was preposterous and continually disproven, but the many-footed creatures of America’s deep state, which controlled so many levers of power, dragged it out for years. Altogether, that endeavor amounted to a campaign of sedition and arguably treason. The delicacy comes in as President Trump must now avoid at all costs any appearance of giving-in to Mr. Putin, of appearing to be any sort of a vassal — “Putin’s puppet,” as charged in RussiaGate. The raw truth is that Russia has likely already “won” the war in Ukraine, in the sense that it has finally gained control of the battlespace and worn out its opponent. It is fait accompli.

What remains is the disposition of Ukraine’s future which, in another raw truth, is mostly Russia’s to determine. Yet another raw truth is that this would probably be the best outcome for all concerned: a neutralized, disarmed Ukraine returned to its prior condition as a mostly agricultural sovereign backwater of Europe within Russia’s sphere-of-influence, resuming its longstanding status as not being a problem for anyone. Still, yet another raw truth is that the USA would benefit hugely from normalized relations with Russia, no more sanctions, fair trade, a rebalance of the drift toward China, lessening the chance of nuclear war — and this would even benefit the knuckleheads of Europe whose economies are imploding due to a lack of affordable energy (and also because of, let’s face it, the EU’s terrifically stupid “green” policies).

All of which means there will necessarily be a lot of “pretend” played in Anchorage for show. Mr. Trump must pretend to be tough on Putin, and Mr. Putin must pretend, a little bit, to give-in to Mr. Trump’ proposals. That is, it will be something of a kabuki, a kafabe. Surely, many of the stickiest points have been pre-negotiated by Mr. Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, who quietly visited Moscow a week ago. Mr. Trump must appear strong with Russia because his appointees are commencing to go medieval on the folks who called him “Putin’s Puppet” nine years ago — and subjected him to a series of epic torments including the subversion of his whole first term in office, nonstop obloquy from the media, impeachment (X 2), home invasion, and a grotesque set of malicious, nitwit prosecutions that have either failed completely (Fani Willis, Jack Smith) or will be subject to humiliating reversals in the higher courts. Not to mention two attempted assassinations.

You should assume that Mr. Putin well understands all this and intends to play along. He will appear to make some generous concessions to Ukraine, starting with the promise that it can go forward as a sovereign, self-governing nation. The big enchilada might be to grant that Ukraine can retain possession of Odessa, the port city on the Black Sea which is Ukraine’s depot for export to the world of its chief commodity, grains. In any case, both Russia and the USA intend to relieve Volodymyr Zelenskyy of his duties — notice he is conspicuously not invited to the Alaska meeting. Mr. Trump well understands that one way or another, Russia is going to prevail in this conflict on-the-ground. He abhors all the killing. He has already expressed a disinclination to keep backing the war with money and weapons. He must be disgusted at how the Bidens (and the Deep State) used Ukraine as a money-laundry, as a site for bioweapons labs, and how it served as a nexus for human trafficking.

He also knows that Russia wants badly to be re-admitted to normal relations with the West, which is in everybody’s interest, except perhaps China’s. You should infer therefore that Russia wants the war to end in a way that does not humiliate the losers and backers — perhaps along the lines of how America managed our victory against our enemies in World War Two, carefully and gracefully.

Read more …

“The scary thing is that the Biden administration officials who were in that room said ‘oh we’re ready for that. If the Russians wanna play, we’re ready to go to nuclear war with them.’ This is the insanity that existed in November of last year!”

Scott Ritter: Two Things Need to Happen for Trump to Get His Ceasefire (Sp.)

The Ukrainian crisis is front and center of the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska. Sputnik asked renowned geopolitical analyst, former Marine Corps intelligence officer and ex-UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter to weigh in on the high stakes meeting. First things first: the US president “doesn’t care about the geopolitical nuances of Ukrainian battlefield locations,” Ritter said. “If Putin can convince him that the quickest route to a ceasefire is for Ukraine to leave” Russia’s new territories “and say no to NATO, that’s it. That’s all that has to happen for a ceasefire.” The Russian military has mastered drone warfare, counter-drone warfare, and new battlefield tactics to the point where its advance has become “an irreversible process,” Ritter added, commenting on what happens if the peace push doesn’t pan out.

“There’s nothing that can be done. Nothing can be done to stop this. The advantage is 100% Russia, and we’re looking at the Ukrainians on the verge of total collapse,” the observer stressed. Trump’s base doesn’t want to continue fueling a proxy conflict against Russia, much less getting into a hot war with Russia over Ukraine, Ritter said. “Don’t worry about Congress. They don’t elect the president, and they will fall in behind the president, because if he can secure his base with a peace deal, he can ruin everybody in Congress, especially a Republican, who goes against him,” he stressed.

In November 2024, the CIA briefed Congress on the risks of a nuclear war breaking out, estimating that there was a “greater than 50% chance” thanks to the Biden administration’s decision to greenlight long-range ATACMS strikes into Russia, Ritter revealed.

“The director of plans of Strategic Command, the American military command that carries out nuclear war briefed a Washington, DC think tank in November that the United States is prepared for a nuclear exchange with Russia, (that means nuclear war) and that the United States thought they were going to win,” he said. “When this was briefed to Congress, I asked a senior Democrat…’when the CIA briefed you, did the CIA say the Russians were bluffing?’ He said no. The CIA said the exact opposite. He said but that’s not the scary thing. The scary thing is that the Biden administration officials who were in that room said ‘oh we’re ready for that. If the Russians wanna play, we’re ready to go to nuclear war with them.’ This is the insanity that existed in November of last year!” Ritter stressed.

Read more …

Peace with Russia means these tariffs also must disappear.

US Has ‘No Right’ To Tell India Who To Trade With – Jeffrey Sachs (RT)

The United States has no right to tell India who it can partner with in trade, Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, said on Friday. The economist was commenting in an interview with NDTV television on Washington’s decision to impose additional tariffs on India over its purchases of Russian oil. Last week, the White House announced an extra 25% tariff on Indian imports, raising the overall tariff level faced by the South Asian nation to 50%. US President Donald Trump said the measure was prompted by India’s continued imports of Russian oil. New Delhi condemned the move as “extremely unfortunate” and pledged to safeguard its national interests. Sachs described the tariff increase as a clear reason for India to remain cautious in its dealings with Washington.

“Don’t rely on them. India needs a diversified base of partners – Russia, China, ASEAN countries, Africa, and not see itself as mainly focusing on the US market, which is going to be unstable, slow-growing and basically protectionist,” according to Sachs. Addressing India’s imports of Russian oil, Sachs stated that Washington has no authority to determine the trading relations of other nations. The US “does not act responsibly towards other countries. Be careful. India should not allow itself to be used by the US, somehow, in the US’ misguided trade war with China,” the economist noted.

New Delhi is now seeking to expand its export presence in the 50 countries that account for about 90% of its total exports in an effort to offset the impact of the higher tariffs, according to local media reports, citing government sources. The initiative is intended to reduce reliance on any single market and to minimize risks arising from trade disruptions. In response to the US threats to impose secondary sanctions on Russia’s trade partners, including India, China, and Brazil, Moscow stated that it believes “sovereign states should have, and do have, the right to choose their own trade partners,” as well as to independently determine which avenues of cooperation best serve their national interests.

Read more …

“Grok had already been added to the GSA’s long-term procurement list, enabling agencies to buy it.”

US Gov’t Ditches Musk’s AI Over ‘Anti-Semitism’ (RT)

The US government has dropped Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok from a planned federal technology program following controversy over anti-Semitic content and conspiracy theories produced by the bot, Wired reported on Thursday. Grok, developed by Musk’s AI startup xAI, is built into his social media platform X. It offers fact checks, quick context on trending topics, and replies to user arguments. Musk has promoted xAI as a rival to OpenAI and Google’s DeepMind, but the chatbot has faced criticism over offensive and inflammatory outputs. According to the report, xAI was in advanced talks with the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency in charge of US government tech procurement, to give federal workers access to its AI tools. Grok had already been added to the GSA’s long-term procurement list, enabling agencies to buy it.

Earlier this month, the GSA announced partnerships with other AI providers – Anthropic, Google’s Gemini, and Box’s AI-powered content platform – while reportedly also telling staff to remove xAI’s Grok from the offering. Two GSA employees told Wired they believe the chatbot was dropped over its anti-Semitic tirade last month, when it praised Adolf Hitler and called itself “MechaHitler.” The posts were deleted, and xAI apologized for the “horrific behavior,” pledging to block hate speech before Grok goes live. The bot also pushed the “white genocide” conspiracy theory and echoed Holocaust denial rhetoric, which xAI blamed on unauthorized prompt changes.

This week, it was briefly suspended from X after stating that Israel and the US were committing genocide in Gaza – allegations both countries reject. Musk has continued to praise the chatbot, recently writing: “East, West, @Grok is the best.” The move to drop Grok comes as part of a broader push by the administration of US President Donald Trump to modernize the federal government under an action plan unveiled last month that provides for less regulation and wider adoption of AI. However, the rapid growth of AI has triggered concern about its potential to spread misinformation, reinforce bias, and operate without accountability. Experts say that unless strong safeguards are in place, poorly moderated AI tools could also expose children to harmful or inappropriate content.

Read more …

All the more now Trump has put them at the kiddies table.

EU Leaders Want To Overthrow Three European Governments – Budapest (RT)

The European Union is attempting to topple the governments of Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia for prioritizing national interests over alignment with Brussels, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has claimed. He made the comments in a Facebook post on Thursday after phone calls with Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar and Serbia’s top diplomat, Marko Duric. According to Szijjarto, they agreed to strengthen their stance on sovereignty and pledged mutual solidarity amid what they described as growing external pressure. “Brussels has ceased to be a factor in world politics. The fact that Europe has been excluded from the Alaska talks proves it,” he wrote, referring to Friday’s summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the Ukraine conflict.

Kiev’s backers in Europe have repeatedly called to be included in any talks involving Russia, Ukraine, and the US, insisting that “a European power” should be “in the room” to guarantee that the security interests of Kiev and the EU are “safeguarded.” Unlike the EU, which continues to support Ukraine’s war effort, Szijjarto said Hungary, Serbia, and Slovakia have prioritized national interests and resisted pressure from Brussels, favoring peace talks over military involvement. “This obviously frustrates the mainstream liberal political leaders, and as a result, the pressure is increasing on governments that are supporting peace, following national interests, and not subordinating to Brussels,” the diplomat said.

It’s “clearer than daylight” that “external intervention experiments to destabilize and overthrow governments are taking place in Central Europe against the patriot Slovak, Hungarian, and Serbian governments,” he added. Szijjarto criticized recent polling in Slovakia, which suggested citizens “only trust revolution,” and accused Brussels of trying to undermine Hungary’s elected leadership by supporting the opposition Tisza Party. He also referenced recent clashes between protesters and police in Serbia, implying that external forces were stirring unrest to destabilize the government. According to Szijjarto, these “are all different chapters of the same scenario in Brussels: they want to clean up the peace-party, patriot, national-interest governments,” aiming to replace them with puppet governments so Brussels “can get a seat.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

GoF

100

Bees

Bob

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 152025
 


Joseph Mallord William Turner The Tenth Plague of Egypt 1802

 

Without Zelensky, Peace Has A Chance (Tara Reade)
Kremlin Reveals Details Of Putin-Trump Summit (RT)
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Europe Needs to Put Up or Shut Up” (CTH)
US Efforts To Settle Ukraine Conflict ‘Energetic And Sincere’ – Putin (RT)
Can Putin Pass the Test? (Paul Craig Roberts)
Could Trump End War in Ukraine In Meeting With Putin? (Victor Davis Hanson)
Kiev Tries To Kill As Many Civilians As It Can Right Before Talks (RT)
Elie Honig Nuked Left’s Talking Points on Trump DC Crime Crackdown (Margolis)
How Hillary Planned to Reward Schiff for Undermining Trump (Margolis)
Trump Signs Executive Order To Fill Reserve With Critical Drugs (JTN)
Treasury Secretary Bessent Calls For Trading Ban In Congress (JTN)
The Boomer Mirage (Stylman)
Sen. Kennedy: Democrats Need to ‘Buy Some Testicles’ on Amazon (Margolis)
Melania Trump Threatens Hunter Biden With $1Bln Lawsuit for Defamation (Sp.)

 

 

Orban

Solomon

UN

Kirk

Big beautiful trap

 

 

 

 

Mere hours before “The Summit”, everyone has an opinion. I just found 2 cents in my own back pocket.

First: these two guys have a lot of respect for each other, that leads everything.

I think both Trump and Putin want the summit to succeed, at least in a preparatory fashion. If it’s a failure, they can blame each other, but no chance it would look good on themselves either. Some claim a lack of preparation on one side or the other, but I bet they both come very well prepared. There may still be differences, they come from very different positions, but it won’t be from lack of preparation.

We can wonder if Trump has fully digested Russia’s view of what happened in the past 10 years, what started the “war” etc., but that, only they know. Trump has the constant clatter and clamor of Lindsey Graham, Zelensky and Europe in his ears telling him what to think and do, but if anything that will just make him eager to shut them down. We may come away surprised, but it’s more likely they pass it all down to the heavy delegations, and meet again in fall.

There’s no chance they will part company only to make more war. That will not happen.

Without Zelensky, Peace Has A Chance (Tara Reade)

In 1867, the Russian empire sold Alaska to the US for $7.2 million. Perhaps the location of the upcoming summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is a nod and a wink to such a great deal? Maybe Putin will like Alaska so much he will have seller’s remorse? Trump promised America a golden age coming that included ending the US involvement in Ukraine. No more US taxpayer money, no more weapons to Ukraine. No more escalation towards a nuclear war. Finally, that campaign promise looks to be coming to fruition with the upcoming summit to be held between the two superpower presidents, Trump and Putin, in Alaska. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky publicly dismissed Trump’s peace plans. The last time Zelensky protested a movement towards peace he had European leaders rallying behind him.

This time proves more tricky for the illegitimate president of Ukraine with his people protesting forced conscriptions and the bloody losses of men and women for a war feeding the EU and Washington. Zelensky’s firing of an anti-corruption team triggered the latest uprising as he still will not hold elections. In short, Zelensky’s time is done and he will need to flee, along with his corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs, to the nearest European villa haven or face the possible fate of many unpopular dictators – death. Trump has many reasons for wanting this peace summit with Putin to be a success. First, he is by all accounts, ducking hits by his base about not releasing the Epstein files. The MAGA base is loyal but practical, and if the economy does not improve and foreign wars continue, they will turn their back on the Republican Party, not just Trump.

Also, the Ukraine conflict represents Biden and the old guard. Trump has repeatedly said, “This is NOT my war.” Trump has a certain respect for Putin. However, as time passes and old hawks like senator Lindsay Graham salivate for more blood and death, Trump’s goal of being the ‘peace president’ moves farther out of reach. The American people are over Ukraine, they are sick of American foreign adventures on taxpayer money that have left America’s infrastructure and morale in tatters. Trump is trying to undo decades of lies about wars and domestic policy now revealed to the public. The American distrust in media is at an all-time high due to the years of lies about wars, Covid, and domestic issues. This culminates in collective cynicism while social media allows for examinations of truths.

The cultural divide and frustrations in America are deeply felt but the main concern for Americans is the ability to get access to affordable food, housing, and medical care. All of this has been in crisis especially since the Biden regime drove the US economy into the ground raising the debt ceiling and focusing on endless wars.

The economic allure of Russia and America having positive productive trade is not lost on Trump and his leadership. Russia has risen above sanctions with a strong economy, and BRICS has been growing stronger. The attempts to isolate Russia have failed, while the collective West has remained under the thumb of past US hawks. This has brought the near collapse of some of the Western European economies. Trump at his heart is a businessman interested in economic competition rather than war. His current administration is a mix of old guard neocon hawks and anti-war doves. This curious mixture with strong influences from Israel means Trump’s foreign policy still somewhat aligns with Biden’s and Obama’s – and that is a comparison he wishes to distance himself from.

Both the US and Russia know that Ukraine employs terrorist tactics, killing civilians and targeting journalists, which is problematic to any signed legal agreements. There is also the fact that Moscow does not consider Zelensky a legitimate president since his term ran out and he canceled elections. How legal would any peace agreements signed with him be? Perhaps the answer will come from the US president in the form of guarantees of no more weapons or funding to Ukraine, but these would have to involve binding commitments – unlike earlier empty promises of no eastward NATO expansion.

Ultimately, Zelensky is less than inconsequential to the future of global politics – he is a liability to the West. The real end to this proxy war between the US/NATO and Russia will be decided between Trump and Putin. It will likely start with broad brush strokes of a peace agreement, with details, boundaries and consequences laid out later in bureaucratic form. There will be posturing, but also economic and trade deals made. Perhaps a joint mission in space could be one positive outcome? The lifting of sanctions and putting an end to the Russophobia campaign fueled by Obama and Biden? A more positive approach to disarmament of nuclear weapons? While Putin might not buy back Alaska for Russia, there may be some movement to final peace in regards to Ukraine. If the EU falls into line with the US to drop this proxy war, stop supplying weapons, and not allow Ukraine into NATO, then real peace does have some hope.

The world may even have a chance of having a new golden age, rather than a future of nuclear ash.

Read more …

“Putin and Trump will not only deliver a short opening statement but also hold a joint press conference after the talks..”

Kremlin Reveals Details Of Putin-Trump Summit (RT)

The summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, on Friday will focus not only on the Ukraine conflict but on a broader security agenda and involve several top Russian officials, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Ushakov said that “final preparations” were underway for the meeting on Friday, which will take place at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. Given the short notice for the summit, “everything is being done in an intensive mode,” including tackling several technical issues, including visa-related matters, he added. Ushakov said the summit will begin at approximately 11:30 a.m. local time (19:30 GMT) with a one-on-one conversation between Putin and Trump, accompanied by interpreters.

“Then, there will be negotiations in the format of delegations, and these negotiations will continue over a working lunch,” he said. The Kremlin aide noted the very high level of the Russian delegation, which he said would include Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Ushakov himself, Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and Special Presidential Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries Kirill Dmitriev, who has been a key figure in the Ukraine settlement process. “In addition to the presidents, five members from each delegation will participate in the negotiations,” he said, adding that “of course, a group of experts will also be nearby.”

Regarding the agenda, it is “obvious” that the central issue in the talks will be the Ukraine conflict, Ushakov said, adding, though, that “broader objectives of ensuring peace and security will also be addressed, as well as current and most acute international and regional issues.”There will also be an exchange of views “regarding the further development of bilateral cooperation, including in the trade and economic spheres,” Ushakov noted, adding that such ties have “enormous and, unfortunately, still untapped potential.” Ushakov confirmed that Putin and Trump will not only deliver a short opening statement but also hold a joint press conference after the talks. He said the duration of the talks “would depend on how the discussion goes” and confirmed “the delegation will return [to Russia] immediately after the negotiations conclude.”

Read more …

With more summit details. I understand talks start 30 min earlier than announced.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “Europe Needs to Put Up or Shut Up” (CTH)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the upcoming summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump. Bessent notes the backseat demands from EU leaders with their position on the Trump negotiation strategy has worn thin amid their hypocrisy. “It’s time to put up or shut up,” Bessent says, when talking about how the EU is still facilitating the economic purchases of Russian energy products, while simultaneously demanding Trump do this and that.

I am cautiously optimistic for a positive outcome from this summit.
• Date: Friday August 15, 2025
• Venue: Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage, Alaska
• Anchorage is 4 hours behind Eastern Time zone.

DELEGATION:
USA President Donald Trump – Russian Federation, President Vladimir Putin
USA Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt – Russian Federation, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov
USA Secretary of State, Marco Rubio – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
USA Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth – Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov
USA Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent – Russian Finance Minister, Anton Siluanov
USA Envoy Steve Witkoff – Russian Envoy Kirill Dmitriev

President Trump will depart the White House early Friday morning ET. Trump is expected in Anchorage midafternoon Eastern time on Friday. The initial meeting with Putin is expected to take place at 3:30 pm ET (11:30 am local) with just the two leaders and translators. Following the meeting, President Trump and President Putin with hold a lunch with members of delegations from both countries. The two leaders then plan to hold a joint press conference following their meeting, White House and Kremlin officials said Thursday morning.

Read more …

“She added that the US president would prefer not to impose any new sanctions on Russia but instead resolve the situation through diplomacy.”

US Efforts To Settle Ukraine Conflict ‘Energetic And Sincere’ – Putin (RT)

The US is making a genuine effort to stop the fighting in Ukraine and reach agreements that would account for the interests of all parties involved, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said. Putin is scheduled to meet with US President Donald Trump on Friday in Anchorage, Alaska, to discuss ways of ending the Ukraine conflict, as well as steps toward normalizing relations between Moscow and Washington. On Thursday, Putin met with top government officials in Moscow to discuss the upcoming summit and “the stage where we are with the current US administration.”

He said that the American leadership is making “quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the hostilities” and working to “create long-term conditions of peace between our countries and in Europe, and in the world as a whole.” Putin added that this process could be further advanced if Russia and the US reach agreements on strategic offensive weapons control in the next stages of negotiations. Among the officials present at Thursday’s meeting were Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, all of whom will be traveling to Alaska on Friday to take part in the Putin-Trump summit. According to the Kremlin, the event will begin with a one-on-one conversation between the two leaders, followed by a meeting of the Russian and US delegations.

Trump has described the summit as a “feel-out meeting” that will help him determine whether the Ukraine conflict can be resolved. He has said that if the talks go well, he may seek a second round of negotiations involving Putin and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday that Trump will pursue all possible options for a peaceful end to the conflict during his meeting with Putin. She added that the US president would prefer not to impose any new sanctions on Russia but instead resolve the situation through diplomacy.

Read more …

Not a clue why he says that Putin would ..”agree to such a meeting with zero preparatory work..”

He has every single detail in his head, it’s how he works, no need for paper. And on top of that he has 4 of his top advisors with him. How does that add up to zero?

Can Putin Pass the Test? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Yesterday President Trump in his public statements validated my conclusion that Trump does not know what the Russian position is and that he is going to the meeting to find out what the “parameters” are and that he sees the meeting as a “feel-out meeting” to see whether the conflict in Ukraine can be ended. In other words, no solution is expected from the meeting for which no preparatory work has been done. So what are the high-blown expectations for the meeting based on? Why build up such expectations when there is no proposal on the table? Where is the “acceptable” offer that Yury Ushakov found in the non-proposal that convinced Putin to go to Alaska? Is the answer that the purpose of the meeting is to put Putin on the spot by creating expectations of success that cannot be achieved?

French President Macron said that Trump told him that he intends to “obtain a ceasefire in Ukraine during the meeting with Putin.” When Putin doesn’t agree to halt Russia’s successful offensive, is the plan to blame Putin for wrecking the chance for peace? Will this help weaken BRICS by Putin being blamed for secondary tariffs imposed on India, China, Brazil, South Africa? (From Bloomberg today: Raising the stakes. Donald Trump warned he would impose “very severe consequences” if Vladimir Putin didn’t agree to a ceasefire agreement, following a call with European leaders ahead of his meeting with the Russian president. But Tass reported that the two will hold a joint press conference after the talks. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Europe it’s “put up or shut up time” when it comes to sanctions on nations that buy Russian energy.)

That is what it looks like. The Ukrainian front is collapsing. A ceasefire would halt the Russian advance and give the Ukrainian force time to stabilize and reinforce its positions. This is important to the West, because once Russia completes the task of driving the Ukrainian forces out of all of the territory that has been reincorporated into the Russian Federation, there is no land in Ukrainian hands for Trump to swap with Putin. As I have reported a number of times, a land-swap is not one of the conditions on Putin’s list. What Putin means by “the root cause of the conflict” is Russia’s sense of insecurity with NATO and US nuclear missiles on Russia’s border. When the Soviet Union put nuclear missiles in Cuba as an offset to the nuclear missiles Washington had put in Turkey on the Soviet Union’s border, Washington was intensely upset. Today the US has missiles on Russia’s border and the opportunity to have missile bases on Russia’s borders ranging from Finland to the South Caucus, which is a large multiplication of the one Soviet missile base in Cuba.

So if one base in Cuba made the US uncomfortable, imagine how uncomfortable Russia is with the prospect of nuclear missiles along the border for thousands of kilometers. American and European politicians and policymakers have not acknowledged that the root cause of the conflict is NATO on Russia’s border. The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO and being added to the territory hosting US missile bases was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Trump’s land swap and ceasefire do not address Russia’s security problem. The root cause of the conflict is Russia’s sense of insecurity. That can only be solved by getting NATO off of Russia’s borders. This is the purpose of the mutual security agreement that Putin has been trying to negotiate for a number of years only to be given the cold shoulder as by the Biden regime during December 2021-February 2022.

Ask yourselves if you think Trump is in a sufficiently powerful position to override both the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony and the interest of the American military/security complex. As long as the Wolfowitz Doctrine holds, and it has not been repudiated by President Trump, the Secretary of State, or Congress, the US is committed to “preventing the rise of any country that can serve as a constraint on American unilateralism.” As this is the stated commitment, how can NATO be removed from Russia’s border? President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1961 that the rise of the Cold War with the Soviet Union prevented the demobilization of the American war machine that normally followed the end of war. Instead, a powerful military/industrial complex has risen with roots in nearly every state, which gives it enormous power in Congress and among state governors.

That was 64 years ago. Since that time the power of the military/security complex has multiplied. Is this institutionalized power willing to take the hit to its budget and power from a mutual security agreement with its principal enemy? The questions I am asking are the determining questions. Nothing else that is said matters. Yet, these essential questions are not a part of the discussion in Washington, in Europe, or in the Kremlin. It is as if none of the participants in a growing conflict that could be terminable for life on Earth have any idea of the consequences of their decisions. Why suddenly did Trump who a couple of days before yesterday said he didn’t want to meet with Putin demand a meeting within the week when Trump doesn’t even know what the “parameters” are? How can a serious meeting be held when a principal participant doesn’t even know what the opponent’s position is?

Why did Putin agree to such a meeting with zero preparatory work that exposes him to tremendous pressure to capitulate? This represents the total failure of Putin’s advisors. It indicates to the West that Russia is a weak defender of its interest. Perhaps more pressure will be all it takes to bring Russia in line with US hegemony. If Trump goes into the meeting with this attitude, Putin’s choice will be to capitulate or to bring down more demonization on him and Russia for blocking peace. It does look like Kirill Demitriev and Steve Witcoff, both globalists, have succeeded in setting up Putin and Russia. What is on test in Alaska is Putin’s mettle.

Read more …

Repeating the tired notion of Russia losing more people than Ukraine, by now disqualifies you.

Could Trump End War in Ukraine In Meeting With Putin? (Victor Davis Hanson)

This week there’s a scheduled summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump, and it’s scheduled to be held in Anchorage, Alaska. Apparently, this was a place that offered a great deal of security. It’s a smaller, controllable city. It’s in the United States, but on the other hand, it’s one of the closest places, major cities, to Russia itself from the United States. We don’t have a very good history of summits. And many summits—as you remember, in March of 2017, Antony Blinken, the Biden secretary of state, and Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, met with their Chinese communist counterparts. And they were dressed down and humiliated and really didn’t say anything. And what followed then from that was further Chinese aggression toward Taiwan, the Chinese balloon, etc. So these summits are very important.

One thing that we’re not hearing from the Left and the Never-Trump Right is that Donald Trump is a “Putin asset,” a “Putin puppet.” I’m quoting pretty loosely, but accurately, what former National Intelligence Director James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan have been saying for 10 years on social media and on cable news. And the reason they’re not saying that Donald Trump is a Putin puppet and going to be had is that he gave Putin an “Art of the Deal” leeway when he first came into office and he doubled down on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He basically was saying, “Putin, see, I’m giving you an opportunity.” Putin did not take it. Donald Trump pivoted and found out that he had to use leverage against Putin. And the leverage he’s going to use, or has threatened to use, is far more deleterious to Russia and far more dangerous and far more ambitious than anything imagined by former President Joe Biden, namely, a secondary boycott.

That would be to not trade with countries that trade with Russia. That could include the two largest countries in the world, India and China. India had very close relations with us. We were trying to triangulate India against China. They have their own border disputes and long-standing disagreements. But if we secondary boycott India, that will be a rumination of our relations with India. So, what I’m getting at is Donald Trump’s taking a lot of risk, a lot of risk in using a secondary boycott to pressure Putin. Ninety percent of the issues are already solved. They have been for a year or two. We’re now in a deadlock. Russia claims they’ve only lost 200,000 dead. But they more likely lost a million dead, wounded, missing, taken prisoner. We don’t know the exact ratios of each. And probably Ukraine with their dead, missing, wounded, prisoners around, I don’t know, 400,000 or 500,000. So this is like a Stalingrad or a Somme or a Verdun.

We know the general parameters. We’ve discussed them before. Ukraine will not be in NATO. That’s a concession to Putin. But it really isn’t a concession because, privately, a lot of the NATO members did not want Ukraine because they had no intention of going all the way to the Donbas, should Russia invade again, on Article 5 of the NATO doctrine. They were not going to follow that. So they don’t want Ukraine in NATO. Neither do we. I’m not sure Ukraine even does, privately.Secondly, there was no military ability. There’s a moral argument for, but no military ability, to take back Crimea and take back the Donbas. So what we’re discussing now is that the Russian army is about a hundred miles west from the border in Crimea, the Donbas, and then further west. In total, about a hundred miles. That would be the DMZ—in other words, the Demilitarized Zone, where we have a ceasefire, an armistice.

And then we would haggle in a peace conference over exchanges of territory on either side. That’s the outline of peace. The problem is that—there’s two problems. One: Ukraine’s Constitution says no land—no land, not Crimea, not Donbas—nothing can be ceded to a foreign country without a plebiscite. And we don’t know what the Ukrainian people will say. They polled they’re tired of the war. They polled they don’t want to give one inch of their sovereign territory. On the other side, Putin himself knows that he has to report to the oligarchic and military hierarchy. And he doesn’t know whether a hundred miles west, in addition to institutionalizing the possession of Crimea and the Donbas for good, whether that extra hundred miles from the border territory will justify the enormous losses, humiliation that the Russian military has suffered.

So, we’re gonna have this summit. And Trump is going to say to Putin, “You can have no NATO Ukraine. You can have the Crimea. You can have the Donbas. I think I can get Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people to agree. But we’ve gotta fight over how far west you are and whether you have to go back or will stay in place.”And then he’s going to have to tell Zelenskyy, “We’re supplying you. That’s the only leverage we have against Putin, along with a secondary boycott. But you have to decide whether you’re going to cede the Donbas, Crimea, and some of the territory. Because if you don’t, there’s not going to be peace. And if there’s not going to be peace, we can’t assure you a blank check forever.”

So, that’s what the parameters are. And one thing that we do know, the Never-Trump Right, as I said, and the Left have ceased the “Donald Trump is a puppet,” “Donald Trump is a sellout,” “Donald Trump is a Russian asset” because nobody in the last four years, in the Biden administration, has met with the Russians and especially the last three years since the war started. Nobody made the attempt.= So, at least we have the principles: talking to each other, we know what the outlines of a peace agreement are. And it’s just a matter of what each president has to take back to the powers that be and see if they’ve given too many or not enough concessions.

Read more …

A tactic, a pattern…

Kiev Tries To Kill As Many Civilians As It Can Right Before Talks (RT)

On August 14, 2025, Russian officials reported Ukrainian drone strikes on the border cities of Belgorod and Rostov-on-Don, killing and injuring civilians. Rostov saw an apartment building struck, with over a dozen casualties; in Belgorod, three civilians were hurt when a drone hit a car downtown. This came two days after the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) alleged that Ukrainian forces were preparing a false-flag provocation in the Kharkov region, complete with pre-positioned journalists – supposedly to shape a narrative blaming Moscow. These incidents are not isolated. They fit into a larger operational and political pattern: each time high-level talks are scheduled Kiev steps up attacks on Russia’s border regions. The results are the same: civilian deaths, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and an attempt to create a cloud over the diplomatic process.

The same happened in late May and early June 2025, just before the second round of Russia–Ukraine talks in Istanbul, when two bridges in Russian territory were blown up. The attacks killed seven civilians and injured over seventy more. In Moscow’s interpretation, the timing was too precise to be coincidence – it was about setting a tone of hostility, perhaps provoking Russia into walking away from the talks entirely. And yet, Moscow did not take the bait. Russian negotiators showed up in Istanbul as planned. For the Kremlin, this has become a point of principle: no matter the provocations, Russia will attend discussions that could bring an end to the conflict – on its own terms.

The upcoming Alaska summit on August 15, 2025, between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, is the latest such opportunity. The alleged Kharkov region provocation and the strikes on Belgorod and Rostov are seen in Moscow as deliberate background noise meant to derail the meeting or at least to sour its atmosphere. But just as in Istanbul, the Kremlin insists it will not be deterred. For Moscow, attending these talks is about more than optics. It underscores a long-held stance: Russia is prepared to end the conflict, but not at the price of what it views as its core national interests. Walking away now, after years of costly military and political investment, would make little sense. Instead, the aim is to secure a resolution that cements Russia’s gains and ends the war on Moscow’s terms – not by fighting “to the last Ukrainian,” but by ensuring that the outcome is final and strategically advantageous.

From the Kremlin’s perspective, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s motives are clear. Accepting a peace that involves territorial concessions would not only be a bitter political defeat – it could spell the end of his political career. More critically, it would remove the emergency powers he has repeatedly invoked since the start of the conflict to cancel elections and prolong his term in office. Those powers have also enabled controversial measures: forced conscriptions, suppression of opposition media, and an intensified crackdown on dissent. These steps have eroded his popularity inside Ukraine, making his hold on power dependent on the continuation of the wartime state of emergency. If the war ends, so does the legal shield of emergency rule – and with it, his immunity. Zelensky therefore has both political and personal incentives to keep the fighting going, even at significant cost to Ukraine’s population.

Read more …

“I’ve been a 100% unambiguous critic of everything Donald Trump did on January 6th. I believe he should have been charged criminally. I believe the pardons were a disgrace. But why does that mean he can’t do anything now to enforce the law…”

Elie Honig Nuked Left’s Talking Points on Trump DC Crime Crackdown (Margolis)

CNN’s top legal analyst just shredded one of the Democrats’ favorite talking points about President Trump’s decision to federalize the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. Appearing on CNN NewsNight Wednesday evening, Elie Honig, who has been an outspoken critic of Trump, flatly rejected the left’s talking points that the move was illegitimate or purely political theater.“I’ve worked extensively with police. And I don’t have a problem tactically with what Donald Trump is doing here,” Honig told the panel. “It doesn’t have to be the most dangerous place on Earth. Something can be improving, but still really bad. If your house is on fire and then a third of the fire goes out, it’s less bad, but it could still be an emergency.” Honig didn’t sugarcoat his assessment of the nation’s capital.

“I work in D.C. It is dangerous there. You cannot deny that,” he said. “A common police tactic is to surge resources. I’ve been part — we call them ‘task forces’ — they’re applauded across the board, across the political board. I’ve done it in New Jersey. I’ve done it in New York. You take the FBI, you team them up with the Newark P.D., what have you, you make a visible presence.” Honig went even further, making clear that his past condemnation of Trump over January 6 doesn’t mean the president can’t act now to enforce the law. “I’ve been a 100% unambiguous critic of everything Donald Trump did on January 6th. I believe he should have been charged criminally. I believe the pardons were a disgrace. But why does that mean he can’t do anything now to enforce the law, to promote public safety?”

That stance drew pushback from Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), who accused Trump of hypocrisy and labeled the move “political theater.” “None of this is fundamentally address a crime problem in D.C.,” Torres claimed. Honig didn’t flinch. “Would you rather have national security out in D.C. where you work?” The debate intensified when Scott Jennings pointed out that the D.C. police union backed Trump’s move. “The police union came out on this action by the president and said, ‘We wholeheartedly support the president; we need the support.’ Are they right or wrong?” Jennings asked. Torres insisted federal law enforcement wasn’t the right tool for the job, claiming the FBI’s mission is limited to counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Honig immediately corrected him.

“That’s not true. I’ve heard that said a lot. The FBI does street operations. People say the FBI, they’re chasing terrorists — some are,” he said. “I worked with the FBI. The FBI does street reps, they do drug buys, they do gun buys. It’s part of what they do. It’s not a misuse of the FBI.” While CNN anchor Abby Phillip raised questions about federal agents conducting traffic stops and clearing homeless encampments, Honig circled back to a simple point: If D.C.’s leadership truly objected, they could act. “If they thought this was so illegal, unwarranted, inappropriate, why have they not challenged it? They’ve challenged it rhetorically, but they haven’t gone to the board on it.” In the end, Honig’s comments blew a hole in the narrative that Trump’s action was an abuse of power — and they came from someone who has never been shy about criticizing the president.

Read more …

Imagine that drip as head of the CIA. That’s what we narrowly escaped.

How Hillary Planned to Reward Schiff for Undermining Trump (Margolis)

As PJ Media previously reported, then-congressman Schiff was the architect behind the deliberate leaking of classified information aimed at smearing Trump and pushing a narrative against him designed to ensure his prosecution. Back in 2017, a veteran career intelligence officer working for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee warned the FBI that Schiff had not only approved but actively orchestrated the leaking of sensitive classified intelligence. According to whistleblower testimony from 2023 interviews, Schiff convened a staff meeting where he explicitly declared that the group would leak damaging classified information about President Trump. His goal was to use this information to secure an indictment against Trump.

The whistleblower, who was close to Schiff and other intelligence figures on both sides of the aisle, described these actions as “unethical,” “illegal,” and “treasonous.” The implications don’t stop with Schiff. Investigative reporter Catherine Herridge has not only released FBI reports that reveal that Rep. Eric Swalwell, another Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was also a habitual leaker of classified information, even receiving warnings from the FBI to be more cautious. The reports also indicate that had Clinton won the 2016 election, she would likely have rewarded Schiff for his efforts by appointing him CIA director, a testament to their deep ties and shared political objectives.

(U) By way of background, circa October 2016, [redacted], a [redacted] Staff Member House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HESCT), was told by various HPSCI staff colleagues if Hillary Clinton were to win the election Representative Adam Schiff (D – California) would be offered the position of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – As such, opined Schiff had reasons to support Clinton beyond his political affiliation. At that time normal partisan politics continued at HPSCI but there was no significant problem with regards to leaking classified information.

(U) Things changed after the election. Schiff believed Russia hijacked the election and the United States was in the middle of a constitutional crisis. Classified information began leaking to the media. The Democratic minority leadership of HPSCI was aware of the leaks but was under the impression that leaking the information was one way to topple the administration and fix the constitutional crisis.

This nexus between Clinton, Schiff, and the intelligence apparatus turned the Russia investigation into a political weapon, not an impartial probe. The whistleblower’s account, backed by FBI interviews, exposes a political war that Democrats waged from inside government agencies, using classified intelligence as ammunition in concert with Hillary Clinton’s campaign. These revelations highlight the weaponization of political power against a presidential candidate and later a sitting president, with classified information twisted into a fabricated scandal that consumed the news and crippled Washington.

Schiff’s central role, which aligned with Clinton’s interests, marks a peak in corruption and political gamesmanship. The FBI, DOJ, and Congress have a rare chance to reveal the full scope of this abuse and begin restoring public trust. This isn’t just partisan hardball; it’s a calculated misuse of government authority to topple an administration. The Schiff-Clinton intelligence nexus may have been the engine of the Russiagate hoax, and full exposure is long overdue. Few episodes in modern politics have done more damage to the rule of law and public confidence, and the very institutions meant to protect them orchestrated it all. It’s time to confront that reality head-on.

Read more …

Bhattacharya appears to be the right man in the right place (NIH). But how did the US ever get a -looming- anti-biotics shortage?

Trump Signs Executive Order To Fill Reserve With Critical Drugs (JTN)

President Trump has signed an executive order to fill the Strategic Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Reserve with critical drugs to ensure “a resilient domestic supply chain for essential medicines.” The executive order signed on Tuesday directs the Department of Health and Human Services assistant secretary for Preparedness and Response to create a list of about 26 critical drugs that are deemed “vital to national health and security, and ready the SAPIR repository to receive and maintain the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) used to make these critical drugs,” according to a White House fact sheet. Also, the order charges the official with getting a 6-month supply of the APIs for the critical drugs, “with a preference for obtaining domestically-manufactured APIs if possible, and placing them in the SAPIR.” Trump additionally told the official to make a proposal for a second SAPIR repository.

The executive order comes after National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya told Just the News, No Noise TV show last month that the U.S. has a shortage of some drugs, such as antibiotics. “So much of our manufacturing for drugs relies on the Chinese manufacturing, on Indian manufacturing,” Bhattacharya said. “And it leaves the United States in a very vulnerable place, where if you have a crisis, even when you don’t have a crisis, when there’s just normal demands for vital medical items, antibiotics, I already mentioned, normal saline. All of that is just normal demand. “We are in a shortage now of some of those things, because we do not have domestic manufacturing that can respond when there is an increase in demand, as there sometimes is,” he continued.

Read more …

“Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks and has no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions.”

Treasury Secretary Bessent Calls For Trading Ban In Congress (JTN)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is calling for a single-stock trading ban in Congress. “I am going to start pushing for a single-stock trading ban, because it is the credibility of the House and the Senate, that you look at some of these eye-popping returns – whether it is Rep. Pelosi, Senator Wyden – every hedge fund would be jealous of them. And the American people deserve better than this,” Bessent told Bloomberg TV on Wednesday. Nancy Pelosi, of California, and Ron Wyden, are Democrats. Congressional Republicans including Georgia Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, has also come under scrutiny. She recently disclosed stock trades made just before President Trump announced a 90-day pause on tariffs, prompting accusations of potential insider trading.

Greene told the Associated Press that she does not manage her own portfolio and that her investments are handled by a financial adviser. She also said all trades are disclosed in compliance with federal transparency requirements. “People shouldn’t come to Washington to get rich, they should come to serve the American people, and it brings down trust in the system because I can tell you that if any private citizen traded this way, the [Securities and Exchange Commission] would be knocking on their door,” he continued. Pelosi has long been criticized for her husband’s highly successful trades, which she is required to report in financial disclosures. Pelosi spokesperson Ian Krager told The Hill news outlet in response to Bessent, “Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks and has no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions.”

Wyden’s stock portfolio had a 123.8 percent gain last year, according to data from the financial analysis platform Unusual Whales. The Oregon senator posted on X in response to Bessent, “Nobody working for Donald Trump has any business pretending to care about ethics or the stock trading ban I support. If Scott Bessent gave a damn about the public interest, why is he holding a massive farm that puts him in a position to gain from Trump’s trade deals with China?” “Bessent is fuming that I blew the whistle on the fact that he’s hiding a huge Epstein file at the Treasury Department. Thousands of pages worth of Epstein’s bank records with names. Until he releases it, he’s just running interference for Epstein’s pedophile ring,” Wyden added.

Pelosi supports a bill advanced by all Democrats and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last month that would prevent members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children from buying and trading stocks, in addition to future presidents and vice presidents. In the House, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., vowed to start a discharge petition to force a vote on another stock trade ban bill.

Read more …

This is good. Do read the whole thing. The boomers have taken all the good stuff. But now they’e getting old, and the next generations are taking over financial (slowly) and political (faster) power.

The Boomer Mirage (Stylman)

One Chart. Three Generations. Total Extraction. I saw this chart making the rounds on Twitter this week, and it stopped me cold. While the specific figures combine data from multiple sources, the trend is undeniable: in 1950, over half of 30-year-olds were married homeowners. By 2025, some analysts project that number as low as 13%.

That’s not a societal transformation. It’s not an economic fluke. It’s the visible outcome of an invisible strategy—one that extracted everything it could from a three-generation arc and left only illusions in its place. They’ll tell you people just choose differently now—that marriage rates fell because of changing values. But people can’t choose what they can’t afford. When the economic foundation for family formation disappears, cultural changes follow inevitably. That chart doesn’t show us changing values or new priorities. It shows systemic breakdown, disguised for decades as freedom. It maps the slow evaporation of the social contract. For one generation, adulthood was a starting point. For the next, a struggle. For the latest, an abstraction—marketed endlessly but almost never attained.

What began as a rite of passage has become a paywalled simulation. The post–World War II boom was never sustainable. In hindsight, this was obvious. It relied on conditions that were always time-limited: cheap energy from newly tapped oil fields, industrial monopolies before globalization kicked in, dollar hegemony that exported inflation globally, and a demographic pyramid with more workers than retirees. It was a golden window, not a golden age. And when the window closed, the illusion had to be maintained—through leverage, narrative, and ever-increasing sacrifice from the generations that followed.

The math quietly stopped working. Boomers bought homes for two or three times their annual income during an era when interest rates would fall for the next four decades—turning their mortgages into wealth-building machines as rates dropped from 15% to near-zero. Today’s buyers face five to six times their income—or more in major cities—while rates can only go up from historic lows. Where Boomers rode a 40-year tailwind of falling borrowing costs that inflated their assets while deflated their debt, current generations face headwinds at every turn. The Federal Reserve data confirms this unprecedented decline, showing rates falling from over 18% in the early 1980s to near 2.6% by 2021.

Read more …

“They won’t speak up. They don’t stand for anything anymore..” [..] “All they stand for is whatever is against whatever President Trump stands for..”

Sen. Kennedy: Democrats Need to ‘Buy Some Testicles’ on Amazon (Margolis)

If you don’t think Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) is a national treasure, you’re not paying attention. Kennedy has a rare gift for cutting through Washington’s polished, poll-tested nonsense with a plainspoken Southern wit that lands like a sledgehammer wrapped in velvet. Whether he’s grilling a bureaucrat in a Senate hearing or sparring with a cable news host, Kennedy delivers his critiques with the kind of folksy charm that leaves his targets stunned and his audience in stitches. On Wednesday night’s “Hannity,” Kennedy was in peak form, aiming at Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and the Democratic Party’s timid “mainstream wing” with a blistering, laugh-out-loud takedown that reminded viewers exactly why he’s one of the sharpest and funniest voices in American politics.

Kennedy unleashed his trademark blistering critique of the Democratic Party’s so-called “mainstream wing,” accusing it of being paralyzed by fear of its more radical members. “The mainstream wing of the party is scared to death of the loon wing,” Kennedy said. “They won’t speak up. And they don’t stand for anything anymore. All they stand for is whatever… is against whatever President Trump stands for.” He argued that this fear has led to Democrats adopting positions that Kennedy said are counterproductive, particularly regarding crime in the nation’s capital. “We find ourselves in the extraordinary position of mainstream Democrats have now come out firmly and passionately in favor of crime in Washington, D.C. Why? Because Trump is trying to do something about it,” he said.

When asked about Schumer and Jeffries, Kennedy did not hold back. “No, uh, they could, and I don’t mean any disrespect… I know Senator Schumer very well. So, I say this with respect. Chuck and Hakeem need to go to Amazon, buy some testicles… and stand up to the loon wing of their party,” he said, drawing laughter from the Fox News host Sean Hannity. Kennedy’s critique continued, targeting what he called the Democrats’ unwillingness to confront socialist elements within their own ranks. “Until they’re willing to do that, um, I haven’t heard Senator Schumer say anything bad about Mamdani. I mean, the guy’s a socialist. He’s a whack job,” Kennedy said. Hannity interjected, noting that party leaders are “afraid of the whack job,” to which Kennedy replied, “They’re scared to death in the party… The party is not going to get better until they do.”

The conversation briefly turned to Kennedy’s colorful metaphor, with Hannity joking, “I didn’t know that Amazon sold testicles.” Kennedy responded in kind, saying, “You can buy anything on Amazon, Sean… They’re very cheap.” The back-and-forth underscored Kennedy’s blunt, no-nonsense style and his willingness to use humor to make a political point. Kennedy also believes the Democrats’ hesitancy to confront their more radical members has real-world consequences. “They won’t speak up. They don’t stand for anything anymore,” he said, repeating his core critique. “All they stand for is whatever is against whatever President Trump stands for. That’s why we find ourselves… in the extraordinary position” he described earlier. By the end of the interview, Kennedy summed up his message with his usual bluntness. “The party is not going to get better until they do,” he said.

Read more …

“The deadline was August 7. The broadcaster reported, citing a source, that Hunter Biden did not comply with Melania Trump’s demand within the established deadline.”

Melania Trump Threatens Hunter Biden With $1Bln Lawsuit for Defamation (Sp.)

US President Donald Trump’s wife Melania has threatened former President Joe Biden’s son Hunter with a $1 billion lawsuit for allegedly “false” and “defamatory” statements against her related to the case of financier Jeffrey Epstein, a letter from the first lady’s lawyer read. The document published on the Fox News website noted that on August 5, Hunter Biden released a video on YouTube titled “Hunter Biden Returns,” which contained a number of statements that the first lady claims are false. “Here are the false statements in the Video that are defamatory per se: a.‘Epstein introduced Melania to Trump. The connections are, like, so wide and deep.’ b. ‘Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania, that’s how Melania and the First Lady and the President met,” the letter said.

Melania’s lawyer demanded that Hunter “immediately issue a full and fair retraction of the video and any and all other false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements about Mrs. Trump.” If the ex-president’s son does not comply with the demand, Melania intends to sue him for $1 billion in damages. The deadline was August 7. The broadcaster reported, citing a source, that Hunter Biden did not comply with Melania Trump’s demand within the established deadline.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Fauci

Bhakdi

disease

insects

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 142025
 


John Martin The Seventh Plague of Egypt 1823

 

Both Sides Want The Putin-Trump Alaska Summit To Succeed (Suslov)
Ukraine and NATO’s Playbook of Staged Attacks Blamed on Russia (Sp.)
Zelensky Doesn’t Want Peace – Human Rights Lawyer (RT)
Doomed Zelensky Desperate to Sabotage Putin-Trump Summit – Expert (Sp.)
New EU Media “Freedom Law” Allows for Journalist Arrests (RTN)
EU Plotting ‘Regime Change’ In Hungary – Moscow (RT)
Kash Patel Sends John Solomon a Prior Whistleblower Report (CTH)
Trump Takeover Renews Questions Over D.C. Crime Data (Turley)
Newly Released FBI Files Uncover Comey’s Plot Against Trump (Margolis)
FBI Offered Chris Steele $1 Million to Substantiate Dossier; He Never Did (CTH)
This Could Be the End of Chuck Schumer’s Political Career (Margolis)
Texas Democrats Will Return Home, and the New Map Will Be Approved (Margolis)
Trump Rails Against ‘Unfair’ Media Quoting ‘Fired Losers’ (NYP)
Hollywood Writers Wage War on Trump (Tim Graham)
Trump: 1, USAID: 0 – Appeals Court Lets Admin Block Billions In Aid (ZH)
The Trump-Putin Meeting: How We Got Here (Connor O’Keeffe)
Macron’s Rise To Power (John Mac Ghlionn)

 

 

Comey
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1955587369572409831

Creek

 

 

Here’s the Michelle Shocked video I couldn’t find yesterday. Someone found it on a Russian site. Still an excellent song. Arrangement? Oh well…

 

 

 

 

On our way to Anchorage, a few longish articles are included today. Can’t always avoid them.

 

 

“No Zelensky, no Brussels, no problem: Here’s how Putin and Trump’s Alaska power move will play out…”

Both Sides Want The Putin-Trump Alaska Summit To Succeed (Suslov)

On Friday, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump will meet in Alaska. This will be the first full-scale Russia-US summit since June 2021 in Geneva, and the first official visit by a Russian president to American soil since Dmitry Medvedev’s trip in 2010 at the height of the “reset.” It will also be the first time the leaders of Russia and the US have met in Alaska, the closest US state to Russia, separated only by the narrow Bering Strait, and once part of the Russian Empire. The symbolism is obvious: as far as possible from Ukraine and Western Europe, but as close as possible to Russia. And neither Zelensky nor the EU’s top brass will be in the room. The message could not be clearer – Moscow and Washington will make the key decisions on Ukraine, then inform others later. As Trump has said, “they hold all the cards.”

The Alaska summit marks a sharp departure from the Biden years, when even the idea of such a meeting was unthinkable and Washington’s priority was isolating Russia. Now, not only will Putin travel to Alaska, but Trump is already planning a return visit to Russia. Moderate optimism surrounds the meeting. Summits of this type are rarely held “just to talk”; they usually cap a long process of behind-the-scenes negotiations. The idea for this one emerged after three hours of talks in Moscow on August 6 between Putin and Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff. Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov described Washington’s offer as “very acceptable.” That suggests Putin and Trump will arrive in Alaska with a preliminary deal – or at least a framework for a truce – already in place.

Why Trump needs this
Trump has good reason to want the summit to succeed. His effort to squeeze Moscow by pushing China and India to stop buying Russian oil has backfired badly. Far from isolating Russia, it triggered the worst US-India crisis in 25 years and drove New Delhi even closer to Moscow. It also encouraged a thaw between India and China, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi now set to attend the SCO summit in Tianjin. BRICS, which Trump has openly vowed to weaken, has only grown more cohesive. The Alaska summit is Trump’s chance to escape the trap he built for himself – trying to pressure Moscow through Beijing and New Delhi – and to show results on Ukraine that he can sell as a diplomatic victory. For Moscow, a successful summit would be a powerful demonstration that talk of “isolation” is obsolete – even in the West. It would cement Russia’s standing with the “global majority” and highlight Western Europe’s diminished influence.

The transatlantic split would widen, weakening Brussels’ claim to be Russia’s toughest opponent. Most importantly, Washington today has little real leverage over Russia, especially on Ukraine. If the summit yields a joint Russian–American vision for a truce or settlement, it will inevitably reflect Moscow’s position more than Kiev’s or Brussels’. And if the Western Europeans try to derail it, the US could pull the plug on all aid to Ukraine – including intelligence support – accelerating Kiev’s defeat. Not everyone in Russia is cheering. Many prominent “Z”-aligned war correspondents see the war as unfinished and oppose any truce. But they have been asked to stick to the official line. If the Alaska meeting produces a deal, they will be expected to back it – or at least use “cooling” language for their audiences. The Kremlin is betting it can manage this dissent.

Western Europe, for its part, will be watching from the sidelines. Its leaders are “scrambling” for scraps of information via secondary channels. The optics will underline a humiliating reality: for the first time in almost a century, decisions about Europe’s security will be made without the likes of Italy, France and Germany in the room. The location hints at other agenda items. Arctic economic cooperation, largely frozen since 2014, could be revived. Both sides stand to gain from joint development in the far north, and a deal here would be politically symbolic – proof that the two countries can work together despite the baggage of the last decade. Arms control will also be on the table. Moscow’s recent decision to end its unilateral moratorium on deploying intermediate-range missiles was almost certainly timed to influence the talks. Strategic stability after the New START Treaty expires in February 2026 will be a central concern.

If Alaska delivers, it could reshape the conflict in Ukraine and the broader Russia-US relationship. A joint settlement plan would marginalize Kiev and Brussels, shift the diplomatic center of gravity back to Moscow and Washington, and reopen channels for cooperation on global issues – from the Arctic to arms control. If it fails – if Trump bends to last-minute EU pressure – Moscow will continue fighting, confident that US involvement will fade. Either way, Russia’s position is stronger than it was two years ago. What’s different now is that the two powers with “all the cards” are finally back at the same table – and Western Europe is on the outside looking in.

Read more …

“…the April 2022 Ukrainian neo-Nazi massacre of civilians who accepted Russian aid in a Kiev suburb after the withdrawal of Russian forces..”

Ukraine and NATO’s Playbook of Staged Attacks Blamed on Russia (Sp.)

The Russian MoD’s warning about a plot to stage a fake incident in Chuguyev, Kharkov region to sabotage the upcoming Putin-Trump meeting in Alaska “positions Russia to expose the West and Zelensky’s deception if it occurs, undermining their credibility,” veteran geopolitical analyst Angelo Giuliano told Sputnik. It’s definitely not the first time Kiev and its backers have stooped to such tactics. “The Bucha lie, crafted by Ukraine and the West, derailed 2022 peace talks by framing Russia for war crimes,” Giuliano recalled, referencing the April 2022 Ukrainian neo-Nazi massacre of civilians who accepted Russian aid in a Kiev suburb after the withdrawal of Russian forces, which galvanized the West for long, costly proxy war against Moscow.

That was just the beginning, according to Giuliano, who also cited:
1. the constant shelling of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, threatening to unleash a Chernobyl-like disaster on Europe, and blaming Russia (even though Russian forces control the plant).
2. the July 2022 bombing of a prison housing Ukrainian PoWs in a Russian-controlled area of the DPR, killing dozens, and designed to “silence Azov prisoners, preventing exposure of Western-backed neo-Nazis in Russian courts.” Also blamed on Russia, ironically.
3. the September 2022 bombing of the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline network, severing a major Russian energy artery with Germany. Sy Hersh revealed that the operation was carried out by US Navy divers with assistance from Norway. Russia still blamed.
“Despite the West’s propaganda machine—evident in Zaporozhye and Nord Stream—Russia’s readiness to counter this deception could limit its impact, though Western bias might still disrupt the Alaska summit. The Bucha playbook remains a potent tool for sabotage,” Giuliano warned.

Read more …

“The only chance he has to stay in power and to continue looting the aid from the West is for this war to continue…”

Zelensky’s Life Depends On War Continuing – Human Rights Lawyer (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky does not want peace because he can only stay in power as long as the conflict with Russia continues, US human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik has told RT. The Russian Defense Ministry warned on Tuesday that Kiev is preparing a false flag attack on civilians in Kharkov Region in an attempt to derail Friday’s summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump. During the talks in Anchorage, Alaska, the two leaders are expected to discuss the possible settlement of the Ukraine conflict and bilateral issues. Zelensky has not been invited to the summit. Kovalik said in an interview on Tuesday that he “suspected Ukraine would try to do something provocative to break up any possibility of a deal in Alaska. I mean Zelensky, his whole political life and maybe his real life depend on this war continuing.”

Moscow was right to warn the international community about Kiev’s plans, as “this will immunize people against a false-flag attack in the sense that they will be ready for it and know who really did it when, if it comes. God forbid it does come,” he suggested. The Ukrainian authorities “clearly do not want it to end… they do not want peace,” the human rights lawyer said. “Look, Zelensky has not had proper constitutional authority… for over a year. His term ran out over a year ago. He has refused to have elections. He knows his popularity is in decline. The only chance he has to stay in power and to continue looting the aid from the West is for this war to continue,” Kovalik added.

Zelensky said on Tuesday that he considered the fact that Putin was meeting Trump on US soil a “personal victory” for the Russian leader. The US president earlier described the Alaska summit as a “feel-out meeting” that will help him determine whether the Ukraine conflict can be settled. Moscow expects that the talks between Putin and Trump will “give an impulse to the normalization of bilateral relations” with Washington.

Read more …

“Expired” Zelensky and his team will stop at nothing to derail the upcoming summit..”

Doomed Zelensky Desperate to Sabotage Putin-Trump Summit – Expert (Sp.)

Ukraine’s Zelensky is painfully aware that being sidelined from the upcoming Putin-Trump dialogue on Ukraine will deliver him a knockout blow, said Vietnamese international relations expert Dr. Hoang Giang.
“Expired” Zelensky and his team will stop at nothing to derail the upcoming summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, or at the very least, cast a shadow over the talks, Dr. Hoang Giang told Sputnik. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban put it perfectly when he said that “If you’re not at the negotiating table, you’re on the menu,” the pundit explained, adding: “That is something Zelensky and his backers simply cannot accept.”

Intelligence from multiple sources points to a planned provocation by the Ukraine regime designed to sabotage the Russia-US summit planned for Friday, Russia’s Defense Ministry has stated. The Ukrainian Armed Forces could deliver a provocative strike using UAVs and missiles against one of the densely populated residential neighborhoods of Chuguyev in the Kharkov region [near the Russian border], causing significant civilian casualties. The imported Western journalists are expected to ‘immediately document’ the incident. Provocations in other settlements under the control of the Kiev regime are also possible, noted the MoD.

Read more …

The “Digital Services Act” and this “European Media Freedom Act” sound great, beneficial even, but have one goal only: control.

New EU Media “Freedom Law” Allows for Journalist Arrests (RTN)

The European Union’s “European Media Freedom Act” became binding law across all member states on August 8, but behind its name lies a set of provisions that could restrict the very freedoms it claims to safeguard. Alongside language about protecting reporters, the regulation authorizes arrests, sanctions, and surveillance of journalists whenever authorities say it serves an “overriding reason in the general interest.” Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, hailed the legislation’s arrival on social media, saying, “A free and independent press is an essential pillar of our democracy. With our European Media Freedom Act, we want to improve their protection. This allows journalists to continue their important work safely and without disruption or intimidation.”

Although the law outlines protections such as prohibiting spyware or coercion to expose sources, those assurances are undercut by built-in loopholes. Governments can bypass them if their actions are allowed under national or EU law and deemed proportionate to a vaguely defined “general interest.” That permission extends to intrusive surveillance technologies in cases tied to crimes carrying a maximum prison term of three years or more, a list that ranges from terrorism and human trafficking to offenses labeled as “racism and xenophobia.”

The legislation also orders each country to maintain registers of media owners and addresses. It targets so-called “disinformation,” accusing some media outlets of manipulating the single market to spread falsehoods. Large online platforms are portrayed as choke points for access to news, blamed for fueling polarization. To confront this, the EU wants tighter cooperation between national regulators, overseen by a European Media Services Board made up of member state regulators and a Commission representative. Although labeled independent, the board’s secretariat is run by the Commission, giving it an inside track on the decision-making process.

Another element of the act involves pushing “trustworthy media” and reinforcing state broadcasters through transparent appointment processes and stable public funding. Annual gatherings between EU officials, internet companies, media representatives, and NGOs are encouraged to assess how disinformation initiatives are being carried out. Despite being sold as a shield for press freedom, the structure of the act gives Brussels and national authorities the ability to decide which voices remain active and which can be silenced. By allowing arrests, surveillance, and tighter state involvement in the media landscape, it risks turning from a safeguard into a tool for control.

Read more …

” Orban announced last month that he was rejecting the budget proposal, calling it “built on the logic of war.”

EU Plotting ‘Regime Change’ In Hungary – Moscow (RT)

The European Commission is plotting to help oust Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban over what it considers his overly independent policy, according to Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). The Hungarian leader has repeatedly clashed with Brussels in recent years, opposing EU military aid to Ukraine and Kiev’s bid to join the bloc. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen “is seriously studying regime change scenarios” in Hungary, the SVR press service said in a statement on Wednesday. Brussels intends to bring Peter Magyar, leader of the Hungarian opposition Tisza Party – seen as “loyal to globalist elites” and “the main candidate for the post of Prime Minister” – to power in the 2026 parliamentary elections, “if not sooner,” according to the SVR.

Significant “administrative, media and lobbying resources” are being deployed to support Magyar through “German party funds, the European People’s Party and a number of Norwegian NGOs,” the Russian intelligence service said. Kiev, which has been “offended” by Orban’s opposition to Ukraine attempting to join the EU, is doing the “dirty work” and destabilizing the home situation in Hungary via its intelligence services and local Ukrainian diaspora, it added. Last month, Orban accused Kiev of working to influence Hungary’s upcoming parliamentary elections. The European Commission is “outraged” by Orban’s attempts to “pursue independent policy” and his efforts to influence EU decision-making, the SVR stated.

Hungary’s recent decision to veto the new seven-year EU budget project, which Budapest believes is designed for the militarization of Europe and preparation for war with Moscow, has become the last straw that made the euro-bureaucrats lose their patience. Orban announced last month that he was rejecting the budget proposal, calling it “built on the logic of war.” “Billions for Ukraine, crumbs for farmers and development. Their goal: defeat Russia, install liberal allies, and expand their realm of influence,” he wrote on X. Moscow has repeatedly denied claims that it aims to attack NATO or EU countries, and has accused Western European leaders of pursuing “uncontrolled militarization” to prepare for war with Russia.

Read more …

Sundance still has his own view:

“The Patel’s, Bondi’s, Solomon’s and Hannity’s then play this game of pretend. Packaging the corruption evidence as accountability hopium and selling it to the addicted battered conservatives.”

Kash Patel Sends John Solomon a Prior Whistleblower Report (CTH)

FBI Director Kash Patel sends John Solomon a declassified whistleblower report, showing how a prior House Intelligence Committee staffer blew the whistle on then HPSCI ranking member Adam Schiff, who was giving the staff instructions to leak fabricated intelligence reports on Trump-Russia to smear President Donald Trump in 2017 and 2018. According to the release, the FBI eventually received and investigated the whistleblower claims; then in 2023, sent the information to the Merrick Garland/Lisa Monaco DOJ, who took no action because the claim was now beyond the statute of limitations. Read those dates carefully, because what this report from Kash Patel and John Solomon actually outlines is something we have all been very frustrated with.

As Solomon now notes, … “The alleged leaks fall outside the statute of limitations for prosecution on most legal theories, but the revelations nevertheless come at a sensitive time for Schiff“.. At the time of the Whistleblower report, the information to the FBI and DOJ would have been evidence that could have prosecuted Adam Schiff. However, now the information is limited to just providing I-told-you-so’s. There are a couple of really frustrating aspects to this, and the pattern is transparently obvious. The FBI and DOJ from 2017 to 2023, under both Donald Trump and Joe Biden’s administration, played the silo game of control of evidence. They did nothing with the evidence until the statute of limitations had tolled, which then provides Main Justice with the justification for doing nothing.

In 2025, understanding the public is insanely frustrated with the lack of accountability, the pretending game is now deployed by the FBI under Kash Patel, through John Solomon, to the broadcast venue of Sean Hannity. At the end of this clickbait circle-jerk is nothing. Again, no accountability, but a bunch of controlled information operatives saying, “Well, let’s see what the DOJ does with this now.” A pox on all their houses. There is no doubt in my mind this is a clear example of why the DC system uses special counsels (Mueller, Durham, et al) purposefully to create “ongoing investigations” as capture nets for information/evidence control. “It’s under investigation, and we don’t speak about ongoing investigations.” In real time, from 2019 to 2020, I was providing this type of evidence from within the silo system to John Durham and Bill Aldenberg who were designated information managers.

In my naiveté’, as I initially opened these doors, I thought some form of accountability would be possible, because the evidence was direct, irrefutable and without denial. However, once Aldenberg and Durham clearly said they could only act on evidence they ‘discovered’ themselves, and they could not act on evidence provided by “others” because that would make the “evidence political,” I quickly realized this was all going to amount to nothing. Now, we are looking in hindsight at evidence from inside the system, provided to these investigators by participants inside the system, yet they also did nothing with it at the time it held value. So, here’s the basic construct of how the DC game is played. Evidence delivered from outside DC cannot be used by those who are charged with investigating corruption within DC.

Evidence delivered from inside DC, goes into the system of “ongoing investigations” (special counsels) until its usefulness is exhausted by the clock-ticking. If the risk of accountability remains, the special counsels are extended until that accountability clock has expired. Once the accountability clock has expired, if another party comes along (Kash) and releases that evidence (Solomon), the value only exists insofar as it generates clickbait income (Just News), column inches and punditry talking points (Sean Hannity) for the DC proletariat. The Patel’s, Bondi’s, Solomon’s and Hannity’s then play this game of pretend. Packaging the corruption evidence as accountability hopium and selling it to the addicted battered conservatives. Insert vote. Pull lever. Get hopium pellet. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Who is continuing to buy this game?

Read more …

“Washington, DC’s 2024 murder rate was 27.54 per 100,000 people. That is higher than cities like Bogota (15.1), Mexico City (10.6), Islamabad (9.2), and Lima (7.6). It is astronomical when compared to the capitals of close allies like Paris (1.64), London (1.1), and Madrid (0.96).”

Trump Takeover Renews Questions Over D.C. Crime Data (Turley)

Washington, D.C. is a city that has long spun statistics to the point that they become more fable than fact. It reaffirms the famous view that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The line is the perfect warning to the unwary about politicians citing statistics. The quote itself is widely misrepresented as the work of Mark Twain or British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, so it seems nothing can be trusted when it comes to statistics, not even quotes on statistics. That question is again at the heart of a debate following the announcement of President Donald Trump that he would be sending the National Guard into Washington and taking temporary control of the D.C. police. In response, Mayor Muriel Bowser and other democrats denounced the plan and claimed that violent crime is at a 30-year low after dropping by 26% so far in 2025.

However, those statistics were recently challenged after a scandal involving allegations of suppressing crime reports to artificially reduce crime rate statistics. The media is reporting the reduction claim despite only recently questioning those statistics. The MPD in July suspended Michael Pulliam, police commander for the Adams Morgan neighborhood, for allegedly manipulating crime numbers. D.C. Fraternal Order of Police chairman Gregg Pemberton accused police officials of pressuring officers to falsify statistics to reduce crime rates: “When our members respond to the scene of a felony offense where there is a victim reporting that a felony occurred, inevitably there will be a lieutenant or a captain that will show up on that scene and direct those members to take a report for a lesser offense.

So, instead of taking a report for a shooting or a stabbing or a carjacking, they will order that officer to take a report for a theft or an injured person to the hospital or a felony assault, which is not the same type of classification.” Pemberton said that the MPD’s statistics were “preposterous… There’s absolutely no way crime could be down 28%. Last year, they suggested that it went down 34%.” Even accepting some of these statistics, it is hardly anything to celebrate. For example, Washington, DC’s 2024 murder rate was 27.54 per 100,00 people. That is higher than cities like Bogota (15.1), Mexico City (10.6), Islamabad (9.2), and Lima (7.6). It is astronomical when compared to the capitals of close allies like Paris (1.64), London (1.1), and Madrid (0.96).

There are good-faith reasons to oppose this move. I am not convinced that the National Guard deployment is warranted or likely to have a meaningful impact on crime. However, President Trump is within his rights to order the deployment. He may also take temporary control of the police and can notify Congress if he wants to extend that period to 30 days. D.C. is a federal enclave and is thus different from other cities. There is no governor involved in such orders in Washington, which remain under the jurisdiction of the federal government. What is also clear is that crime remains very high in this city and the reliability of the D.C. crime statistics can be legitimately questioned as we look for solutions for public safety.

Read more …

“The goal, Richman told the FBI, was “to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage” outside of the bureau’s official press office…”

Newly Released FBI Files Uncover Comey’s Plot Against Trump (Margolis)

Newly released FBI documents paint a damning picture of James Comey’s role in a coordinated intelligence operation against Donald Trump, an effort we know that Barack Obama ordered and that John Brennan, James Clapper, and a network of loyal operatives carried out. The “Arctic Haze” documents reveal that the FBI not only knew that sensitive information was leaking to the media, but it was also orchestrating the leaks. At the center of this effort was Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman, whom Comey personally arranged for the FBI to hire and grant top security clearance. Richman acted as Comey’s go-between with reporters, helping to shape the Russian collusion hoax and polish Comey’s public image. Hard evidence now backs what many have long suspected: the willful weaponization of U.S. intelligence against a duly elected president.

“The FBI concluded numerous legacy news media stories that crafted the false Russia collusion narrative contained illegally leaked classified intelligence but failed to definitively identify the leakers,” reports Just the News. “But agents did force a stunning admission that ex-FBI Director James Comey used a special conduit to the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times in his bid to polish his image and push for a special prosecutor to take down President Donald Trump.”Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman admitted to agents in interviews he routinely communicated on behalf of Comey, his longtime friend, with Times reporter Michael Schmidt, whose work was among the newspaper’s 2018 Pulitzer-winning stories on Russian election interference.

The goal, Richman told the FBI, was “to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage” outside of the bureau’s official press office, according to internal FBI memos that current Director Kash Patel delivered to Congress this week. Just the News notes that the media publicly quoted Richman in news stories as a Comey advocate. What’s new, however, is that “he admitted to agents, who were part of the FBI’s Arctic Haze classified leaks inquiry, that Comey gave him access to what turned out to be highly classified information up to the SCI level and sometimes provided information to reporters on an anonymous basis.” According to the FBI memos, Richman claimed he didn’t think he had passed classified information to reporters but admitted he couldn’t be “100%” sure. In fact, he told agents he was only confident “with a discount” that he hadn’t told New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt about the classified material.

That’s not exactly the kind of airtight denial you’d expect from someone with top security clearance. Earlier this week, we learned that a veteran career intelligence officer, who spent over a decade working for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly warned the FBI starting in 2017 that then-Rep. Adam Schiff had personally signed off on leaking classified information to smear President Trump during the Russiagate hoax. Despite this and other evidence pointing to potential leaks, the Justice Department shockingly chose not to press charges against Comey, his inner circle, or even now-Sen. Adam Schiff. Their excuse? They just couldn’t be certain who leaked what and when. Convenient.

Read more …

“Danchenko told them the Steele dossier was full of fabricated nonsense. However, to keep the revelation of the dossier presented “as nonsense” hidden, the FBI then hired Danchenko as a confidential human source, technically shielding him from being questioned or exposed…”

FBI Offered Chris Steele $1 Million to Substantiate Dossier; He Never Did (CTH)

I have been asked to recap some of my research into cited formats of what I believe to be criminal conduct, with specific statutes against them. This is the third.mDNI Tulsi Gabbard is not a lawyer. While I may be wrong, I find Tulsi Gabbard to be a patriot. Mrs. Gabbard is focused on providing evidence to the DOJ that essentially forces action. I support Tulsi Gabbard’s efforts.

In 2022, the legal case brought by prosecutor John Durham against Chris Steele’s primary sub source, Igor Danchenko, was predicated on the notion that Christopher Steele’s primary source for his dossier willfully and intentionally lied to the FBI. Therefore, according to Durham’s legal theory, Danchenko was guilty of purposefully misleading FBI investigators assigned to the Trump-Russia/”Crossfire Hurricane” investigation. Every intellectually honest person knew the FBI were not duped by Danchenko, and later records proved Danchenko told them the Steele dossier was full of fabricated nonsense. However, to keep the revelation of the dossier presented “as nonsense” hidden, the FBI then hired Danchenko as a confidential human source, technically shielding him from being questioned or exposed. The FBI decision to hire Danchenko was to keep the fraudulent Steele Dossier useful for their Trump targeting operation. After all, the Trump surveillance warrants were dependent on it.

The pretending by Durham highlighted two things: (1) Durham was protecting the corrupt DOJ and FBI institutions by not investigating any government action; and yet, (2) Durham was simultaneously exposing corrupt FBI and DOJ action through his Danchenko court filings. FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten testified in court that Hillary Clinton’s contracted opposition researcher, Christopher Steele – hired by Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, was offered up to $1 million by the FBI in early October 2016, if Chris Steele could prove the claims within the Trump dirt dossier he authored. Steele was never paid the money, because he could not prove the claims within the dossier, nor would he originally give up the name of the primary source for the information, Igor Danchenko.

However, despite the FBI knowing the dossier could not be proved, validated or verified, later that same month, October 21, 2016, they used the dossier as evidence to support a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant against former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page. The FBI offered Chris Steele $1 million to ‘prove it.’ Chris Steele could not ‘prove it.’ The FBI used the dossier anyway to get the warrant. The details provided by Durham proved the researched outline we delivered in 2018. The FBI knew the Steele dossier was junk, yet they used it in lieu of the mandatory ‘Woods File’ to seek an all-inclusive secret search warrant against the Trump campaign. Carter Page was a tool for the fraudulent search warrant, the FBI knew Carter Page from previous work he had done for them as an informant. However, to get the warrant they needed to accuse Page of being an asset of a foreign government – so they did.

The Steele Dossier was used as manufactured evidence to support the FISA application. The FBI goal was to create a legal mechanism putting everyone in/around Donald Trump under surveillance. This was the “insurance policy” as described by FBI agent Peter Strzok. The FBI had been conducting unlawful political surveillance against Donald Trump throughout the 2016 campaign, the FISA warrant was used as the legal basis to make the previous and future surveillance legal. The FBI knew the dossier was junk, the FBI didn’t care – they needed it to create a fraudulent search warrant. The FBI knew Carter Page was not a Russian asset, the FBI didn’t care – they needed him to get to Trump. The FBI goal was always to conduct political surveillance against Donald Trump.

(Via CNN) – Shortly before the 2016 election, the FBI offered retired British spy Christopher Steele “up to $1 million” to prove the explosive allegations in his dossier about Donald Trump, a senior FBI analyst testified Tuesday. The cash offer was made during an October 2016 meeting between Steele and several top FBI officials who were trying to corroborate Steele’s claims that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to win the election. FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten testified that Steele never got the money because he could not “prove the allegations.” Auten also said Steele refused to provide the names of any of his sources during that meeting, and that Steele didn’t give the FBI anything during that meeting that corroborated the claims in his explosive dossier.

Auten was testifying at the criminal trial of Igor Danchenko, a primary source for Steele’s dossier, who is being prosecuted by special counsel John Durham. Danchenko has pleaded not guilty to lying to the FBI. CNN previously reported that the FBI reimbursed some expenses for Steele, who had been an FBI informant. Durham, a Trump-era prosecutor who is looking for misconduct in the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, has used some of the proceedings Tuesday to criticize the FBI’s handling of some of the early steps in the Russia probe. Durham handled many of the in-court arguments on Tuesday and personally questioned Auten on the witness stand – a rare move for a special counsel and former US attorney. (read more)

Offering $1 million to a source to provide evidence is not a decision made by a supervisory special agent. The authorization to spend up to $1 million for evidence is a decision made by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. Follow the timeline:
• Steele offered $1 million to prove the dossier in early October 2016. He cannot.
• FBI uses dossier in late October for a FISA warrant against Trump campaign.
• Dossier source Igor Danchenko interviewed by FBI in January 2017. Tells FBI dossier is junk.
• The FBI then interviews Carter Page five times, March 9, 10, 16, 30 and 31, 2017.
• The FBI then hired Danchenko in March 2017, just before renewing the FISA they now know is based on junk.
• April 2, 2017, the FBI renew the FISA warrant for the 2nd time.
• May 2017 Robert Mueller appointed to cover up all of the DOJ/FBI corruption that existed in the Trump targeting.
• June 2017 Robert Mueller interviews Danchenko, then Mueller renews the FISA.
• February 2019, Bill Barr enters as Attorney General.
• April 2019 Robert Mueller completes investigation.
• May 2019, Bill Barr appoints Durham just to look into things. Immediately then begs Trump not to declassify any documents. Trump writes executive order giving Bill Barr ability to review and declassify documents.
• October 2020, Bill Barr officially (and quietly), makes John Durham a special counsel. We don’t find out until December (after the Nov. election).
• October 2020, FBI drops Igor Danchenko as paid informant.

Put it all together and you see the continuum.
(1) Donald Trump was being targeted by a corrupt DOJ and FBI.
(2) Robert Mueller was installed in May 2017 to cover up the targeting.
(3) When Mueller is nearing his completion, Bill Barr steps in to mitigate institutional damage from 1 and 2.
(4) Barr maintains damage control and installs Durham.
(5) Durham takes over the coverup operation from October 2020 (Danchenko safe to exit) through today.

Main Justice kept a bag over Danchenko until they needed a scapegoat, created by Durham, to sell a narrative that Main Justice was duped. John Durham charged Danchenko (working outside govt) with lying to the FBI while simultaneously avoiding drawing attention to the FBI/DOJ officials (inside govt) who knew Danchenko was lying and were willfully blind to it in order to continue attacking and investigating President Donald Trump. James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Barr, John Durham, the Mar-a-Lago raid… it’s all one long continuum of the same targeting and coverup operation. Bill Barr was the Bondo application, and John Durham was the spray paint. The entire system is corrupt.

Read more …

“A poll from earlier this year showed AOC leading Schumer by double digits in a hypothetical primary…”

This Could Be the End of Chuck Schumer’s Political Career (Margolis)

The political winds are shifting dramatically in New York, and no figure embodies this change more starkly than Chuck Schumer. Once an unshakable pillar of Democratic power, Schumer now finds himself grappling with a crisis of confidence unlike any he’s faced in two decades. This isn’t just a battle over approval numbers; it’s a stark referendum on the future of the Democratic Party itself. As younger, more radical voices rise to challenge the old guard, the question becomes: Is Schumer’s era ending, and if so, what comes next? Schumer has hit a historic low in favorability, according to a recent Siena College poll — the worst showing of his career dating back two decades. Once comfortably positioned as the Democratic strongman in the Empire State, Schumer now finds himself under fierce fire not just from political adversaries but from within his own party.

His approval rating stands at a mere 38% favorable, with half of New Yorkers viewing him unfavorably. Even more striking, Schumer is underwater among New York City voters for the first time ever in Siena’s polling, at 39% favorable to 46% unfavorable. The tide really turned against Schumer after his controversial decision in March to allow a vote on a continuing resolution to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. This move angered radical leftist Democrats who derided it as a betrayal. That decision cast a long shadow over Schumer’s leadership and raised serious questions about whether his era is concluding. The fissures within the Democratic Party have become increasingly visible. Leftist voices have started rallying behind Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a potential challenger to Schumer’s Senate seat in 2028.

A poll from earlier this year showed AOC leading Schumer by double digits in a hypothetical primary, signaling a deep appetite among Democratic voters for younger, more confrontational leadership. His favorability with Democrats has dropped from 55% in June to 49%, while unfavorable ratings among party members rose to 39%. This erosion of support reflects a widening gap between Schumer’s pragmatic approach and the ambitions of a more aggressive, younger generation of Democrats unwilling to yield to Republicans or Donald Trump. The big question is whether Schumer will seek re-election or make way for fresher faces representing the party’s emerging priorities.

His declining approval ratings suggest that if he does run again, it won’t be without a stern primary challenge, and I can’t see him running in a primary that he’s at risk of losing. Indeed, in an era where firebrands like AOC capture the spirit of the party’s activist wing, the political script in New York is fast rewriting itself. Ultimately, Schumer’s political plunge reflects a broader crisis of confidence within Democratic ranks. Once a master of Senate backroom deals and partisan maneuvering, his struggles highlight the party’s deepening identity crisis. Will Democrats double down on the establishment’s old-school power politics, or will they hand the reins to the younger, more radical voices demanding aggressive confrontation? The answer will shape not only Schumer’s fate but the future trajectory of the party itself.

Read more …

Predictable. Will they pass on their traveling bills to the taxpayer?

Texas Democrats Will Return Home, and the New Map Will Be Approved (Margolis)

The war over Texas’ congressional maps is nearly over, and conservatives emerged victorious. ABC13 Eyewitness News reports that multiple sources have confirmed House Democrats are finally coming back to Texas. They haven’t said exactly when, but apparently, they think they’ve achieved some grand victory by killing the first special session and grabbing a few headlines about the mid-decade redistricting fight. In reality, all they’ve done is waste taxpayer money, embarrass themselves on the national stage, and guarantee that the new map will still pass, just without the drama next time. It is unclear which day they will be in Austin at the Capitol, but they stress that they will push for Hill Country flooding relief to be the priority. nThis comes as the House went another session without a quorum on Tuesday, with just 95 members present for the second day in a row.

Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows said that assuming there is no quorum on Friday, the session will end, and a new one will begin. Hours later, the Senate actually passed a new map that benefits Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. It’s the same map that passed out of committee in the House and precipitated more than 50 House Democrats to break quorum. Democrats in the Senate walked out in protest, but a quorum remained. Sources told ABC13 that Senate Democrats will not break quorum. It’s not all that surprising. The Democratic Party, the worst offenders when it comes to gerrymandering, throwing a conniption over Republican redistricting, was the epitome of hypocrisy, and to top that off, Texas Democrats fled to the heavily gerrymandered state of Illinois: a stunt so tone-deaf that it practically wrote its own punchline. Democrats were going to cave eventually; it was only a matter of when.

Something tells me that when Gov. Greg Abbott vowed to keep calling special sessions until the new map was passed, they knew they were beat. “This could literally last years because in Texas, I’m authorized to call a special session every thirty days. It lasts thirty days,” he told Fox News host Shannon Bream on Monday, promising to keep calling session after session relentlessly. “As soon as this one is over, I’m gonna call another one, then another one, then another one, then another one.” When it comes to gerrymandering, Democrats are the undisputed champions. Four of the five most gerrymandered states, Illinois, California, New Jersey, and New York, are all under full Democratic control.

Their congressional maps hand Democrats far more seats than their actual vote totals warrant. Illinois, for instance, gives Democrats a staggering 27-point edge in representation, even though they only won 55% of the presidential vote. California and New Jersey aren’t far behind, each showing double-digit advantages for Democrats. The only state making the list with a significant Republican presence is North Carolina, with a 20-point GOP edge. But Texas, often slammed as the GOP’s gerrymandering poster child, actually has a smaller partisan gap. Republicans won 56% of the presidential vote and hold 66% of the congressional seats, a 10-point advantage that will grow with the new map, but still pales compared to the distortions cooked up in Democratic bastions.

The facts don’t lie. The worst gerrymanders are in blue states, and that advantage has propped up Democrats even as they lose the national House popular vote. What’s happening in Texas isn’t an attack on democracy; it’s a long-overdue correction. No amount of grandstanding from lawmakers playing hide-and-seek in Illinois will change that reality. Texas Democrats finally realized they were fighting a losing battle. Now the Texas Senate has approved the map, sending it to the State House for final passage, leaving Democrats to grumble about something else.

Read more …

‘Fired Losers’ = Bolton.

Trump Rails Against ‘Unfair’ Media Quoting ‘Fired Losers’ (NYP)

President Trump raged against the “unfair” media over their coverage of his high-stakes summit with Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. “Very unfair media is at work on my meeting with Putin. Constantly quoting fired losers and really dumb people like John Bolton, who just said that, even though the meeting is on American soil,” Trump seethed on Truth Social Wednesday. “‘Putin has already won.’ What’s that all about? We are winning on EVERYTHING. The Fake News is working overtime (No tax on overtime!). If I got Moscow and Leningrad free, as part of the deal with Russia, the Fake News would say that I made a bad deal! But now they’ve been caught,” he added. Leningrad reverted to its pre-Bolshevik name, St. Petersburg, in 1991.

Trump’s anticipated meeting at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson with Putin will mark the first time the Russian leader sets foot on US soil in about a decade. It will also be Putin’s first in-person meeting with a US president since he began the brutal invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has made ending the bloody war in Ukraine one of his top foreign policy objectives. Over recent months, he has soured on Putin over the brutal Russian drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian civilians. Critics such as Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton have argued that the president will be welcoming a “rogue leader of a pariah state” into the US and that Putin will attempt to “take advantage” of him.

The Friday summit meeting comes after special envoy Steve Witkoff met with the Russian leader at the Kremlin last week, ahead of Trump’s deadline for Moscow to move toward peace or else the US would work to cut off its oil exports using steep economic penalties. Details about Putin’s exact conditions for bringing about an end to his country’s war are murky and have drawn confusion from European allies. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has publicly cast doubt on making significant territorial concessions to Russia and underscored that Ukraine must have a say in any potential deal. The Trump administration is working toward a trilateral summit among Trump, Putin and Zelensky and sees the Alaska meeting as a step toward that goal, according to Vice President JD Vance.

One of Trump’s close allies, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, has claimed the president is “testing” Putin and trying to gauge his openness to peace. Secretary of State Marco Rubio similarly implied that Trump is attempting to get a better sense of whether the Russian dictator is open to peace. “The president talked to Putin on the phone three times or four times. Okay. And nothing has come of it — or at least we haven’t gotten to where we want to be,” Rubio told “Sid and Friends in the Morning” on Tuesday.“So the president feels like, ‘Look, I’ve got to look at this guy across the table. I need to see him face-to-face,’” he added. “‘I need to make an assessment by looking at him.’”

Read more …

“The Democrats are about as popular right now as measles, so democracy is somehow endangered.”

Hollywood Writers Wage War on Trump (Tim Graham)

The entertainment press found it very important to report that Hollywood thinks President Donald Trump is an authoritarian. This is still somehow considered “news.” Over 2,300 members of the Writers Guild felt compelled to speak out in an open letter because they believe in their “role in a healthy democracy.” In 2024, democracy was healthy and Hollywood’s candidate lost. “Writers Guild of America West PAC [political action committee] Endorses Kamala Harris for President,” they announced. So sad. They can’t get over it. When the Left’s feverishly spinning propaganda machines don’t work, “now, we face an unprecedented, authoritarian assault.” The Democrats are about as popular right now as measles, so democracy is somehow endangered.

“We are members of the Writers Guild of America who speak with one voice to decry the dangerous and escalating attacks on the First Amendment, independent media, and the free press,” the letter read in part. “He has retaliated against publications reporting factually on the White House and threatened broadcasters’ licenses. He regularly calls for the cancellation of news and entertainment television shows that criticize him in late-night and, most recently, ‘The View.’” They complained, “We don’t have a king, we have a president. And the president doesn’t get to pick what’s on television, in movie theaters, on stage, on our bookshelves, or in the news.” Of course not. The kings and queens of Hollywood insist they get to pick what people see, and the “healthy democracy” librarians get to dictate what’s on the public bookshelves. The leftists think “democracy” is healthiest when they are in charge of all “mainstream” messaging.

When it comes to Trump, Hollywood rushed to make hostile movies—for the Cineplex and for TV—asserting the rudest things, like Trump raped his first wife (“The Apprentice” movie). Nobody made a Hunter Biden movie, despite all the wild crack-and-hookers narratives, not to mention Hunter sleeping with his brother’s widow and getting her on drugs. The fundamental fallacy of these “attacks on the First Amendment” arguments is that the First Amendment includes the freedom to attack the “free press”—like asserting liberals lie when they call themselves the “independent media.” They’re partisan operatives. Trump suing news organizations and spurring settlements isn’t authoritarian. This is where you undermine the silly claim of these scriptwriters that leftist “news” outlets are being attacked for “reporting factually.” They don’t lead with facts. They lead with their angry opinions and often unproven accusations.

Read more …

“The majority holds that when the President refuses to spend funds appropriated by Congress based on policy disagreements, that is merely a statutory violation and raises no constitutional alarm bells.”

Trump: 1, USAID: 0 – Appeals Court Lets Admin Block Billions In Aid (ZH)

The Trump administration scored a major victory on Wednesday after a US appeals court ruled that they can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance approved by Congress. In a 2-1 decision, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who ruled that US officials were violating the Constitution’s separation of powers principles by failing to authorize payments in line with what the legislative branch had allocated. This means that President Trump’s day-one order to dissolve the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and broadly withhold funding from other foreign aid programs can move forward. After the Trump administration cut off foreign aid, two groups of grant recipients sued, claiming a violation of separation of powers.

US District Judge Amir Ali (Canadian-born Biden appointee) ruled in March that the administration must make available foreign assistance that Congress appropriated for FY2024. Ali’s order also required USAID to pay bills owed through Feb. 13 under existing contracts and grants, however that part of the injunction was not on appeal – and substantially all of the owed payments are now complete according to court records. Not so fast Ali! Writing for the majority appellate decision – US Circuit Judge Karen Henderson (Bush appointee) said “The district court erred in granting that relief because the grantees lack a cause of action to press their claims. They may not bring a freestanding constitutional claim if the underlying alleged violation and claimed authority are statutory.”

One judge, US Circuit Judge Florence Pan (Biden appointee) dissented, writing “The majority holds that when the President refuses to spend funds appropriated by Congress based on policy disagreements, that is merely a statutory violation and raises no constitutional alarm bells.” Lauren Bateman, an attorney for consumer advocacy group Public Citizen which represents the suing grant recipients wrote on Wednesday “Today’s decision is a significant setback for the rule of law and risks further erosion of basic separation of powers principles,” adding “We will seek further review from the court, and our lawsuit will continue regardless as we seek permanent relief from the Administration’s unlawful termination of the vast majority of foreign assistance.”

Read more …

Pieces so long I put them at the bottom of the pile. Still good to refresh the memory.

The Trump-Putin Meeting: How We Got Here (Connor O’Keeffe)

This Friday, President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are set to sit down together in what will be the first face-to-face meeting between leaders of each country since the war in Ukraine broke out almost three and a half years ago. For many, this is a long-overdue step towards bringing this war to an end. For others, it marks the dangerous and unnecessary return of a policy of “appeasement” that’s sure to prompt more invasions from Putin and other leaders that the US government does not back. There certainly will be plenty of debate in the coming days over the wisdom and likely consequences of this meeting. But, as with anything, the best way to understand both is to look back at how we got here. A lot has been written about the many policy decisions that took place after the USSR fell in 1991, which transformed the Russian government and the Western governments in NATO back into enemies.

Those factors are important for understanding why Putin made the decision to invade Ukraine in early February 2022 and how he was able to get enough of the Russian public on board with the war. But even setting all of that aside, when Putin gave the order for Russian forces to invade Ukrainian territory, he cited three purposes for the move in his address to the Russian people that can help us understand the specific Russian objectives in this campaign. They were to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, to destroy the far-right Nazi factions within Ukraine, and to protect the people living in the separatist regions of eastern Ukraine. It is certainly possible that none of these reasons was or is genuine. As we Americans should know well, governments frequently use entirely fake justifications to manufacture public acceptance for a war when they think the real reason won’t work.

However, if we look closer at Putin’s actions, we can get a clearer picture of what the Russian leader wanted and, importantly, was willing to settle for. Shortly after the invasion began on February 24, 2022, Ukraine’s President Zelensky attempted to set up an indirect backchannel with Putin. He was able to do so fairly quickly with the help of the Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Naftali Bennet. Thanks to Bennet’s efforts, the two sides began talking. And, exactly two weeks after the tanks had rolled over the border, the Ukrainian and Russian foreign ministers sat down in person in Turkey to see if an agreement could be reached that would put an end to the fighting. A few weeks later, they did reach an agreement. According to officials who were present on both sides and in mediator roles, the Russians agreed to pull all of their forces back to pre-invasion boundaries—in other words, to end the war and give up all the territory they had seized in that first month.

And, in exchange, the Ukrainians agreed not to seek NATO membership. Remember, this isn’t some Russian spin on the Istanbul talks, it’s based on what the Ukrainian negotiators and the German, Israeli, and Turkish officials who were present said happened. So we know that a month into the war, Putin was willing to abandon two of the three stated objectives of his military campaign in exchange for a promise that Ukraine would not join NATO, which suggests that this really is the priority for the Russian regime. He may have even begun to honor his side of the agreement. Putin claims that the sudden massive withdrawal of Russian forces from the areas around Kyiv, a few days after the Istanbul agreement was reached, was actually the first step towards withdrawing the entire invading force. That may be a lie, but the timing does match up.

Regardless, shortly after the talks wrapped up, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson went to Kyiv, really on behalf of all the top Western military powers in NATO, and convinced the Ukrainians to walk away from the agreement, which they did. It appears that Western governments talked the Ukrainian leaders into continuing the fight by promising heavier weapons and more sophisticated support to help them gain more leverage over the Russians, so future talks could be even more fruitful. Some people in Western governments may have really believed that. But a lot of the rhetoric we saw from American officials when they were talking to the American public or to each other suggests that the true motivations for keeping the war going grew out of a recognition of how lucrative it would be for certain well-connected American companies, a desire to learn more about what tactics and technology is effective in modern conventional war, and a perceived opportunity to “weaken Russia” without the need to spill any American blood.

But regardless of whether their intentions were pure and misguided or deceptive and depraved, American and Western European officials stymied the early peace talks and kept the war going. And fairly quickly, it became frustratingly clear that the Ukrainians would not be able to fight their way to a better negotiating position than they had had in March of 2022. Over that first summer, the “heavier weapons” the US and other Western governments began transferring to the Ukrainians did not push the front line dramatically to the east, as the Ukrainian government seems to have been led to expect. And then, in September, the Russian government formally annexed four oblasts—or provinces—in eastern Ukraine, laying permanent claim to tens of thousands of square miles of territory that it had previously agreed to surrender. Ukraine’s position in future negotiations was already growing weaker.

That said, in November, a month after the Russian annexation, Ukrainian forces successfully used misdirection to recapture the southern city of Kherson and the northern city of Kharkiv. While their position was still weaker than it had been in March, it was still a solid opportunity to transition back to talks. But again, the opportunity was missed. Instead, Western officials and their allies in the media began to generate hype about plans for a massive counteroffensive operation that would mobilize all Ukrainian forces to break through Russian lines and drive Russian forces out of the newly-annexed territory. For months, the coming counteroffensive was used to shoot down any calls to return to the negotiating table. But several independent military experts raised doubts—especially in reaction to the nightmarish battle over the city of Bakhmut—that Ukraine truly had the capability to push the Russian lines way back to the east.

Those concerns really came to a head in early 2023 when a 21-year-old airman named Jack Teixeira leaked evidence that American military and intelligence officials were similarly pessimistic about the operation—for which he was thrown in prison with a sixteen-year sentence. And, sure enough, when the counteroffensive began in the summer of 2023, the Ukrainians struggled to break through Russian minefields and ended up losing more territory than they gained. The counteroffensive was a failure. And yet, the war went on. For the next year, the front lines remained mostly unchanged as the war evolved into a trench-style artillery war of attrition. Ukraine was dealing with a serious shortage of soldiers, which the Russians appeared to have recognized meant time was in their favor.

Then, last summer, the Ukrainians made the surprising decision to pull troops away from the front line to send them north over the border to capture some Russian territory in the so-called Kursk region. While they were met with some initial success, because the Russians had not thought to defend the area heavily, the territory they took was small compared to what the Russians held in Ukraine. And, most consequentially, the transfer of soldiers weakened Ukraine’s already-tenuous standing on the eastern front. Which has meant that, over the last year, Ukraine has been struggling. According to some analysts like retired Colonel Daniel Davis, the Russians have shifted their focus from trying to take more territory to trying to wipe out as many soldiers as possible to exacerbate Ukraine’s manpower problems, which will ensure that, down the road, taking territory will be far easier.

The Russians also didn’t let the lame-duck Biden administration’s provocative and unnecessarily risky decision to help the Ukrainians launch long-range missiles deeper into Russia pull them away from their strong position. So Russian forces now hold a lot of territory, and time is on their side if they wish to take even more territory in the future. And there isn’t much of anything else the NATO governments can do with weapons transfers or economic sanctions to change that. If they could, they would have done it already. In other words, the Russians have significantly more leverage over the Ukrainians and their Western backers than they did during those early talks in Turkey a month into the war. Trump has clearly tried to create some pain points against Putin that he can attempt to negotiate away—most notably a massive tariff on India for buying Russian oil. But the disheartening and frustrating fact is that Putin has no real reason to want this war to come to an end right now.

That said, the Russian president did signal that he would be open to stopping the war in exchange for eastern Ukraine. If that proposal is genuine, Trump should seriously try to work out a deal and hope that the boasts he made about deceiving the Iranians with fake negotiations earlier this summer did not destroy his credibility in situations like this. But, regardless of what happens during the talks on Friday, more Americans need to start recognizing what the civilians in Ukraine evidently have already: that, as bad as this situation is, it can and will continue to get worse. So many opportunities for peace have been missed. If there is any chance of another, Trump should take it.

Read more …

X thread.

“The Macron we see today — the carefully packaged politician, the unapologetic globalist, the made-for-television president — wasn’t born. He was built. And he was built at remarkable speed.”

Macron’s Rise To Power (John Mac Ghlionn)

The term “Manchurian Candidate” conjures images of spy thrillers, of men who are brainwashed and programmed to act against their own nations. It’s Hollywood fantasy. Or is it? Because when you examine Emmanuel Macron, his sudden, improbable ascent from obscurity to the Élysée Palace starts to feel less fictional. No sci-fi brainwashing. No flashing lights or hypnotic spirals. Just careful grooming. Silent backers. Loyalties shaped long before the public ever knew his name. A mediocre man who gets slapped around by his domineering wife is now one of the most powerful people in the world. Germany may be Europe’s economic engine, but France has always been its crown jewel: the political, military, and cultural heart of the continent. Control France, and you control not just markets, but minds, traditions, and the future of Europe itself.

Which makes the rise of Macron all the more disturbing. How, one wonders, did a provincial banker, virtually unknown to the French public a decade ago, climb so quickly to the highest office in the land? The truth is, he didn’t climb. He was carried. Macron’s Rothschild years reveal a man propelled by connections, not competence. Early colleagues recall that he didn’t even know what EBITDA — earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization — meant. A fundamental term in corporate finance. It’s the equivalent of a mechanic not knowing what an ignition is. Yet Macron rose from basic spreadsheet tasks to partner in record time, thanks to elite backers and well-timed advantages, not technical mastery. From relatively obscure banker to the highest circles of European politics.

The rise was too fast, too clean, and far too suspect. Enter Jacques Attali. His name may not mean much to some readers, but this is someone who has influenced France’s political class for decades. Now 81, he served as special adviser to President François Mitterrand. Attali played a key role in mentoring François Hollande. Even now, he ranks among the most formidable behind-the-scenes operators in French politics. In the American context, his reach would put him in the company of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Soros. Part strategist, part gatekeeper, part financier. Attali once boasted that he “discovered” Macron, even claiming he “invented him.” The Macron we see today — the carefully packaged politician, the unapologetic globalist, the made-for-television president — wasn’t born. He was built. And he was built at remarkable speed.

At age 32, Macron’s selection into the French-American Foundation’s program placed him among future operatives aligned with U.S.-EU integrationist interests. The Foundation has long served as a quiet grooming ground for transatlantic elites. Past participants in the French-American Foundation’s Young Leaders program include figures like Bill and Hillary Clinton. Macron passed through other elite grooming institutions: Sciences Po and the École nationale d’administration (ENA). Sciences Po, often referred to as the training ground for France’s ruling class, has produced generations of presidents, prime ministers, and top civil servants. The ENA is even more exclusive. Founded after World War II, it was designed to produce the officials who would rebuild modern France.

ENA alumni include Hollande, Jacques Chirac, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, and Mr. Macron. But then came Bilderberg, the real proving ground. Within months of attending in 2014, Macron’s political career took off. For the uninitiated, Bilderberg is a private, invitation-only gathering where the world’s most powerful bankers, CEOs, generals, and politicians meet behind closed doors. Off the record, out of sight, and far from accountability. It is where future leaders are sized up, tested, and quietly approved. At the 2014 meeting, Macron was placed directly before the men and women who would soon bankroll and promote his ascent. This wasn’t a coincidence. It was, I suggest, a coronation. In 2016, after becoming a World Economic Forum (WEF) Young Global Leader, Macron reached another “miraculous” milestone. He joined a carefully selected group approved by Klaus Schwab that included the likes of Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern.

This was yet another clear signal, a public endorsement from the same global interests that had backed him from the start. Less than twelve months later, Macron stormed to the French presidency. Stunning achievement for a man with no real political base, no electoral track record.= His main rivals were systematically crippled by scandals, exposed and prosecuted with an efficiency rarely seen in a country where the legal machinery usually crawls. Meanwhile, a political vehicle — En Marche! — was assembled almost overnightzBacked by deep-pocketed donors and coordinated by consultants and firms closely tied to France’s corporate and financial elite. Macron didn’t create a movement. A movement was created around him. There is nothing normal about Emmanuel Macron’s rise.

Under his leadership, France has been pushed deeper into corporate control, subordinated to supranational institutions, and subjected to sweeping social experiments, often in open defiance of the will of the French people. He has governed not as a servant of the nation, but as an agent. National industries have been stripped. Traditional institutions have been weakened. Public anger has hardened into revolt, visible everywhere from the Yellow Vests to the farmer protests that periodically paralyze parts of the country. He has waged war on free speech and presided over mass immigration policies that have transformed the demographics of major cities. Expansion of digital surveillance that now rivals anything seen in authoritarian states. Vaccine mandates with open contempt for dissenters.

He boasted that his government would make life “miserable” for the unvaccinated. At the same time, Macron has cultivated a carefully managed image of centrist respectability. English-language media has showered him with endless praise, even as approval ratings have plummeted. The modern political asset doesn’t need reprogramming. He only needs ambition, vanity, and the right people whispering promises of power and protection in his ear. Who would want a man like Macron at the helm? Those who needed a willing figurehead to manage, reframe, and ultimately dissolve France’s sovereignty into a broader, borderless project — a France no longer for the French, but for the architects of the global agenda.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Inside mRNA Vaccines – The Movie.
1 Hour movie. it may be shadowbanned (happened to me overnight). If so look on Steve Kirsch’s timeline.
https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1955425232413659281

 

 

RFK

Elon

NGOs

Net zero

Tucker

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 122025
 


James Proudfoot Sun on a House, Dieppe 1937

 

Trump Must Take Out Deep State Now – Larry Klayman (USAW)
Trump Invokes DC Home Rule Act, Set To Deploy National Guard (ZH)
Trump Slaps Down Zelensky Land Swap Excuses (RT)
Russia is a Warring Country – Trump (RT)
Western Europe Wants Ukraine War To Continue, Even Without The Americans (RMX)
‘Another Nazi Leaflet’ – Moscow Slams Western Europe’s Ukraine Statement (RT)
Trump Tempers Expectations Ahead Of Alaska “Feel-Out Meeting” With Putin (ZH)
NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, Discusses Upcoming Trump-Putin Summit (CTH)
Zelensky Cronies Transfer $50Mln ‘Corruption Money’ to UAE Every Month, (Sp.)
Kiev’s Forces Face Catastrophe In Donbass – Ukrainian Ex-Commander (RT)
Gerrymandering Makes Hypocrisy a Political Punch Line (Turley)
Top DOJ Lawyer Warns Feds Could Face Criminal Charges For Weaponization (JTN)
Former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly Warns About Mamdani as NYC Mayor (CTH)
Putin-Trump Meeting: The Triumph of Delusion Over Reality (Paul Craig Roberts)
Under Color of Law (James Howard Kunstler)
Trump: The President for Peace (Sierra Knoch)
The Return Of Private Money: American Dream Meets European Nightmare (Kolbe)

 

 

 

 

Poro

kids
https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/1954221805289537766

 

 

 

 

“It’s obvious Trump and his team have come to the conclusion that they have to get the Left and the Deep State before they get them.”

Trump Must Take Out Deep State Now – Larry Klayman (USAW)

Renowned attorney Larry Klayman says the coming indictments of the Deep State traitors who tried to frame President Trump as a Russian spy in his first term are all in serious trouble. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard charges that Obama Administration officials politicized intelligence and laid the groundwork for a “years-long coup” against President Donald Trump after he won the 2016 election. Gabbard first uncovered a mountain of documents implicating many in the so-called Deep State. Gabbard claimed in a post on X that former President Barack Obama and key members of his national security team, including then-CIA Director John Brennan and then-DNI James Clapper, fabricated a narrative about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election to “subvert” Trump’s presidency.

They even made up evidence, such as the so-called Steele Dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton. They were all lies to make President Trump look bad. If these people are not stopped now while Trump is in office, and in control of the DOJ, then they will come after him when he is out of office and no longer in power. Klayman says, “Why is this different from the past? . . .. President Trump and the people around him, including Tulsi Gabbard, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino and others, have learned what they are up against. They’ve tried now to assassinate the President twice. I believe the Left and the Democrats were behind it. I think they wanted him dead. They did not want him (Trump) to be elected. There was also all the lawfare (like warfare) over the last many years.

It’s obvious Trump and his team have come to the conclusion that they have to get the Left and the Deep State before they get them.” Klayman says President Trump is at greater risk now than anytime in the past. Klayman explains, “Because President Trump has been so successful thus far, he is at great risk. There will likely be other assassination attempts and on the lives of other people in the cabinet. There will be attempts of assassination of anybody who supports him. I was in California recently, and I was wearing my Trump inauguration jacket from 2017, and some guy starts screaming I was a Nazi and this and that. I did not respond because I was in the middle of a bank. There is so much hatred out there, and this is why they have to take these people out legally and peacefully.”

Klayman points out people have the right to defend themselves, especially in the home, and Klayman urges people to use their Second Amendment rights if and when there is a need to do so. As the indictments come down in the not-so-distant future, expect violence. Klayman says, “The Left has its back up against the wall. They are a drowning man, so to speak. . .. There will be violence. They will try to foment violence. Who is likely to be indicted? Klayman names a few for starters. This list includes John Brennan, James Clapper, Peter Strzok and Mark Elias. Then Klayman predicts, “They will first go for the low hanging fruit before they get to Hillary Clinton and other higher ups. They will see if they can flip them. This time it’s different, and this time I believe there will be some accountability.”

Read more …

“..the “D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force…”

Trump Invokes DC Home Rule Act, Set To Deploy National Guard (ZH)

President Trump told reporters at the White House that he plans to deploy the D.C. National Guard and place the Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control as part of a massive push to restore law and order in the nation’s capital. Trump told reporters that he is officially invoking the D.C. Home Rule Act to place the Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control and deploy the National Guard, stating, “This is Liberation Day in D.C. — and we’re going to take our capital BACK.”

Earlier, President Trump fired off a Truth Social post around 8:00 a.m. ET: “Washington, D.C. will be LIBERATED today! Crime, savagery, filth, and scum will DISAPPEAR. I will MAKE OUR CAPITAL GREAT AGAIN!” “The days of ruthlessly killing or hurting innocent people are OVER! I quickly fixed the border (ZERO ILLEGALS in the last 3 months!), and D.C. is next!!!” the president said. Trump’s Truth Social post was followed by a report from The Wall Street Journal, which cited a U.S. official saying the White House was preparing to activate hundreds of National Guard troops across the metro area, pending a final order. Earlier this year, the president signed an executive order establishing the “D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force,” calling for increased law enforcement presence in public areas and launching initiatives to beautify parks and other public spaces.

[..] And last week, 19-year-old Edward Coristine, a former staffer at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) whose LinkedIn handle earned him the nickname ‘Big Balls,’ was badly hurt in an attack in the crime-ridden metro area. Similar crime trends have been seen in lawless Baltimore City, controlled by far-left politicians who have zero accountability for their failed social justice policies that have backfired.

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1954922736834511175

Read more …

“I mean, he’s got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap[.]”

Trump Slaps Down Zelensky Land Swap Excuses (RT)

US President Donald Trump has again said that a land swap for peace will be discussed at the upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. The statement clashes with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky’s earlier refusal to consider any territorial concessions. “They’ve [Russia] occupied some very prime territory. We’re going to try and get some of that territory back for Ukraine,” Trump said, implying that some areas might remain under Russian control in a future settlement. The Lugansk People’s Republic, Donetsk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions became part of Russia following referendums held in 2022. Crimea voted to join the country in 2014, following the armed Western-backed Maidan coup in Kiev.

Trump previously also suggested that upcoming negotiations could involve “some swapping of territories to the betterment of both.” However, on Saturday, Zelensky rejected any land-swap proposals, citing limitations imposed by Ukraine’s constitution. During his press conference, Trump expressed frustration over Zelensky’s insistence that any territorial concessions to Russia would require constitutional approval. The US president questioned how Zelensky had the legal authority to wage war but could cite legal constraints against trading land.

“I was a little bothered by the fact that Zelensky was saying, well, I have to get constitutional approval,” Trump said, adding, “I mean, he’s got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap[.]” In a post on X on Sunday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga also wrote: “No rewards or gifts to the aggressor to appease him,” adding that “every concession invites further aggression.” Russian officials have repeatedly said that any peace deal must address the root causes of the conflict and reflect the realities on the ground.

Read more …

As is obvious from his own words, Russia is not a warring country. It has been invaded, and successfully defended itself, though always at a very steep -human-price. Find a map of US battles and invasions in the past century to see a “warring country”.

Russia is a Warring Country – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has described Russia as a “warring country,” saying Moscow has been engaged in conflicts for centuries and “just keeps on fighting.” Trump made the remarks on Monday at a press conference, where he talked about his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the US state of Alaska to discuss a possible settlement of the Ukraine conflict. “Russia is a warring nation. That’s what they do – they fight a lot of wars,” he said. “A friend of mine said, Russia is tough because they just keep on fighting,” Trump added. “They beat Hitler – so did we. And they beat Napoleon. You know, they’ve been doing this for a long time.”

Trump was referring to two of Russia’s military triumphs – the defeat of Napoleon’s Grand Army two centuries ago and the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two. The two European dictators – Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler – sent their armies into Russia in 1812 and 1941, respectively, only to suffer crushing defeats.

Read more …

Look at the state their countries and economies are in and you understand.

“The issue, however, is that “Zelensky does not want to sign because he is afraid of being held responsible for losing the war.”

Western Europe Wants Ukraine War To Continue, Even Without The Americans (RMX)

A Polish political scientist and journalist, Prof. Adam Wielomski, has taken to social media to claim Western European leaders do not seek a ceasefire in Ukraine at all, while the U.S. and Russia have their terms set and ready to go. According to Wielomski, Trump and Putin have already made an agreement and will simply use their Aug. 15 meeting in Alaska to announce it “with great pomp and circumstance.” Meanwhile, talk of Zelensky being present at the meeting is in no way related to Zelensky having any say on the negotiated terms, he continues, but to show that Zelensky is on board and to have him sign the pre-arranged agreement. The issue, however, is that “Zelensky does not want to sign because he is afraid of being held responsible for losing the war.”

And Western Europe stands behind him “because it wants the war to continue despite the withdrawal of the Americans, as this will give it fuel and an excuse to eliminate American control over it in the form of NATO and give it a reason to create either a European Defense Union or to federalize the EU with a common foreign and defense policy.” Wielomski then asks the “intelligentsia” who will benefit the most, Kyiv or Moscow, from the Americans withdrawing, leaving Zelensky only with the U.K. and the EU to support it. News portal Do Rzeczy reported on a document signed over the weekend by European leaders, committing to continued support of Ukraine and financing its ongoing needs. President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, Chancellor Merz, Prime Minister Tusk, Prime Minister Starmer, President von der Leyen, and President Stubb all signed the statement regarding “peace for Ukraine in connection with the planned meeting between President Trump and President Putin.”

Included in the document was their concern that serious negotiations can only take place under conditions of a ceasefire or a reduction in military operations and that Ukraine’s participation in any talks was critical to any peace being achieved. Both the White House and the Kremlin accepted President Zelensky’s request to join the talks, although no formal invitation was issued. Meanwhile, a senior member of Putin’s inner circle, Investment Envoy Kirill Dmitriev, has said that many countries are making “titanic efforts” to hinder an agreement between Russia and Trump. Dmitriev did not name specific countries but indicated that critics of the upcoming talks may attempt to sabotage the summit through diplomatic maneuvers and disinformation via the media.

Read more …

“The relations between Kiev and the bureaucracy in Brussels have “begun to resemble necrophilia, and it is distinguished by the fierce reciprocity on both sides..”

‘Another Nazi Leaflet’ – Moscow Slams Western Europe’s Ukraine Statement (RT)

A statement issued by Ukraine’s Western European backers on the upcoming talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump is just “another Nazi leaflet,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. On Sunday, the leaders of France, Germany, the UK, Poland, Italy and Finland, as well as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, issued a joint statement “on peace for Ukraine” dedicated to the upcoming Alaska summit between Putin and Trump scheduled for August 15. They welcomed the US president’s efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, but claimed that “only an approach” that includes “pressure on the Russian Federation” can be successful.

Zakharova commented on the statement later in the day, calling it “another Nazi leaflet claiming that success in achieving peace in Ukraine can allegedly only be achieved by putting pressure on Russia and supporting Kiev.” The cessation of hostilities requested by Ukraine’s backers in the EU and UK does not include stopping the supply of weapons to “Kiev terrorists,” she pointed out. The relations between Kiev and the bureaucracy in Brussels have “begun to resemble necrophilia, and it is distinguished by the fierce reciprocity on both sides,” the spokeswoman added.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stressed previously that “Western Europe has once again found itself under a Nazi flag by committing to a completely misguided, disastrous venture of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia” by backing Ukraine. Moscow has repeatedly said it is interested in a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict, but insists that it must address its root causes in order to bring a permanent and stable peace. According to Russian officials, any deal must also reflect the realities on the ground, including the status of Crimea, which reunified with Russia in 2014, as well as the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk and Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, which joined Russia after referendums in 2022.

Read more …

“The fact that Trump is even meeting with Putin is being felt as a huge slap in the face in Kiev.”

Trump Tempers Expectations Ahead Of Alaska “Feel-Out Meeting” With Putin (ZH)

During President Donald Trump’s wide-raning news conference held at the White House on Monday, he was asked about the much anticipated Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which is of course stirring much controversy given European fears that he’ll do a deal which sidelines Ukraine’s interests. “This is a war that should never have happened,” Trump began in this section of the presser. “This is a war that wouldn’t have happened if I were president, it would never have happened.” These statements are nothing new, but what followed is a first. Trump then interestingly for the first time used language about the Friday planned summit which appears aimed at greatly tempering expectations. This is after several rounds of US-backed Russia-Ukraine peace talks in Istanbul failed to produce any breakthroughs.

Trump described the talks with Putin as merely a “feel-out meeting” and said that Putin “wants to get involved”. He then voiced his belief that Putin wants to get the war “over with”. “I’ve said that a few times and I’ve been disappointed because I’d have a great call with him and then missiles would be lobbed into Kyiv or some other place,” Trump stated. He futher pledged that he’ll tell Putin “you’ve got to end this war, you’ve got to end it”. And he sought to once again reassure European leaders -“who I get along with very well” – saying they will be the first phone call after the talks are over. As for whether a final deal could be achieved in Alaska, Trump emphasized that “it’s not up to me”. Again choosing language which seeks to manage expectations, Trump casually said: “I got a call to say they’d like to meet, and I’m going to see what they want to meet about.”

“I’d like to see a ceasefire, I’d like to see the best deal that could be made for both parties, it takes two to tango,” he added, which could be interpreted as a jab toward Ukraine. Trump at one point in his comments mistakenly said: “We’re going to Russia. That’s going to be a big deal.” He perhaps has a future trip to Russia in mind, as a return gesture for Putin coming to American soil to talk. But then near the end of the remarks he offered a corrective, saying “I thought it was very respectful that the president of Russia is coming to our country, as opposed to us going to his country, or even a third, third party place.” Such warm words said of Putin will likely make Zelensky nervous, hearkening back to the opening months of Trump taking office, when Trump’s relations with Zelensky hit a low-point, and criticisms aimed at Kiev came weekly.

Some analysts have already pointed out that these Monday statements from Trump don’t bode well for Ukraine and a favorable settlement on its terms. Meanwhile, Zelensky in fresh statements has highlighted Russia has only stepped-up aerial attacks on Ukraine of late. He talled that in just the past week, Russia sent more than 1,000 air bombs, nearly 1,400 drones and several missile strikes on Ukraine. But Ukraine has also been hitting Russian oil refineries on a weekly basis at this point, as both sides continue to target energy infrastructure. Ukraine’s position has been to accuse Russia of simply trying to buy time, and that it’s not actually interested in negotiating peace. The fact that Trump is even meeting with Putin is being felt as a huge slap in the face in Kiev.

Read more …

In Rutte’s dreams, Trump goes to Alaska to “test” Putin, Putin fails the test, and Trump will then support a full-blown NATO war against Rusia.

NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, Discusses Upcoming Trump-Putin Summit (CTH)

The ever-dramatic Margaret Brennan is in full pearl-clutching mode as she questions NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, about the upcoming meeting between horrible President Trump and even more horrible President Putin. It is simply unfathomable to allow a U.S. President to create a strategic reset with a Russian President. As Brennan acts out the role, she highlights how it is unimaginable, terrible, and just a no good bad thing. Horrid. NATO Secretary Rutte is quite happy with the new funds flowing into the NATO alliance as organized by President Trump. Rutte sits atop a new cache of taxpayer funded treasure for the alliance to organize; from his perspective Trump is gold, and Brennan gnashes her teeth throughout. Funnily, Brennan attempts to spin a Trump-Putin agreement for a ceasefire with Trump triggering World War III by getting the beginning of a peace deal over the finish line. If Trump creates peace, the world will explode or something. Rutte missed the opportunity to ask Mrs Brennan if she can hear herself. lol

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning. Well, Mr. Secretary General, big picture here; is Russia’s Vladimir Putin still a direct threat to the Western alliance, or is he showing some signs of dropping his aggression?

SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE: He is still the main threat to the Western alliance, there’s no doubt. And I think it is very good that President Trump will test him, and we’ll see how far he can get on Friday, starting this process. He basically broke the deadlock, President Trump, in February, starting the dialogue with Putin. I think that was crucial. We had a great NATO Summit under his leadership, committing to 5% defense spending, so that there is a clear signal to our main threat, which is Russia, that we are serious. And then he opened the floodgates, three weeks ago, of American lethal weapons to be delivered into Ukraine, coordinated by NATO and, of course, the secondary sanctions. He started them with putting them on India, which is one of the biggest buyers of Russian oil and gas.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that is certainly the groundwork being laid. The concern is, of course, as you know, among some critics, that in this conference room in Alaska, we’re going to see a 1938 moment. Where, in an attempt to immediately halt a war, the groundwork is laid for an even bigger conflict because of concessions that are made. Are you comfortable with Ukraine being excluded from these negotiations on Friday?

SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE: What will happen on Friday is testing Putin by President Trump. And I commend him for the fact that he organized this meeting. I think it is important. And, obviously, when it comes to peace talks, the cease-fire and what happens after that on territories, on security guarantees for Ukraine, Ukraine will have to be, and will be, involved. But on Friday, it is important to see how serious Putin is. And the only one who can do that is President Trump. So, it’s really crucial that a meeting takes place. It will not be the final say on this. There will not be the final deal on this. Of course, Ukraine will have to be involved in Europe, but it is important to start the next phase of this process, putting pressure on the Russians exactly as President Trump has been doing over the last six months.

Read more …

It takes a Turkish newspaper to report on this. You try find a western report on it. And mind you, this is just one stream of “corrupt money”. $50 million? We’re talking billions.

Zelensky Cronies Transfer $50Mln ‘Corruption Money’ to UAE Every Month, (Sp.)

Turkish newspaper Aydinlik published on Monday the bank accounts of companies based in the UAE involved in the corruption scheme of Volodymyr Zelensky’s cronies, about $50 million are transferred to the Middle Eastern country every month. Since last year, Ukraine has been rocked by allegations of corruption, which can “strike the Kiev government in the very heart,” the newspaper reported, adding that the main problem for Zelensky is that his inner circle is also involved in the corruption case. Zelensky’s closest circle transfers about $50 million a month to the accounts of two companies linked to Andrei Gmyrin, the alleged disposer of funds obtained through corruption, the newspaper reported.

Both companies are based in the United Arab Emirates — GFM Investment Group LLC (UAE No. 967369, No. 11707266, Emirates NBD bank account number: AE 210260001015792940701) and Gmyrin Family Holding Limited (UAE No. ICC20210636, No. 11664590), the newspaper reported. Gmyrin, who is a former consultant to the State Property Fund of Ukraine (SPFU), is under international investigation in connection with his complex network of companies and a portfolio of luxury goods in France, the UAE and Europe, the newspaper reported.

Read more …

The defense line is literally broken.

Kiev’s Forces Face Catastrophe In Donbass – Ukrainian Ex-Commander (RT)

The situation in southwestern Donbass is rapidly deteriorating for the Ukrainian troops that are now facing two major encirclements, former chief of staff of the Azov Brigade, Lieutenant Colonel Bogdan Krotevich, has claimed. The frontline between Pokrovsk (Krasnoarmeysk), the largest city under Ukrainian control in the southwest of Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic, and Konstantinovka, a major stronghold some 45km to the northeast of the city, has effectively ceased to exist, Krotevich claimed. “I honestly don’t know what exactly you are being told, but I can tell you: the Pokrovsk-Konstantinovka line is, without exaggeration, a complete f**k up. And this f**k up has been growing for a long time, getting messier every day,” he wrote in an open letter to Vladimir Zelensky which he posted on X late on Monday.

The city of Pokrovsk has been de-facto surrounded by Russian troops, while Konstantinovka is facing semi-encirclement, he claimed. The former Azov commander shared a map purporting to show the situation in the area, which corroborates media reports of a major Russian breakthrough to the north of Pokrovsk that emerged earlier in the day. “The systemic problem began with the thinning out of reserves, widespread fragmentation of units along the entire front line, reports about a ‘taken village’ touted as a victory despite failures in entire operational directions,” Krotevich wrote, accusing “parts” of the military leadership of a “complete lack of a strategic and even operational vision of the theater of operations.”

A similar alarmist message was produced by Taras Chmut, the head of the pro-military charity Come Back Alive. The crisis in Donbass has been brewing for about a year and a half, he wrote on X earlier in the day, predicting the Ukrainian military was about to begin losing land “by tens, hundreds of square kilometers” daily. “First, we failed at the platoon level. Then the company. Then it’s the turn of the battalion level. When it comes to brigades, the enemy will put into action its armored groups, which have been actively accumulating for a year, and will go to the rear, to the operational space,” he claimed.

Read more …

“Pritzker had just declared gerrymandering a threat to democracy. He followed up by making a joke of his own unparalleled gerrymandering. The New York audience cheered both statements…”

Gerrymandering Makes Hypocrisy a Political Punch Line (Turley)

Former diplomat and Democratic senator Adlai Stevenson once remarked that “a hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” If so, this week in politics was nothing but the worst form of stump speeches. In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) declared that the move by Texas Republicans to redistrict mid-decade was a “legal insurrection of our U.S. Capitol.” In Texas, Democratic State Rep. Jolanda Jones (D) must have felt “insurrection” did not quite capture the infamy. Instead, she insisted, “I will liken this to the Holocaust.” Others repeated the Democratic mantra that it was the death of democracy. That includes former President Barack Obama, who had said nothing when Democrats made his own state the most gerrymandered in the union.

In Illinois, surrounded by Texas legislators who had fled their state to prevent a legislative quorum, Gov. JB Pritzker (D) bellowed that gerrymandering was an attempt to “steal” congressional seats and to “disenfranchise people.” It did not matter that the stump Pritzker and Texas Democrats were standing on in Chicago is located the most gerrymandered state in the country. The redistricting law, signed by Pritzker left Republicans with just three of the state’s 17 congressional seats, even though they won nearly half the votes in the last election. What is missing in any of this is any sense of shame. The most telling moment came when Pritzker went on the Stephen Colbert’s show on CBS — a show that offered him a reliably supportive audience and a long track record of 86 percent of jokes slamming conservatives or Republicans.

Pritzker received roaring cheers when he said that he was protecting democracy from Texas gerrymandering. Colbert then showed him the map of Illinois, which features ridiculously shaped, snaking districts that stretch across the state — all drawn to maximize Democratic performance in elections. Pritzker just shrugged and joked how they had kindergarteners design it. Colbert and the audience laughed uproariously. So let’s recap. Pritzker had just declared gerrymandering a threat to democracy. He followed up by making a joke of his own unparalleled gerrymandering. The New York audience cheered both statements. Some of the outrage by Democrats seemed part of a comedy routine. In Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey pledged to retaliate by gerrymandering her heavily gerrymandered state. The problem?

It is already so badly gerrymandered that there are no Republican House members in the state — there haven’t been any since the 1990s. We have reached the point in our age of rage where one’s hypocrisy can be openly acknowledged but then dismissed with a chuckle. It is not cheap to lock Republicans out completely in heavily Democratic states. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) quickly pledged to order a new round of gerrymandering in a state where Republicans constituted roughly 40 percent of the congressional vote in 2024 but received only about 17 percent of the House seats. To reduce the Republicans to near zero would require passage of a ballot proposition, costing more than $200 million, even as California faces a budget crisis and a deficit greater than $20 billion. And that may prove to be just a fraction of the true cost.

Read more …

“..federal agents and intelligence officers who weaponized their government powers for political purposes could face criminal charges under civil rights laws..”

Top DOJ Lawyer Warns Feds Could Face Criminal Charges For Weaponization (JTN)

A top Justice Department lawyer is warning that federal agents and intelligence officers who weaponized their government powers for political purposes could face criminal charges under civil rights laws created to fight injustices during the Jim Crow era more than a half-century ago. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon cautioned in an interview with Just the News that she could not discuss any specific investigations or potential suspect. But she said recent reports that one or more grand juries were probing the weaponization of government powers against President Trump and his associates or followers might have given good reason for current and former FBI and CIA officials to hire lawyers.

“This, again, goes back to those Reconstruction Era statutes that sought to remedy the vestiges of racism, and we had some terrible incidents in our country’s history of law enforcement officials conspiring to deprive African Americans of their civil rights,“ she said in a wide-ranging interview with the “Just the News, No Noise” television show. “And that is where some of these laws stem from.” “But they’re broader than that, and so it can be a crime for government officials, either together or in conspiring with non-government officials, to violate people’s civil rights,” she explained. “That’s also a civil violation. I’ve actually sued over that in California for pro-life activists. And you know, we have long-standing cases involving these issues, and so I think, you know, government officials may think, because nobody ever bothers to enforce these statutes, that they’re immune, and they can do whatever they want.”

“Not so, and I think that’s why you’re seeing some people tongue-in-cheek saying that in DC, every lawyer is being retained …. as these investigations have begun to hit the newswires,” she added. Dhillon’s comments come as FBI Director Kash Patel has opened at least one criminal conspiracy case looking at whether DOJ, FBI, and intelligence community officers were engaged in a long-running conspiracy to violate the rights of Donald Trump and his followers from the Russiagate scandal to the raid on Mar-a-Lago. In addition, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have referred current and former officials to the Justice Department for possible prosecution for alleged abuses.

Last week, the Justice Department issued subpoenas to New York Attorney General Leticia James seeking any evidence of whether she sought to violate the civil rights of President Trump when she filed a civil lawsuit against his company for alleged fraud. Section 241 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code makes it “unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.” Such conspiracy statutes are derived from the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964, which were enacted to protect black citizens from police abuses in the South and from prohibitions in public places. Those laws were complemented by a series of voting rights laws as well.

The laws were seldom successfully used against police officers during the 1960’s, but have been more commonly used against police misconduct over the last three decades, starting most notably with the infamous 1993 Rodney King case where four LAPD officers involved were captured on videotape beating King. The four were initially acquitted on state charges in May of that year, which led to five days of rioting. Fifty-three people (including 28 African-Americans, 19 Hispanics, 14 whites, and 2 Asians) were killed: the greatest death toll in any American civil disturbance since the 1863 Draft Riots in New York City. Looting and fires had inflicted more than one billion dollars in property damage. The four officers were retried under federal civil rights laws in February 1993, with two of them being acquitted, and the remaining two found guilty and sentenced to two and a half years in prison. In a civil lawsuit, King won a $3.8 million verdict from the City of Los Angeles.

More recently, former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of violating George Floyd’s civil rights in 2020 by kneeling on his neck and suffocating Floyd. The Justice Department said in a press release that Chauvin pleaded guilty to willfully depriving Mr. Floyd of his constitutional right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer, resulting in Mr. Floyd’s bodily injury and death. In the plea documents, Chauvin agreed that the sentencing for this crime should be based on the sentence for second-degree murder because he acted willfully and in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences on Floyd’s life. He was sentenced to a term in prison of more than 20 years.

Elsewhere, a law enforcement officer was tried and convicted on similar charges related to violating the civil rights of Breonna Taylor in Kentucky during the execution of a search warrant in March 2020 that, according to the Justice Department, led to the death of Taylor in her home. Although his shots did not strike Taylor, the use of deadly force was unjustified. Taylor was killed during the botched raid when police rammed the door open and Taylor’s boyfriend, believing that intruders were breaking in, fired his handgun one time at officers, two of whom fired back, hitting and killing Taylor. A federal judge dismissed the felony charges against the other police officers in August of last year, although the other officers are still facing ongoing criminal litigation, according to a local TV station.

Read more …

Silly me, I figured Mamdani was far too far out in left field to get any votes. Now everyone’s saying woke’s wet dream is a shoe-in for mayor. And New York is fully dependent on Trump to come save it.

Former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly Warns About Mamdani as NYC Mayor (CTH)

Former New York City Police Commissioner, Ray Kelly, is warning about what will happen if Zohran Mamdani wins the mayor race in New York City. However, at this point the Mamdani victory is almost assured. Mamdani is supported by both the professional political left and the professional political right. Essentially supported by establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans. Also, supported openly by the DNC and supported passively by the fundraising arm of the RNC. Mamdani represents the opportunity for both parties to fundraise billions of dollars in support and opposition. This is the UniParty at work. Zohran Mamdani is essentially a shoo-in for Mayor. He hits a very unique niche spot, fulfilling the role needed for the left and the right.

The left will promote the unaffordability of things and target the Gen-z audience for branding. The DNC will do their social/econ experiments again and fundraise. On the other side of the UniParty, the “conservatives” within the traditional GOPe will have their new foil. Conservatives will have the opportunity for thousands of hours of punditry, lots of column inches and, of course, fundraising. An argument can be made that Andrew Cuomo, financed by those who construct political distractions, entered the NYC race to ensure a Mamdani victory. Republicans, Democrats, communists, leftists, controlled right media, Palestinian supporters and Israel-First strategists all prefer both a beacon and a foil to keep the coliseum crowd occupied.

Yeah, politics in the post-Obama era is about seeing the other hand in slow motion now, feeling that intuitive sense of history repeating, and noticing the same tripwires are being triggered. Wash, rinse, repeat. ‘NEW YORK – Ex-NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly on Sunday warned it would be a “tragedy of major proportions” if city voters elect socialist mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, who is “totally unqualified” for the office. Kelly — the longest-serving police commissioner in Big Apple history with stints under Democratic Mayors Mike Bloomberg and David Dinkins — said he is especially worried Mamdani will gut the Police Department while trying to usher in “a whole list of wacky things.”

“It’s a tragedy of major proportions if Mamdani is elected mayor of the greatest city in the world,” Kelly said on WABC 770 AM’s the “Cats Roundtable” program. (more)” The guy is straight from central casting for the UniParty. A proud socialist, Muslim supporter of Hamas, progressive wealth spreader who hears and understands the voices of the Starbucks crowd. A NYC version of Barry Soetero. Professional Democrats and Republicans will benefit financially.

Read more …

“The entire point of Washington’s orchestrated conflict in Ukraine was to destabilize Russia. Has Washington abandoned this policy goal?”

“How does the military/security complex see the loss of its Russian enemy?”

Putin-Trump Meeting: The Triumph of Delusion Over Reality (Paul Craig Roberts)

A couple of days ago Trump said it wasn’t worthwhile meeting with Putin, but suddenly ordered his aides to arrange a meeting with Putin in a week. The explanations we have been given for this is that Putin said Trump’s negotiator Witcoff had made an acceptable proposal. Putin’s negotiator Kirill Dmitriev declared “a historic meeting in which dialogue will prevail.” One dreamer proclaimed that Putin and Trump “may reconfigure the world order.” These premature declarations of agreement and success have led to further romantic theorizing. One Russian commentator declared that Alaska was chosen for the historic meeting because it “so clearly embodies the spirit of neighborliness and mutually beneficial cooperation lost during the Cold War.” The Russian Atlanticist-Integrationists whose hearts and interests are in the West are hopeful that their declarations of bliss, even if involves Russian surrender, will prevail over Russian nationalism.

For example, Putin’s negotiator is Kirill Dmitriev, nominally a Russian, but in fact a graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Business School–entrances into the American Establishment–who began his career at Goldman Sachs, an establishment member. He is a Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum. His long list of honors and directorships of Russian companies is provided by the WEF. Currently he is chief of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and Putin’s Special Envoy on International Economic and Investment Cooperation. Could Putin have chosen a more conflicted person to negotiate with Washington? Among these and other highly hopeful statements, what is the reality of the situation? Does it conform to the expressed expectations? No. As far as I can tell, Trump is headed into a “historic meeting” with his Russian counterpart and still has no idea what Putin’s position is.

Trump most recently spoke of a peace deal based on a “swapping of territories,” which Zelensky’s European supporters say must be a “reciprocal” swap of territory. Zelensky’s position is that all territory must be returned to Ukraine. Putin’s position is that all territory now incorporated into the Russian Federation must be accepted as Russian by Ukraine and the West. Otherwise, Russia has to repudiate its military victories in a war that was provoked by Washington. But the main problem with Trump’s approach is that he is thinking of the meeting in a very limited context of ending the military conflict with a land swap, whereas Putin wants a mutual security agreement with Washington and NATO that gets NATO off of Russia’s borders. The war that Putin wants to end is the West’s hostility toward Moscow. The war in Ukraine Russia can take care off.

Putin’s objective is a highly desirable goal, because the worsening provocations of Moscow will eventually result in nuclear war. But how realistic is Putin’s goal? I would say it is not realistic. First, the Wolfowitz Doctrine is in the way. The Wolfowitz doctrine declares the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of any power that can serve as a constraint on American unilateralism. The neoconservatives who originated this doctrine are still very influential in US policy-making circles. No US president or Secretary of State has repudiated this doctrine. Trump himself recently declared the policy when he said “I rule America and the world.” That is a hegemonic statement.

Indeed, the current military conflict in Ukraine is entirely the product of Washington’s hegemonic foreign policy. Washington orchestrated the “Maidan Revolution” in order to overthrow a Russian-friendly democratic government and to install a Russophobic puppet. The puppet government then attacked the people in the Russian territories of Ukraine until they forced a Russian intervention after the West used the Minsk Agreement to deceive Putin and after the West refused the Kremlin’s request for a mutual security agreement during December 2021-February 2022. At this point Putin was forced to intervene in order to prevent the slaughter of the Russians in the independent Donbas republics by a large Ukrainian army trained and equipped by Washington.

If Putin had had the foresight to accept the Donbas republics’ request in 2014 to be reunited with Russia like Crimea, the war would have been avoided. But Putin, badly advised, confused a defense of Russian people with a provocation to the West. In 2014 the Atlanticists-Integrationists, whose interests are in the West, not in Russia, still intended for the Kremlin to crawl on its belly back into Western acceptance by being a good subject of Washington’s hegemonic rule.. The entire point of Washington’s orchestrated conflict in Ukraine was to destabilize Russia. Has Washington abandoned this policy goal?

Second, there is the interest of the US military/security complex. The power and profit of the military/security complex depends on having enemies. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the creation of the “Muslim Threat” used to sustain the military/security’s profits and powers with Washington’s 21st century wars that destroyed, so far, five Muslim countries, while supporting with money, weapons, and diplomatic cover Israel’s genocide of Palestine, and Washington is now being aligned with Israel to destroy Iran.

A few days ago President Trump bragged that he had negotiated a deal with the EU to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of US weapons to send to Ukraine. What happens to this deal if peace comes to Ukraine? How does the military/security complex see the loss of its Russian enemy? Has Trump promised them an Iranian war and/or a war with China as replacements? Third, if Trump favors peace with Russia, why did he just reinstall in Europe the US intermediate-range nuclear missiles that President Reagan had removed, and in addition deploy two submarines with nuclear missiles closer to Russia?

Read more …

“The second-order and third-order damages of RussiaGate are incalculable. A murder of American democracy was committed.” — Mike Benz on “X”

Under Color of Law (James Howard Kunstler)

Surely you’ve noticed the ominous cone of silence around the DOJ and the FBI as rumors of “accountability” mount against well-known figures who used government to make war against its own citizens. That is exactly what happened, by the way, in case you’re baffled by the news. The agencies aren’t leaking this time, especially not to the mendacious scribes that infest The New York Times and The WashPo, who function as vanguard to the corps of traitors in the rogue fourth branch of government called the Blob. So, the silence begs you to ask: Are they doing anything in there?

Yes, they are making cases. And they are not yapping idly about it in the news, legacy or alt. They are preparing evidence for grand juries that will decide if probable cause exists to indict those well-known figures — several of whom have become cable news performers, foolishly, if obliquely, advertising their own culpability for years now. You’ll just have to wait, though perhaps not for long. It is August, after all, the horse latitudes of the year when things go still.

You are lectured incessantly and sanctimoniously by these same suspects about the rule of law (in “our democracy”). Many of these characters are maestros in the dark arts of lawfare, which, paradoxically, is the practice of using law to pervert and dishonor the rule of law. Lately, you are introduced to a similar sounding phrase, under color of law, with a related meaning. Understand it and you will see what has been behind virtually all the mischief in our public affairs this past, vicious decade. Under color of law has deep roots in Anglo-American jurisprudence because law, by its nature, lends itself to abuse and nefarious misuse. The law’s “nature” is that it is a set of rules to decide matters of consequence, both personal and public, where much is at stake: ownership of property, liberty, life itself. At times, actions are taken in the name of the law to unjustly deprive persons of life, liberty, and property, usually for the benefit of other persons.

The phrase, life, liberty, and property, derives from John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government (1689), which argued that these are natural rights, God-given, and that it is government’s duty to protect these rights, government being the practical application of law. The phrase life, liberty, and property deeply influenced America’s founders. Thomas Jefferson changed it up a bit in the Declaration of Independence as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” with a eudaimonian twist to inspire America to flourish on its own, off England’s leash. It was also Jefferson’s way of detaching the Declaration from the issue of slavery, where “property” could refer to human beings.

But the Lockean original, life, liberty and property, reappears in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. It is in the Fifth Amendment, protecting persons from the arbitrary deprivation of these rights without due process by the federal government, and in the Fourteenth Amendment applying the same principle of law to state governments. Where lawfare comes in is under due process. Lawfare’s aim is to pervert due process, to use officers of the courts to act unfairly and unjustly in the name of the law, and thus, under color of law.

Read more …

“As an American with Armenian heritage, I am particularly optimistic about the opportunities this deal will create for economic partnerships. And I am thankful to have a president who is paying attention to this region..”

Note: this is Russia’s backyard.

Trump: The President for Peace (Sierra Knoch)

On Aug. 8, President Donald Trump hosted the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan for the signing of an historic peace deal between the two countries and the U.S. The deal is aimed at normalizing relations between the two nations which have been at odds for decades over a border dispute. This is another diplomatic win from the Trump administration that shows that many of these long-standing global conflicts that were ignored or even fueled by the Biden administration and deemed “unsolvable” are in fact solvable. Of course, nothing can get resolved overnight, and there is still work to be done in many of these instances, but the initial steps have been taken which are often the most important as they stop fighting and unnecessary killing.

Many may be wondering why the Trump administration bothers to focus on such relatively small conflicts, such as the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute, or the Democratic Republic of Congo-Rwanda dispute or the Thailand/Cambodia dispute when we have larger conflicts still ongoing in Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Gaza. But the Trump administration is showing wisdom that the so-called “adults in the room” in the Biden administration lacked. These small conflicts offer opportunities for larger states such as Russia that benefit from conflict that keeps smaller states weak and dependent. Ending small conflicts not only saves lives, it eliminates opportunities for Russia, China, or other global bad actors to gain a foothold in these places and cause more trouble.

As an American with Armenian heritage, I am particularly optimistic about the opportunities this deal will create for economic partnerships. And I am thankful to have a president who is paying attention to this region and bringing both Azerbaijnis and Armenians closer to peace. The details of the deal include two separate agreements that Azerbaijan and Armenia signed with the United States. The agreements include points on energy, technology, economic cooperation, border security, infrastructure and trade. Additionally, the two countries signed a historic declaration together brokered by the U.S. and centered on ending conflict. The deal creates a shared transit corridor dubbed the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” which will no doubt bring economic success for the U.S. and the South Caucasus region. One needs only to look to the Armenian diaspora in America to see the work ethic, ingenuity, and craftsmanship that Armenian culture can contribute when given the opportunity.

According to several articles the corridor is going to run through a mountainous region between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In the agreement Armenia has agreed to award the U.S. exclusive special development rights on the Zangezur Corridor land for 99 years. The U.S. would sublease the land to a consortium that will develop rail, oil, gas and fiber optic lines and possibly electricity transmission along the 27-mile corridor. The joint declaration is the first-ever declaration signed between the two countries, which were both previously states of the former Soviet Union and regained their freedom when the USSR was disbanded in 1991. There are still issues to be worked out between the two nations, such as alleged human rights abuses by Azerbaijan toward ethnic Armenians, but in order to address any of these concerns the two nations must first stop the fighting and resume relations.

Although this agreement may not address every issue right now, I believe it is better to take the first step than to stall progress completely. This opportunity may not be around forever. With Vladimir Putin’s ongoing battlefield adventures in Ukraine pulling his focus and economic resources completely to that conflict, Russian influence is finally waning in Azerbaijan, which created an opening for the U.S. to facilitate this deal. The significance of these agreements extends beyond mere signatures; they represent a tangible investment in the future stability and prosperity of the region.

According to statements from the leaders of both Azerbaijan and Armenia this deal wouldn’t have been possible without Trump. For those who are concerned about tariffs or Trump’s global trade policy potentially driving away partners, it is clear that Trump’s reputation as the peacemaker is far more valuable to small states around the world than unbalanced trade. The relationships that are formed when Trump is able to achieve deals like this in Asia, Africa, and now the South Caucasus region are real and lasting because they show the benefit of American strength and leadership.

Additionally, these efforts send a clear message to adversarial powers that the era of unchecked influence in strategically sensitive zones may be coming to an end. By inserting American expertise and oversight, and by empowering local stakeholders, the deal lays a foundation for sustainable development and mutual benefit. Such diplomatic achievements demonstrate that when the United States leads with resolve and creativity, even seemingly intractable disputes can give way to hope and renewed partnership. While we may never see the cliché “World Peace” that some dream of, the Trump administration is showing that there is a real benefit to trying anyway. Balancing America First policies and strength with fast-paced action that takes advantage of opportunities for diplomacy when they arise is a winning approach for America in the Golden Age.

Read more …

“Europe is heading inexorably towards centralism. The question remains: Will the monetary coup succeed, or will the eurozone collapse first?”

The Return Of Private Money: American Dream Meets European Nightmare (Kolbe)

EU Europe and the USA are drifting further apart. In the shadow of the Ukraine war and Brussels censorship policies, a political hiatus is opening up even at the monetary policy level. Monetary policy is often treated as a stepchild in the media. Except during sovereign debt crises, when central banks step in as rescuers, politics and media mostly focus only on interest rate decisions. These are stylized as media highlights to help politics anchor inflation expectations and influence market activity. In short: this remains a superficial view that does not do justice to the complexity of monetary policy. It is regrettable—and perhaps no coincidence—that monetary policy is dealt with so hastily.

Money is the central good in economics. Its value development, dilution, and manipulation by political actors is a hot potato that remains largely untempered. Yet, since US banks withdrew from the London LIBOR contract and the national reference rate (SOFR) was introduced, monetary policy has evolved into a geopolitical key issue deserving serious discussion. Behind the artificially generated monetary background noise about interest rates and inflation control, a strategic drift is taking place that will redefine the economic future. EU Europe and the USA are taking separate monetary policy paths. Media censorship, climate socialism, and now the debate over the digital euro—one might say, Brussels and the ECB bankers spare no effort to turn the EU into a closed fortress of power.

With the digital euro, they would take a major step towards consolidating this power. It is programmable, fully transparent money on a centralized blockchain that would transform money into a morally and politically charged commodity. Climate targets, individual CO2 consumption, meat consumption, and travel activities—the coupling of individual behavior to the emissions-based control complex seems tangible. And sanctioning citizens and companies in cases of dissident behavior could become routine bureaucratic work.Following the line of reasoning of ECB President Christine Lagarde, it is clear what awaits Europeans: algorithmic surveillance of economic activity and moralistic control of individual behavior.

Is Money a Public Good? For Lagarde, money is a public good. Naturally, under the control of the state or state-like surrogates such as the ECB. The digital euro project is to start small, with limited wallets managed by the ECB, marketed ironically by the muted commercial banks that would become obsolete in case of full conversion—a strange understanding of banking revealed here. A digital euro is supposed to offer new choices, complement cash, and promote inclusion, according to Lagarde. But here again, one of those political slogans is revealed: “Inclusion” remains a hollow phrase without substantive content. In reality, the ECB aims to secure control over central capital flows and, in the next eurozone debt crisis, to prevent capital flight to avoid collapse and drying up of financial flows.

Everything else is whitewashing written for the disinterested reader of the business section. Europe is heading inexorably towards centralism. The question remains: Will the monetary coup succeed, or will the eurozone collapse first? The legal framework is supposed to be in place by early 2026 before rollout begins. Realistically, a start is expected earliest in 2028, perhaps only in 2029. There is hope that such large projects usually fail due to bureaucratic inertia. So let’s stay optimistic. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, an astonishing turnaround is taking place. The monetary policy direction of President Trump’s administration aims at the partial reactivation of the private money system. The legal framework currently being set up (GENIUS Act) gives commercial banks the possibility to issue their own stablecoins, i.e., digital dollars, thereby expanding the booming market currently dominated by Tether. Worldwide, over 500 million people already use this new form of money—a movement that seems unstoppable, regardless of how Europeans view it.

Every dollar stablecoin is backed by an equivalent amount of short-term US Treasury bonds as well as gold or Bitcoin, giving the US Treasury a convincing argument to actively participate in the spread of this technology—American government debt is literally being sold to the private sector.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

His voice has improved crazy much

10000 Vaccines at once

shiong


https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1954619712047919306

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 102025
 


John Waterhouse Diogenes 1882

 

Cold Hard Land, Cold Hard Bargain: Putin&Trump Head Off To Alaska (Poletaev)
Zelensky Rejects Trump-Putin Meeting to Formulate Ceasefire Terms (CTH)
Zelensky Trashes Trump’s Peace Terms (RT)
Zelensky Risks Angering Trump – NYT (RT)
Witkoff May Have Misunderstood Putin’s Demands – Bild (Pravda.ua)
Alaska Perfect Stage for Historic Summit: Putin Envoy Dmitriev (Sp.)
Risk of Sabotage of Putin-Trump Summit Is Real – Dmitriev (RT)
In Alaska Trump & Putin Could Lay Groundwork For End Of Ukraine Conflict (Sp.)
Trump Sending Vance To Discuss Ukraine With Europeans (RT)
European Backers Make Counter-Offer Ahead Of Alaska Talks – WSJ (RT)
NATO Targets Kaliningrad (Pacini)
Beijing Brushes Off Trump’s Tariff Threat (RT)
Tulsi Gabbard Is All Alone (CTH)
Bill Maher: Democrats Must Choose Sanity Over Wokeness (Margolis)
The Experts Bet Against Trump and Lost (Margolis)
Whistleblower Ties Clinton Campaign to Fake Russia Hack (Paul Sperry)
California Hospital Covered Up Surge In Stillbirths After Covid Shots (CHD)

 

 

https://twitter.com/officer_Lew/status/1953921928336400829

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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“..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.

Read more …

“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”.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

‘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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“..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.”

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“..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!

Read more …

“..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.

Read more …

“..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.

Read more …

“..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.”

Read more …

“..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.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Aphasia

IVM

Every dog needs this.

Bellamy

Click for the whole photo- worth it.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 072025
 


Theo van Doesburg Counter-Construction 1923

 

Trump, Putin To Meet As Soon As Next Week In Potential Breakthrough (ZH)
Trump Tells Team To Arrange Putin Meeting ‘Fast’ – CNN (RT)
Marco Rubio Discusses Potential for Trump and Putin Meeting (CTH)
Ghislaine Maxwell Reportedly Cleared Trump’s Name In DOJ Interview (HUSA)
Zelensky Rejects Any Limited Ceasefire With Russia (RT)
Zelensky Rating Slumps – Poll (RT)
Ukraine ‘Doesn’t Belong Among Civilized Nations’ – Hungarian FM (RT)
Zelensky and the EU Increasingly Desperate Over The Inevitable Outcome (SCF)
Top Trump Officials Will Discuss Epstein Strategy (CNN)
FBI Burn Bags Had More Than Russiagate Files In Them (Margolis)
DNI Tulsi Gabbard Breaks Down Russiagate (CTH)
Ex-CIA Officer: Russiagate Deep State Operatives Still Work At The Agency (MN)
Trump Slaps India With Additional 25% In Tariffs Over Russian Energy Trade (ZH)
Sen. Adam Schiff Under Criminal Investigation For Mortgage Fraud (ZH)
The Lucky Continent? (Rabo)

 

 

 

 

Rubio

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1952839386032226316

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1953210757220581495

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1953144644247699556

coup

scott

https://twitter.com/TheGabriel72/status/1953078954564436172

Taibbi

 

 

 

 

Steve Witkoff was at the Kremlin yesterday with somehing new to tell Putin (we don’t know what). Or there would not have been a meeting. Did Putin have a breakthrough idea? Hard to imagine. He for years now has had the No Nukes, No Nazis, No NATO standpoint, and that stands. Give up -new- territory? Once a piece of land has been declared part of Russia, you can’t just undeclare it. Besides, the people in the oblasts have voted to join Russia, and that is serious.

Russia didn’t want any of this when the SMO started in early 2022, Putin didn’t even want to discuss it for Crimea then. But things have changed. Russian(-speaking) people needed protection, and got it. Curious to see what the talks result in. That the US insists on bringing Zelensky along does not exactly help achieve peace. Same goes for the fully russophobe European NATO nations.

Trump, Putin To Meet As Soon As Next Week In Potential Breakthrough (ZH)

It appears the Wednesday Witkoff-Putin meeting in Moscow has led to a breakthrough of sorts, coming right down to the wire of threatened fresh US anti-Russia sanctions set to be imposed Friday. Presidents Trump and Putin plan to meet in person as soon as next week, the NY Times is reporting. A meeting with Ukraine’s leader would then follow. “President Trump intends to meet in person with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as soon as next week, and he plans to follow up shortly afterward with a meeting between himself, Mr. Putin and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, according to two people familiar with the plan,” the breaking report says.

There’s as yet been no indicators from the Russian or Ukrainian sides of the plan, or even that Moscow is aware of an ‘agreement’ to proceed with a meeting. According to more details: Mr. Trump disclosed his plans in a call with European leaders on Wednesday, the people said. The meetings would include only those three men, and would not include any European counterparts. The European leaders, who have tried to play a coordinating role on meetings to end the violence between Russia and Ukraine while supporting their European neighbor, appeared to accept what Mr. Trump said, one of the people familiar with the call said.

Anti-Moscow critics have said that the Kremlin is just buying more time with Washington while its military operations in Ukraine proceed at full pace. Will a breakthrough actually come of this? Trump has said of a fresh call with European leaders that they agreed with him that “the war must end” – but that it must be “an honest end”. There must be something substantial cooking if both sides agree to a meeting, which would be the first such face-to-face interaction between Trump and Putin of the US president’s second term.

Read more …

Russia has confirmed the plans now.

Trump Tells Team To Arrange Putin Meeting ‘Fast’ – CNN (RT)

US President Donald Trump has told his team to “move fast” to arrange a meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, CNN reported on Wednesday. Putin proposed a direct meeting with Trump during talks earlier in the day with US special envoy Steve Witkoff, the news outlet said, citing two anonymous sources in the White House. The US president’s aides reportedly began planning for a potential summit immediately. Though these types of high-level meetings typically require preparation time, “Trump was urging his team to move fast,” CNN wrote. No location has been confirmed, but discussions could begin as early as next week, the outlet added.

Earlier in the day, Trump praised the outcome of the Putin-Witkoff talks, saying there is “a very good prospect” for a meeting between the Russian president and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. “There is a good chance there could be a meeting very soon,” he told reporters in the Oval Office. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated on Wednesday that this could come in the form of a trilateral summit involving Trump, Putin, and Zelensky, provided peace talks on the Ukraine conflict go well. The New York Times also reported that the US president intends to meet soon with his Russian counterpart.

Trump unveiled the plan in a recent phone call with European leaders, in which he announced plans to hold a trilateral summit alongside Putin and Zelensky after a one-on-one with the Russian leader, the NYT wrote on Wednesday, citing anonymous sources. Moscow has not yet confirmed any plans for a meeting. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said time is needed to normalize US-Russia relations before a summit can occur. Relations between Washington and Moscow fell to an “unprecedented level” under Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, leaving many points of contention, he told TASS on Wednesday.

Read more …

“Rubio added “a lot has to happen before that can occur.”

Marco Rubio Discusses Potential for Trump and Putin Meeting (CTH)

At the White House event with Apple CEO Tim Cook, President Trump said that “there’s a really good prospect that” there will be a meeting with Zelenskyy and Putin. But he disagreed with the suggestion it amounted to a “breakthrough.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio notes in the interview here, “an opportunity will present itself very soon for the president to meet both with Vladimir Putin and with President Zelenskyy at some point here, hopefully in the near future.” Rubio added “a lot has to happen before that can occur.”

Read more …

Pardoning Ghislaine would unleash a lot of anger.

Ghislaine Maxwell Reportedly Cleared Trump’s Name In DOJ Interview (HUSA)

Convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell reportedly told the Justice Department in a recent interview that she never observed President Donald Trump doing anything around her that “caused concern.” Maxwell was recently interviewed by the DOJ about roughly 100 people who were associated with her and her accomplice, deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. “Maxwell said nothing during the interview that would be harmful to President Donald Trump,” ABC reported, citing anonymous sources. “There is also an audio recording of the interview, the sources said, but it’s not clear whether the administration plans to release the audio to accompany any public release of the transcript,” the outlet added. “The public release of the transcripts could come as soon as this week.”

Maxwell was moved from federal prison in Florida to a cushier, lower-security camp in Texas after her DOJ interview. Maxwell was previously housed in the “honor dorm” of a low-security prison in Tallahassee, Florida. “Maxwell’s cushy new digs in D South – the so-called ‘honor dorm’ – are reserved for 30 to 40 of the low-security Florida lockup’s best-behaved prisoners,” the Daily Mail reported in March 2024. She has an appeal pending before the Supreme Court, and rumors are swirling that President Donald Trump may pardon her in exchange for information about his political enemies. A potential pardon would give Maxwell every incentive to clear Trump’s name – which is what she did, according to a Wednesday report from ABC News.

Read more …

“Moscow has also said a ceasefire could be possible if Ukraine halts troop movements, suspends mobilization, stops foreign arms shipments, and holds a presidential election.”

Zelensky Rejects Any Limited Ceasefire With Russia (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has rejected any limited ceasefire with Russia, insisting that Kiev will only agree to a complete halt in hostilities. His statement came in the wake of reports from Bloomberg that Moscow planned to propose a pause in air operations. Moscow and Kiev have agreed to several partial ceasefires since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Both sides have also accused each other of violating the agreements. Following a US-mediated 30-day agreement to pause strikes on energy infrastructure earlier this year, Moscow reported that Kiev’s forces had violated the truce over 100 times. Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing anonymous sources, that the Kremlin is considering offering an “air truce” during the visit of US special envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow this week.

The arrangement would reportedly involve halting missile and drone strikes but would not end ground operations. The proposal is expected to come amid US President Donald Trump’s threats to impose secondary tariffs on Russia and its trading partners unless a peace deal is reached soon. Moscow has not confirmed plans to propose any sort of limited truce. In a post on his Telegram channel, Zelensky wrote that Kiev supports only an “immediate, complete and unconditional ceasefire. ” We’ve already tried many different formats, he said, referring to proposals for “silence in the skies” and halts to energy sector attacks. He alleged that all such agreements were breached and urged further sanctions on Moscow.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow favors a peaceful resolution and a “long- term, lasting peace” rather than a temporary truce. He has stressed that any settlement must address the “realities on the ground” and the root causes of the conflict. Russia has repeatedly called on Ukraine to recognize the loss of five of its former regions that joined Russia in public referendums, withdraw its forces from those territories, commit to neutrality, and limit its military capabilities. Moscow has also said a ceasefire could be possible if Ukraine halts troop movements, suspends mobilization, stops foreign arms shipments, and holds a presidential election. Kiev has rejected the terms as unacceptable.

Read more …

Still much higher than I would have guessed. Who’s doing the polling?

Zelensky Rating Slumps – Poll (RT)

Public trust in Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has dropped by 7% in about a month, according to a nationwide poll released on Wednesday. The apparent slump in popularity came after his controversial botched crackdown on the country’s key anti-corruption agencies. The survey by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), conducted from July 23 to August 4, suggests that trust in Zelensky stands at 58%, down from 65% in June. The poll says 35% of Ukrainians now say they do not trust Zelensky – an increase from 30% in early June. The drop in support was especially steep among respondents under 30, where trust fell by 15% – from 74% at the start of summer to 59% by early August, according to the poll.

The KIIS partially attributed the decline to Zelensky’s attempt to strip the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) of independence, citing Russian influence. Critics of the move accused Zelensky of having authoritarian tendencies, sparking protests at home and discontent in the West, given that many supporters of Kiev have for years demanded that it intensify the fight against corruption. Following the backlash, Zelensky was forced to roll back the reforms. KIIS stressed that although the controversy undoubtedly damaged Zelensky’s image, other factors are at play.

Of those who distrust him, only 6% cited the controversy as the reason, compared to 21% who pointed to overall corruption and 20% who say Zelensky is an inefficient leader during a time of conflict. The KIIS poll was based on phone interviews with 1,022 respondents across Ukraine. Last month, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) stated that US and UK officials had secretly met with their key Ukrainian counterparts to discuss ousting Zelensky and replacing him with former military chief Valery Zaluzhny. According to the SVR, the recent NABU and SAPO controversy was in large part engineered by Zelensky’s own officials to provide justification for the Western partners to seek his removal.

Read more …

“..Ukrainian draft officers were accused of beating to death a dual Ukrainian-Hungarian citizen.”

Ukraine ‘Doesn’t Belong Among Civilized Nations’ – Hungarian FM (RT)

Ukraine can have no place in the EU and “doesn’t even belong among civilized nations,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said. His comments come after Ukrainian draft officers were accused of beating to death a dual Ukrainian-Hungarian citizen. Media reports emerged last month that 45-year-old Jozsef Sebestyen, who lived in Ukraine’s Zakarpatye Region – home to a large Hungarian minority – died as a result of injuries sustained when he was beaten with iron rods by recruitment officers. News of Sebestyen’s death sparked outrage in Hungary, where hundreds gathered outside the Ukrainian Embassy in Budapest to condemn the incident.

Budapest summoned Ukraine’s ambassador to issue a formal protest and called on Brussels to introduce sanctions against Ukrainian leaders responsible for Sebestyen’s death. Commenting during an episode of the Harcosok Oraja podcast which aired on Wednesday, Szijjarto said: “A country like that not only has no place in the EU – it doesn’t even belong among civilized nations.” Ukraine’s forced conscription, marked by beatings and even killings, is “state-institutionalized” and “state-executed,” Szijjarto claimed. He added that any civilized country would act immediately upon seeing footage of officers violently detaining people, and that those responsible would be swiftly arrested and jailed.

“So what happens in Ukraine instead? Everyone turns their heads, no one dares to talk about it,” the foreign minister concluded. The Ukrainian military has claimed that Sebestyen died of a medical condition and showed no signs of violence. Hungary, however, has requested that the EU impose sanctions on three Ukrainian officials involved in mobilization efforts. In addition to alleged human rights violations, Hungary has cited several reasons for its opposition to Ukraine’s bid for EU accession. Szijjarto has argued that Ukraine’s membership would weaken rather than strengthen the bloc, while Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban has repeatedly warned that it would bring war directly onto EU territory.

Read more …

“The Western rhetoric of “defending Europe” is a smokescreen used to justify the militarization of the continent and the artificial prolongation of the conflict.”

Zelensky and the EU Increasingly Desperate Over The Inevitable Outcome (SCF)

In yet another sign of Ukraine’s psychological collapse, President Vladimir Zelensky has once again openly advocated for the political destabilization of Russia. In recent speeches, Zelensky stated that only a regime change in Moscow could guarantee “security” for Europe and prevent future conflicts on the continent. In practice, this is a desperate attempt to keep the narrative of the “Russian threat” alive, even as it becomes increasingly clear that the West has lost control of its proxy war against Moscow. Zelensky proposes a two-step plan: deepen the seizure of Russian financial assets and intensify diplomatic and political efforts to bring down the current Russian government. His logic is simple—but completely flawed: according to him, even if the war in Ukraine ends, the “threat” will remain as long as Vladimir Putin is in power.

The proposal, however, ignores Russia’s internal political reality, where Putin enjoys broad popular and institutional support. In other words, what the West and Kiev are pursuing is a coup d’état disguised as a “democratic transition”. But any serious analyst knows that the political structure of the Russian Federation is solid and widely backed by its population. Putin’s recent re-election, with a strong majority and high voter turnout, confirms this. There is no internal base for an uprising against the Kremlin—nor is there any international legitimacy for such an operation. Moreover, Zelensky’s calls to use frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort border on institutionalized looting. It is a flagrant violation of international law and economic sovereignty.

Confiscating the assets of citizens and companies based solely on nationality, then redirecting those resources to the war industry, reveals the level of moral and legal degradation that now dominates Western politics. Even more concerning is the fact that European leaders, such as Kaja Kallas, have already openly advocated for the fragmentation of Russia—a dangerously revanchist discourse reminiscent of the Cold War, which undermines any possibility of multilateral dialogue. The idea of breaking up the Russian Federation into dozens or even hundreds of “microstates” reflects an imperialist fantasy rooted in the darkest moments of European colonialism—and echoes remnants of the Nazi-fascist ideology that presupposes the creation of ethno-states.

Nonetheless, the obsession with “containing” Russia ignores a fundamental fact: there is no concrete evidence that Moscow intends to invade other European countries. The special military operation in Ukraine did not stem from any expansionist ambition, but from the need to protect the Russian population in Donbass and to curb NATO’s encroachment on Russia’s borders. After years of Western provocation and the genocide of ethnic Russians in what was then eastern Ukraine, Moscow chose to act. The Western rhetoric of “defending Europe” is a smokescreen used to justify the militarization of the continent and the artificial prolongation of the conflict.

In reality, Europeans are already feeling the economic and social consequences of this suicidal policy: inflation, an energy crisis, the erosion of civil liberties, and growing public dissatisfaction—manifested most recently in electoral results favoring illiberal candidates and parties, which were shamefully censored by European governments. The most rational path for Europe would be to distance itself from Kiev’s pro-war madness and adopt a foreign policy based on stability, sovereignty, and mutual respect. Unfortunately, European leaders appear fully aligned with a Russophobic agenda—even if it means plunging the continent into yet another decade of chaos. Zelensky does not speak for himself; he is merely the loudest voice of a failed project that insists on attacking Russia while Ukraine itself collapses economically, militarily, and politically.

Read more …

“Trump on Tuesday defended Blanche’s recent sit-down with Maxwell, arguing that Blanche wanted to ensure that people who “aren’t involved are not hurt” by something “very unfair.”

Top Trump Officials Will Discuss Epstein Strategy (CNN)

Top Trump administration officials will gather at the vice president’s residence Wednesday evening as they continue to weigh whether to publish an audio recording and transcript of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s recent conversation with Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. The administration’s handling of the Epstein case, as well as the need to craft a unified response, is expected to be a main focus of the dinner, three sources familiar with the meeting told CNN. The meeting will include White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, Vice President JD Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and Blanche. With the exception of Vance, the White House considers those officials the leaders of the administration’s ongoing strategy regarding the Epstein files, two of the sources said.

The meeting comes as Trump’s administration is considering releasing the contents of Blanche’s interview last month with Maxwell. Two officials told CNN that the materials could be made public as early as this week. There have also been internal discussions about Blanche holding a press conference or doing a high-profile interview, possibly with popular podcaster Joe Rogan, according to three people familiar with the discussions, though those conversations are preliminary. Rogan, who endorsed Trump on the eve of last fall’s election, has been highly critical of the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein case and previously called their refusal release more information about Epstein a “line in the sand.” [..] Patel and Bondi have previously clashed over the administration’s Epstein strategy.

Meanwhile, CNN previously reported that the Justice Department has been digitizing, transcribing and redacting the interview materials as they weigh if and when to publicly release the information from the Maxwell interview. There is over 10 hours of audio, a senior Trump administration official said. Portions of the transcript that could reveal sensitive details like victim names would also have to be redacted, one of the officials said. One official told CNN that some of the conversation within the White House has focused on whether making the details from the interview public would bring the Epstein controversy back to the surface. Many officials close to Trump believe the story has largely died down. Trump on Tuesday defended Blanche’s recent sit-down with Maxwell, arguing that Blanche wanted to ensure that people who “aren’t involved are not hurt” by something “very unfair.”

On Wednesday morning, the family of Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre issued a statement asking why no survivors had been invited to the meeting at Vance’s home. They offered to attend in Giuffre’s stead, as she died by suicide earlier this year. “Missing from this group is, of course, any survivor of the vicious crimes of convicted perjurer and sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Their voices must be heard, above all,” wrote Giuffre’s two brothers and sisters in law, Sky and Amanda Roberts and Danny and Lanette Wilson. Amid the clamor for more disclosures about the case, the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday issued nearly a dozen subpoenas to the Justice Department and high-profile Democratic and GOP figures for files and information related to Epstein — a significant show of defiance against Republican leaders.

Two of the administration officials said if they were to release the audio and transcript, it would likely be done sooner rather than later. One said the release could be several weeks from now, depending on what the most senior-level officials within the West Wing and Justice Department decide. It was not immediately clear whether the White House and DOJ were aligned on the issue. “This is nothing more than CNN trying desperately to create news out of old news. [Trump] already addressed this issue in an interview with Newsmax, a real news outlet that routinely gets better ratings than CNN,” White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told CNN, when asked about the possibility of releasing the transcript. Blanche interviewed Maxwell at the US attorney’s office in Tallahassee, Florida, last month over a period of two days. Maxwell was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years in federal prison for carrying out a yearslong scheme with Epstein to groom and sexually abuse underage girls. She has continued to appeal her conviction, including with the Supreme Court.

Last week, Maxwell was moved from a Florida federal prison to a lower-security federal prison camp in Texas, a relatively uncommon move as those convicted of sex offenses are almost always deemed too high of a risk to public safety. As Trump has faced mounting pressure from his base for transparency, the White House has repeatedly said the DOJ should release all “credible evidence” in the Epstein files. Asked about Blanche’s meeting with Maxwell last week, Trump again said he’d like to see everything in the files released. “We’d like to release everything, but we don’t want people to get hurt that shouldn’t be hurt, and I would assume that was why he was there,” Trump told Newsmax on Friday. The president said he hadn’t spoken to Blanche about his meetings with Maxwell and didn’t know when that information would be made public.

“I haven’t spoken about it, but he’s a very talented guy, Todd Blanche, and a very straight shooter, and I think he probably wanted to know, you know, just to get a feeling of it,” Trump said. CNN previously reported that a senior Trump administration official stated that the president is not currently considering clemency for Maxwell, though he has repeatedly left the door open on the matter in recent weeks, saying he’s “allowed to do it.”

Read more …

The Russiagate Files contained Epstein files.

Why any evidence in the burn bags of anything was not…well, burned, no idea.

FBI Burn Bags Had More Than Russiagate Files In Them (Margolis)

Last month we learned that FBI Director Kash Patel uncovered a hidden SCIF room at FBI headquarters — sealed off since the Comey era — stuffed with thousands of Trump-Russia documents and burn bags. Among the most damning finds? The classified annex to the Durham report. “Just think about this,” Patel said. “Me, as director of the FBI, the former ‘Russiagate guy,’ when I first got to the bureau, found a room Comey and others hid from the world in the Hoover Building — full of documents and computer hard drives no one had ever seen. They locked the door, hid access, and just said, ‘No one’s ever gonna find this place.’” But there was something else in those burn bags besides Russiagate documents. According to Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), materials tied to Epstein were among the contents found in the burn bags, and a formal investigation is now underway.

During an interview on “The Benny Johnson Show,” Rep. Luna dropped a bombshell: “I’m asking [the FBI] directly who authorized this information to be placed in burn bags and what information they have about the former deputy director of the FBI destroying evidence pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein, which we know right now the FBI is actively investigating.” She credited Johnson’s program with kickstarting the inquiry. “It was your show that kinda tipped me off to follow up with one of those whistleblowers, and now that’s a full-fledged investigation,” Luna said. Johnson sought clarification. “You’re confirming to us that the FBI has destroyed Epstein evidence?” he asked. “I’m confirming that there’s an open investigation, and that the leads on your show resulted in them finding burn bags pertaining to Russiagate and potentially Epstein, yes,” Luna replied.

The congresswoman tied the attempted destruction of Epstein-related material to a broader pattern of misconduct during the Bush-era DOJ and FBI. “The actual cover-up was in 2005, 2006, 2007 when Epstein was allowed to skate even though they had him dead to rights,” Johnson said, pointing to former FBI Director Robert Mueller and then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Luna didn’t dispute the timeline and said this was part of what she’s pushing to uncover. Beyond Epstein, Luna also alluded to the potential destruction of evidence tied to the FBI’s now-debunked Trump-Russia investigation. “Had Tulsi [Gabbard] not come forward with that information in regards to Russiagate… think about it: people using their positions of power to violate constitutional rights, civil liberties, go after people, spy. It can’t be tolerated in a free and fair society.”

Despite the disturbing implications, Luna expressed confidence that the current administration is making progress on accountability. “I’m just really happy to know that, under this administration, that people are being held accountable,” she said. She also noted arrests are being made behind the scenes. If proven true, the FBI’s attempted destruction of Epstein-related materials could mark a new chapter in the scandal — and raise even more questions about who’s protecting whom.

Read more …

Long interview. Miranda Devine used to mostly write, but has now become a “face”.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Breaks Down Russiagate (CTH)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard appears for an extensive podcast interview with Miranda Devine. It may create ‘splodey heads in Washington DC, but DNI Gabbard is now positioned as the tip of the spear to penetrate the fraud, lies, schemes and manipulations of the Intelligence Branch of government. Tulsi Gabbard is the leading voice for honesty and sunlight against the entire DC apparatus that participated in the Russiagate construct.

Gabbard now understands how the DC silo system was weaponized during the manufacturing of information against a political candidate, Donald Trump. Gabbard is speaking truth toward a corrupt system, and she will be the target of all fury that’s dependent on the retention of the corruption. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard sits down with Miranda Devine to discuss, in her own words, Obama’s Russiagate plot to sabotage Trump, Hillary Clinton’s vendetta against her, and the evidence that could topple Brennan, Clapper, and Comey.

Read more …

It’ll take time to sweep all the agencies.

Ex-CIA Officer: Russiagate Deep State Operatives Still Work At The Agency (MN)

A former CIA operations officer has warned that Deep State operatives who concocted the fake Russia collusion narrative against President Trump under then Director John Brennan are still active inside the agency. Bryan Dean Wright told the Daily Caller that “At least two still do work there. That doesn’t mean that all of the other people have left. Those are just the two that I’m aware of.” nWright claims that One of the operatives still has a “blue badge,” meaning they are a direct CIA employee, while another possesses a “green badge,” and carries out work as a contractor. The Daily Caller notes that Wright declared in a recent op-ed that Brennan should “rot in prison” for treasonous plotting to undermine the integrity of the Republic. “These men thought they knew what was best for America, and they didn’t give a damn what voters like you thought,” the former spook asserted.

Wright further suggested that because Brennan worked at the agency for so long, he likely continues to shape the culture at the CIA and has almost certainly cultivated generations of like minded employees. As we’ve highlighted, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has officially handed the Department of Justice a criminal referral relating to the “treasonous conspiracy” by Brennan, other Obama officials and the former President himself outlined in Declassified documents. Further documents released by Gabbard have revealed that not only did the CIA believe a Russian intelligence assessment that the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign planned to smear Trump by linking him to the Kremlin, but that the FBI helped the Clinton campaign orchestrate the Russia hoax to distract from its investigation into her emails.

The declassified documents also show that the Clinton Campaign plotted to use Crowdstrike to push the claim that Russian hackers leaked information from the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). President Trump has admitted that he previously refrained from pursuing an indictment for Hillary Clinton, but believes now she should “pay a very big price.” A House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report declassified on July 23 has also shown that just five CIA analysts under Brennan wrote the 2017 intelligence assessment, which included the infamous fake Steele dossier, on which the Russia hoax was based.

The report notes that according to a CIA self-assessment declassified on July 2, the analysts were part of a “Fusion Cell” Brennan had put together months to explore Russian election interference. There are concerns that those agents remain embedded in the framework of the CIA. Current CIA Director John Ratcliffe proclaimed last week that Brennan, James Comey, Hillary and others face “serious legal consequences,” for their roles in the scandal, revealing that he has made additional referrals for criminal prosecution, building on those sent weeks earlier by Gabbard, including one about Barack Obama.

“We’re gonna continue to share the intelligence that would support the ability of our Department of Justice to… bring fair and just claims against those who have perpetrated this hoax and the American people and this stain on our country,” he said during a Fox News interview. On Sunday Ratcliffe described Hillary’s role in the Russia hoax and her efforts to frame Trump as the “greatest political scandal” in a lifetime. “There was Intelligence from foreign Intelligence services, that one U.S. presidential candidate was trying to frame another candidate for treason, claiming that he was an agent of a foreign power, an agent of Russia, and that Intelligence was never shared,” Ratcliffe urged.

Read more …

India gets blamed for Ukraine. Get serious. What do you say to that? Show it to me on a map?

Trump Slaps India With Additional 25% In Tariffs Over Russian Energy Trade (ZH)

Just as he warned yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 25% tariff on India over its purchase of Russian energy, the White House said Wednesday hours after talks between the US and Russia over the war in Ukraine failed to yield a breakthrough. The accelerated tariffs – which will stack on top of 25% country-specific tariffs set to be implemented overnight – will go into effect within 21 days, according to the executive order signed by Trump. “They’re fueling the war machine. And if they’re going to do that, then I’m not going to be happy,” Trump said Tuesday in an interview with CNBC. This rhetoric was escalated in the initial paragraphs of the Executive Order:

“Executive Order 14066 of March 8, 2022 (Prohibiting Certain Imports and New Investments With Respect to Continued Russian Federation Efforts To Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine), expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021 (Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation), to include the actions taken against Ukraine by the Government of the Russian Federation. To address that unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, Executive Order 14066 prohibited, among other things, the importation into the United States of certain products of Russian Federation origin, including crude oil; petroleum; and petroleum fuels, oils, and products of their distillation.

To deal with the national emergency described in Executive Order 14066, I determine that it is necessary and appropriate to impose an additional ad valorem duty on imports of articles of India, which is directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil. In my judgment, imposing tariffs, as described below, in addition to maintaining the other measures taken to address the national emergency described in Executive Order 14066, will more effectively deal with the national emergency described in Executive Order 14066.”

Accordingly, and as consistent with applicable law, articles of India imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 25 percent.” The reaction was immediate extended selling pressure in India ETF…

Read more …

“Pulte indicated potential violations of federal laws, including wire, mail, and bank fraud.”

Sen. Adam Schiff Under Criminal Investigation For Mortgage Fraud (ZH)

How does the old expression go? “When you point one finger at someone, three point back at you?” Sen. Adam Schiff – best known for dramatizing Trump’s Ukraine call during his first term, misidentifying evidence in texts, overstating “collusion” findings, and defending a FISA memo later found to contain false statements – is under criminal investigation for alleged mortgage fraud, according to a Trump administration source cited by Fox News. Laura Ingraham revealed the news on “The Ingraham Angle” last night, reporting that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maryland is conducting the probe. The investigation follows a criminal referral from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to the Department of Justice, according to Fox News.

FHFA Director William Pulte alleged that Schiff “has, in multiple instances, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms,” which he said could endanger the stability of the U.S. mortgage system. According to the FHFA, Schiff and his wife purchased a home in Potomac, Maryland, in 2003, financing it with a $610,000 Fannie Mae-backed loan by declaring it their primary residence. However, Schiff also claimed a condo in Burbank, California, as his primary residence, even receiving a $7,000 California homeowner’s tax exemption. Fox News writes that in a 2011 affidavit, Schiff certified the Maryland property as his primary residence. The FHFA notes that this designation was reaffirmed in multiple refinancing filings through 2013, despite Schiff serving in Congress representing California.

A 2023 spokesperson said, “Adam’s primary residence is Burbank, California, and will remain so when he wins the Senate seat.” Another comment to CNN explained that both the Maryland and California addresses were listed as primary residences “because they are both occupied throughout the year and to distinguish them from a vacation property.” FHFA investigators and Fannie Mae’s financial crimes unit concluded Schiff showed “a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” across five loans. Pulte indicated potential violations of federal laws, including wire, mail, and bank fraud.

https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1952876848079114744

Read more …

“..on a per capita basis, Switzerland has already pledged a significant amount of investment into the US and Swiss multinational companies already have sizeable facilities in the country..”

The Lucky Continent? (Rabo)

While European equity markets ended the day on a slight positive note, the US market could not hold its opening gains and the S&P500 ultimately ended down some 0.5%. The US treasury curve flattened, led by front-end increases in rates (2y +5bp), following the significant steepening last week. European yield moves stayed within a narrow +/- 2bp range. The US trade deficit shrunk further in June, to $60.2bn, the lowest deficit since September 2023. Unsurprisingly it was yet another significant decline in imports – as tariff-mitigating frontloading activities faded – that drove that decline in the deficit. A prime example, again, were Swiss goods shipments, which showed a (seasonally adjusted) drop in US imports to $6.7bn from 13.4bn in May. That brings the US trade balance deficit even below its pre-trade war level and this suggests that we could start to see a reversal of the front-loading trade over the next few months.

That also means that the backlash is yet to come for exporting countries. So, even though the US-EU trade deal was slightly more favorable than we had accounted for in our projections for the Eurozone, the economy could still slip into a recession. But that would more likely still be more a technical contract rather than a real recession. Economists may have gotten a bit more clarity on the tariffs in recent weeks, especially when it comes to several big economies such as Japan and the EU (although questions remain). But for some other countries, the prospects remain far less certain (if that word still has any meaning). Case in point is India, which is still asking itself how to respond to Trump’s recent tirade and his threat of a substantial increase in the current 25% tariff on Indian exports, because of its “high barriers to trade” and its purchases of Russian oil.

So far, Modi’s government has been intransigent, arguing India is being unreasonably targeted by the US. The country is looking for ways to limit the economic damage, but Bloomberg reports that officials will continue to seek back-channel talks to ease the tensions. It remains to be seen whether India is willing to risk a significant escalation – like China was. Switzerland is in a similar crisis-fighting mode. After the surprise announcement of a 39% tariff on Swiss exports last Thursday, the country’s leaders have been frantically discussing alternative proposals to bend this rate, which is more than double the tariff the EU agreed with the US. The tariff will go into effect tomorrow, so Swiss President Karin Seller-Sutter flew –unsolicited!– to Washington yesterday with a “more attractive offer” in her bag.

Business minister Parmelin commented on Swiss public radio that the government needed to “fully understand what happened” between Swiss and US trade negotiators. Not too long-ago, reports had suggested that Switzerland could be one of the first countries to announce a deal with the US, after the UK. There was even some optimism that the tariff could be a low as 10%. That said, there is a clear difference between the British and Swiss trade relationships with the US. The UK has a modest goods trade deficit with the US. Switzerland, by contrast, has a buoyant surplus. This stood in the region of CHF 38.5bn last year, with chemical and pharmaceutical products being a key part of that. This contributed to Trump’s initial threat of a 31% tariff for Switzerland. It is not clear why that rose to 39% on August 1, but reports do point to a difficult phone call between the Swiss president and Trump last week.

There is speculation that Switzerland’s new offer could follow the blueprints of the Japan and EU deals, which include pledges to buy more American LNG and to invest more in the US. That said, on a per capita basis, Switzerland has already pledged a significant amount of investment into the US and Swiss multinational companies already have sizeable facilities in the country. Perhaps as a last-ditch effort may we suggest the Swiss President emphasize to President Trump that the “Trump Victory Tourbillon comes equipped with a Swiss-made TX07 Tourbillon”, as the Trump watch website advertises?

Our FX strategist, Jane Foley, notes that Swiss economic data and inflation have been relatively weak lately. Assuming Swiss politicians can negotiate a trade deal with the US with a baseline tariff closer to 15% this week, the probability of another rate cut this year – following the June cut – will likely diminish. That may give the CHF some support, and on this outcome we see scope for EUR/CHF to return to 0.93 near-term. However, confirmation of higher tariffs would likely lead to further upward pressure on EUR/CHF. The June high in the 0.9430 area may offer some resistance.

Remarkably some European officials are now even using the troubles nations such as Switzerland and India are facing to give a positive spin on the EU’s recent trade agreement. They argue that the US-EU deal may be better than deals some others have gotten or may get. Both sides are in the final stages of drafting a joint statement on their trade deal, which would essentially be a nonbinding rundown of what both sides have agreed to, according to those officials. One EU official also said that negotiators hope to have more news soon on the list of goods that will be exempted from the 15% tariff.

However, if the EU pushes too far, it may draw the ire of the US president, who already remarked that he will impose a 35% tariff on EU goods if the EU does not make good on its promise to invest an additional $600bn over Trump’s term. And note that the EU’s ‘commitment’ on that front is hard to steer, given that most of those investments should be done by the private sector (and if this implies factories moving from Europe to the US that would obviously weigh on European growth potential further down the line).

Read more …

 

 

 

 

5G

TX

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 012025
 


Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec Portrait of Vincent van Gogh 1887

 

US Could Offer Russia Enormous Economic Deal – Politico (RT)
Medvedev Mocks Trump’s ‘Nervous Reaction’ (RT)
Trump Says Medvedev ‘Entering Very Dangerous Territory’ (RT)
Trump and Medvedev’s Dangerous Exchange of Words (Scott Ritter)
Trump Raises Tariff On Dozens Of Countries, With Minimum Rate Of 10% (ZH)
‘Damage Has Been Done’: Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Czar Slams Zelensky (RT)
Whistleblower On Russia Collusion Hoax Threatened Over Reporting: ODNI (JTN)
Brennan, Clapper Downplay Steele Dossier’s Impact In Russiagate Investigation (JTN)
Declassified Durham Annex Confirms Hillary Clinton Plan To Smear Trump (ZH)
Declassified Document Links Russiagate Hoax To Soros (RT)
Zelensky Calls For ‘Regime Change’ In Russia (RT)
Germany and Rest of EU Transforming Into Fourth Reich – Lavrov (RT)
The EU Can’t Make Peace – Only Enemies (Bordachev)
Even If Obama Has Immunity, He Could Face Prosecution (Margolis)
MTG introduces Clean Skies Act Banning Weather Modification, Geoengineering (AmG)
RFK Jr. Drops Stunning New Vaccine Announcement (VF)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1950526910305292748

hillary

pelosi act
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1950615656803480020

flynn

tulsi

 

 

 

 

Kalo mina. Let’s start today in left field. If Politico is even half right here, that would shift the earth. It’s just that Russia’s principles are not for sale. Still, how much of Trump knows his current course leads to something he absolutely doesn’t want, war with Russia?!

US Could Offer Russia Enormous Economic Deal – Politico (RT)

Diplomats in Eastern Europe have been raising concerns that US President Donald Trump could offer Moscow sweeping concessions and “enormous economic deals” to settle the Ukraine conflict, Politico has reported. In an article published on Thursday, citing Eastern European officials, US experts, and industry insiders, the outlet suggests that a Trump-led peace initiative might involve lifting sanctions on Russian energy – a move described as a “sledgehammer that could smash” Western efforts to isolate Moscow. “Of course, we are concerned about the talk of a return to Russian energy, and the lack of clarity about the US’ position,” an Eastern European official said.

Since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, the West has imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia – with a heavy focus on energy – in a bid to cripple its economy and isolate it politically. The EU, once heavily reliant on Russian supplies, has sought to cut ties. However, Russia still accounts for 17.5% of its LNG imports, second only to the US, which holds a 45.3% share. In May, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed phasing out all remaining Russian gas imports by the end of 2027. The plan drew strong criticism from several member states. The EU has invested heavily in LNG infrastructure, linking terminals to Central and Eastern Europe, with countries such as Lithuania prepared to pay a premium for American gas over the cheaper Russian alternative.

However, Politico noted that Brussels’ latest $750 billion energy deal with Washington would require the bloc to slash purchases from other suppliers, including cheaper sources, and more than triple its US imports. Still, the economic pull of Russian gas remains strong. In Germany, some politicians have signaled an openness to resuming imports to revive the country’s struggling industry. Russian energy, the sources noted, remains more affordable than US supplies, once shipping and processing costs are factored in. Russia maintains it is a reliable energy supplier and has denounced Western restrictions as illegal under international law. Moscow has redirected most exports to ‘friendly’ markets, mostly in Asia.

Read more …

“If some words from the former president of Russia trigger such a nervous reaction from the high-and-mighty president of the United States, then Russia is doing everything right..”

Medvedev Mocks Trump’s ‘Nervous Reaction’ (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s angry comments toward Russian officials were a “nervous reaction” and are evidence that Moscow is pursuing the right path, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said. Medvedev was responding to a post by Trump on Truth Social hours earlier, in which the US president described him as a “failed” former leader and warned him to “watch his words,” adding that Medvedev was “entering very dangerous territory.” “If some words from the former president of Russia trigger such a nervous reaction from the high-and-mighty president of the United States, then Russia is doing everything right and will continue to proceed along its own path,” Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, wrote on social media.

He also ridiculed Trump’s claim that the Russian and Indian economies were “dead” and going “down together” due to lack of cooperation with the US. Medvedev had earlier dismissed Trump’s demands for Moscow to swiftly end its military campaign against Ukraine, calling the threats of secondary sanctions against Russian energy customers “theatrical” and ineffective. Medvedev insisted that such ultimatums will not prevent Russia from pursuing its national security goals and merely make Trump appear similar to his predecessor, Joe Biden.

Trump previously criticized the BRICS group of nations, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and several other states pursuing a new multipolar world order. The US president claimed proposed tariffs on countries doing business with BRICS members could cripple the organization. Trump’s statement regarding India and Medvedev followed New Delhi’s refusal to accommodate US demands on trade.

Read more …

I have no idea why Trump all of a sudden wants to address Medvedev.

Trump Says Medvedev ‘Entering Very Dangerous Territory’ (RT)

US President Donald Trump has issued a warning to former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, calling him a “failed” leader and cautioning him against combative rhetoric. Medvedev, now serving as deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, had earlier dismissed the notion that Trump, or any other US official, could dictate Moscow’s stance on the Ukraine conflict. His comments came in response to American calls for Russia to negotiate peace or face tougher sanctions. Trump fired back on Wednesday in a post on Truth Social, in which he vented frustration over resistance from Russia and India to his international trade agenda. He claimed both countries had “dead economies,” before singling out Medvedev.

“Tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he’s still President, to watch his words. He’s entering very dangerous territory!” Trump wrote. Medvedev responded, saying the “nervous” reaction by the American leader simply proved that Russia was right in its policy choices and should maintain its course. Earlier this week, Medvedev responded to remarks by US Senator Lindsey Graham, who warned Russia to comply with Trump’s demands for swift peace talks with Ukraine or face consequences. Medvedev retorted that “it’s not for you or Trump to dictate when to ‘get at the peace table.’”

Medvedev has criticized what he described as Trump’s “theatrical” ultimatums, warning that such pressure tactics only increase the risk of a direct conflict between the two nuclear powers. “Don’t go down the Sleepy Joe road!” he said, referencing Trump’s mocking nickname for former President Joe Biden. Russia continues to assert that it will meet all of its military objectives in the Ukraine conflict, whether by force or diplomacy. Officials in Moscow say a negotiated resolution is preferable but currently unfeasible due to what they describe as Kiev’s unreasonable positions and unwillingness to engage in good-faith talks.

Read more …

X post.

“..These missiles would be launched, broadcasting launch codes that would send all strategic nuclear force weapons to their targets, even if Moscow was taken out..”

Trump and Medvedev’s Dangerous Exchange of Words (Scott Ritter)

As the rhetoric heats up, we must remain cognizant of the consequences. The sharp exchange of words between President Trump and former President Medvedev underscores just how dangerous the deteriorating relations between the US and Russia have become. The threats being promulgated are not idle ones. President Trump has become enthralled with the Israeli “Nasrallah” solution—leadership decapitation and middle management disruption designed to bring about the rapid collapse of a government/system. It was tried—and failed—in Iran. But Trump is being advised by Russophobes who believe that the US can successfully implement such a plan against Russia. This plan begins with sanctions, as all such plans do. It ends with a decapitation strike on Moscow.

Trump’s imagined conversation with Putin, where he threatened to “bomb the sh*t out of Moscow”, is indicative of the President’s thinking in this regard. The preferred decapitation strike is done using B-52 bombers launching cruise missiles, accompanied by Trident missiles launched from Ohio-class submarines operating off the coast of Russia, allowing for a flatter trajectory flight and shorter flight time. Medvedev’s comment about the “Dead Hand” indicates that Russia is well aware of Trump’s plans. The “Dead Hand”, or Perimeter system, is a long-standing fail-safe mechanism/plan which guarantees a full-scale nuclear retaliation in case any nation is foolish enough to try a decapitation strike. It dates back to Soviet times, when a special regiment of SS-20 missiles was equipped with radio transmission devices instead of warheads.

These missiles would be launched, broadcasting launch codes that would send all strategic nuclear force weapons to their targets, even if Moscow was taken out. This wasn’t theoretical—in my book Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, I write about how the Soviets transitioned this capability to the SS-25 system once the SS-20 was eliminated under the INF treaty. Today this mission is being handled by special regiment of SS-27 missiles. There are other components of the “Dead Hand”. Medvedev’s mentioning of it is a not-to-gentle reminder to Trump and his planners that it is suicide to think of a preemptive decapitation strike against Russia. Hopefully this message gets through. Otherwise, the “Walking Dead” allusion made by Medvedev will be the future of the United States and the world.

Read more …

Too many changes, too fast?! Who can keep up?

Trump Raises Tariff On Dozens Of Countries, With Minimum Rate Of 10% (ZH)

Almost 4 months after Liberation Day sparked a global market crash, moments ago T-Day finally arrived… and barely anyone noticed. Late on Thursday, just ahead of the August 1 deadline for tariff renegotiation, President Trump announced a slew of new tariffs, including a 10% global minimum and 15% or higher duties for countries with trade surpluses with the US, forging ahead with his unprecedented effort to reshape international commerce. First, the silver lining: baseline rates for many trading partners remain unchanged from the duties Trump imposed in April, which may ease investors’ worst fears – although with the S&P sitting at record highs it is difficult to claim anyone had any fears about anything – after the president had previously said they could even double. Yet Trump’s decision to raise tariffs on Canadian goods to 35% threatens to inject fresh tensions into an already strained relationship.

Trump signed the new tariff directive just hours before his prior Aug. 1 deadline for higher tariffs to kick in on scores of trading partners. As Bloomberg reports, most tariffs will take effect after midnight on Aug 7, to allow time for US Customs and Border Protection to make necessary changes to collect the levies. Taken together, the result will be significantly higher tariffs on goods from almost all US trading partners. The average US tariff rate will rise to 15.2% if rates are implemented as announced, according to Bloomberg Economics, an increase from 13.3%, and significantly higher than the 2.3% it was in 2024, before Trump took office. Major industrialized economies, including the European Union, Japan and South Korea, accepted 15% duties on their products, while charges on items from Mexico, Canada and China are even bigger.

Today’s announcement notwithstanding, Trump is expected to unveil separate tariffs on imports of pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals and other key industrial products in the coming weeks. Other details are also forthcoming, including so-called “rules of origin” to decide which products are transshipped, or routed through another country, and thus would face at least a 40% rate, a senior US official told Bloomberg, adding that a decision will be made in the coming weeks. The senior US official said there is no date yet when revised auto tariff rates would be implemented. Thursday’s order was signed behind closed doors without the fanfare of Trump’s April tariff rollout, during which he brandished placards with rates during a Rose Garden event. Since then Trump has faced criticism for overpromising on trade deals after he and aides vowed to broker numerous agreements, with at least one pledging “90 deals in 90 days.”

In the end, imports from about 40 countries will face the new 15% rate and roughly a dozen economies’ products will be hit with higher duties, either because they reached a deal or Trump sent them a letter unilaterally setting import taxes. The latter group has the highest goods-trade surpluses with the US. Some of those were expected, such as a 25% levy on Indian exports that Trump announced this week on social media. Others included charges of 20% on Taiwanese products and 30% on South African goods. Thailand and Cambodia, two countries that were said to have struck a last-minute deal, received a 19% duty, matching rates imposed on regional neighbors including Indonesia and the Philippines. Vietnam’s goods will be tariffed at 20%, according to the WSJ. Trump’s deals with the EU, Japan and South Korea would lower duties on their vehicle exports to 15% from the general rate of 25%.

In a separate order, Trump followed through on his threat to hike tariffs on exports from Canada, one of the US’s largest trading partners, from 25% to 35% for goods that do not comply with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. That change excludes goods that are covered under the North American trade pact he negotiated in his first term. That stood in contrast to the 90-day extension Mexico received to negotiate a better agreement. Earlier in the day, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he agreed to extend for 90 days the existing tariffs on Mexican goods. He said a 25% fentanyl tariff, a 25% tariff on cars and a 50% tariff on steel, aluminum and copper would remain in place. Still other nations are set to be hit with even higher tariffs. Trump has pledged to hike tariffs to 50% on Brazil over its digital policies and legal action against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally.

The lower 10% and 15% rates are expected to apply to a wide range of mostly smaller- and medium-sized economies that Trump showed little interest in bargaining with one-on-one. He had signaled in recent days there were simply too many countries to cut individualized deals with all of them. Some smaller states, however, were hit with the highest rates, including Syria at 41%, as well as Laos and Myanmar and 40% each, both preferred hubs of Chinese transshipments. [..] One big exception from this week’s deadline is China, which faces an Aug. 12 deadline for its tariff truce with the US to expire. The Trump administration has signaled that is likely to be extended. No final decision has been made but the recent US-China talks in Stockholm were positive, the official said.

Read more …

If you give in to street protests, you’re found out.

‘Damage Has Been Done’: Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Czar Slams Zelensky (RT)

Ukraine’s top anti-corruption prosecutor has accused Vladimir Zelensky of severely undermining the country’s independent anti-graft institutions, warning that his U-turn – under pressure from protesters and Western backers – will not remedy the damage done. The remarks come following a wave of protests and widespread international criticism over Zelensky’s attempt to bring the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) under the authority of the executive branch, which he controls. Despite Zelenksy announcing a U-turn following threats of funding cuts from Brussels, the head of SAPO, Aleksandr Klimenko, has insisted that serious damage has already been done.

“Our work has been effectively stopped,” Klimenko said in an interview with the Financial Times published on Wednesday, explaining that the takeover triggered a collapse in cooperation from whistleblowers and raised fears of persecution among investigators. “Almost all of our whistleblowers stopped co-operating with us,” Klimenko stated. “The NABU team is currently confused and frightened because they understand they can be detained without sufficient evidence.” The move to place SAPO and NABU under presidential control – which parliament passed on July 22 and Zelensky signed the same evening – immediately sparked protests in Kiev, Lviv, Dnepr, Odessa, and other cities. Demonstrators demanded full restoration of the agencies’ independence, shouting slogans such as ”Corruption kills,” ”Treason,” and “Zelya is the devil.”

The public backlash and criticism from Kiev’s Western sponsors prompted Zelensky to submit a new bill, promising to reinstate full autonomy for the anti-corruption bodies. A parliamentary vote on the legislation is expected to take place on Thursday, but its passage remains uncertain due to wavering support within his own party. Klimenko revealed that ahead of the raid, SAPO and NABU were investigating corruption allegations involving 31 sitting lawmakers and 40 former MPs, including members of Zelensky’s ruling party. He suggested the attacks on the anti-graft bodies were likely motivated by attempts to derail these investigations. The SAPO chief explained that the anti-graft agencies managed to maintain their independence over the years “largely thanks to international partners – especially the Americans,” but once “interest and pressure waned, that’s part of why this attack was possible.”

Read more …

“..statements from a direct supervisor pressuring intelligence officials to endorse the ICA to receive a promotion..”

Whistleblower On Russia Collusion Hoax Threatened Over Reporting: ODNI (JTN)

A senior intelligence official, who was a whistleblower in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, was threatened over reporting wrongdoing, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released new documents that give a firsthand account of what the office say is the whistleblower’s “relentless efforts to expose the egregious manipulation and manufacturing of intelligence.” The documents include the whistleblower’s work done in the months leading up to the November 2016 election, their concerns about using “discredited information as then-DNI Clapper and Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan worked to craft the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) at President Obama’s request,” and how a direct supervisor attempted to pressure them to endorse the key findings of the ICA about the Russian government’s alleged support for Donald Trump at the time, according to the office.

“Thank you to the brave Intelligence Community Whistleblower who courageously came forward to expose the truth about one of the biggest and most impactful scandals in our nation’s history,” Gabbard said in a statement. The documents include what the whistleblower alleges are statements from a direct supervisor pressuring intelligence officials to endorse the ICA to receive a promotion and concerns over flawed intelligence practices, such as choosing to use open-source references to Russian media as “evidence” for the Russian government’s support for Trump, but ignoring foreign media from other countries, including NATO allies, that supported Hillary Clinton and denigrated Trump.

According to the whistleblower’s records, then-DNI James Clapper and other senior Obama administration officials denounced the Steele dossier privately, but also ensured that the January 2017 ICA included it. The dossier was political opposition research on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign compiled by British counterintelligence specialist Christopher Steele. The finding in the report that the campaign appeared to collude with Russia have now been debunked. The whistleblower reported their concerns to more than a dozen government offices including to the office of Justice Department special counsel John Durham, the intelligence community inspector general, a U.S. senator and other official whistleblower channels over the last six years.

Read more …

There are rumors circling that Brennan still today has intensive contacts inside the CIA.

Brennan, Clapper Downplay Steele Dossier’s Impact In Russiagate Investigation (JTN)

Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Wednesday hit back at the Trump administration over allegations they were involved in a treasonous scheme related to Russiagate. The Trump administration and Senate Republicans have recently declassified intelligence reports that allegedly reveal a plot by former President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to falsely link President Donald Trump to Russia to distract from Clinton’s own classified email server scandal in 2016. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard earlier this month also stated that her office had “revealed overwhelming evidence that demonstrates how, after President Donald Trump won the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama and his national security cabinet members manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.”

The report released by Gabbard also alleges the December 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment glossed over evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin may have favored (or at least fully expected) a Hillary Clinton victory nine years ago. Brennan and Clapper on Wednesday defended their investigation in an opinion piece for the New York Times, and claimed that the assessment was focused on Russia’s actions, not whether the country colluded with someone in the U.S. “The assessment made no judgment about the impact of Russian information operations on the outcome of the election,” the former intelligence officials wrote. “While some state and local electoral boards and voter information and registration systems were accessed by Russian intelligence, the assessment made clear that none of those types of systems were involved in counting votes.

“Russian influence operations might have shaped the views of Americans before they entered the voting booth, but we found no evidence that the Russians changed any actual votes,” they added. They also pushed back on the use of the now-discredited Steele Dossier in their investigation, stating that the dossier was “not a source or taken into account for any of its analysis or conclusions.” “We have testified under oath, and the reviews of the assessment have confirmed, that the dossier was not used as a source or taken into account for any of its analysis or conclusions,” the pair said. “At the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s insistence, a short summary of the dossier was added as a separate annex only to the most highly classified version of the document that contained the assessment. That annex also explained why the dossier was not used in the assessment.”

The duo additionally defended the validity of the 2016 intelligence assessment, arguing that even the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence validated the assessment’s findings. The select committee included now Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “While some external critiques have noted that parts of the Russia investigation could have been handled better, multiple, thorough, yearslong reviews of the assessment have validated its findings and the rigor of its analysis,” the pair said. “The special counsel John Durham, who was appointed during Trump’s first term to investigate how the Russia probe was conducted, similarly found no evidence of an Obama administration conspiracy against Trump,” they continued. “But he affirmed the findings of the special counsel Robert Mueller, who conducted a separate investigation into the allegations, which found ample evidence of Russian interference in the election.”

The pair concluded by defending their efforts to keep the intelligence review under wraps, declaring that they knew any leaks about Russia’s meddling in the election would become “political dynamite.” “Despite claims by Trump administration officials of a nefarious political conspiracy, we did everything we could at the time to prevent leaks of intelligence reports, including Russia’s preference for Mr. Trump, a requirement that President Obama regularly emphasized,” they wrote. “We knew such reports would be political dynamite. And despite substantial reporting on the matter, we succeeded in preventing such leaks before the election.”

Read more …

The Durham Annex is a treasure trove.. Much more to come. Does make one wonder why so much was buried in an annex.

Declassified Durham Annex Confirms Hillary Clinton Plan To Smear Trump (ZH)

On Thursday, newly declassified documents reveal that not only did the CIA believe a Russian intelligence assessment that the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign planned to smear Donald Trump by linking him to the Kremlin, it’s clear that the FBI helped the Clinton campaign orchestrate the Russia hoax to distract from its investigation into her emails.

To review:
• Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard earlier this month declassified several documents – including a 2020 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report and other intelligence communications revealing that the Obama administration “manufactured and politicized intelligence” to create a false narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.
• Gabbard’s releases highlight the inclusion of the Steele dossier – an unverified report funded by the Clinton campaign alleging ties between Trump and Russia – in the 2017 ICA as an annex. The hoax dossier was used to bolster the Russian interference narrative, despite CIA objections and its discredited status. The HPSCI report states that Brennan insisted on referencing the dossier, even though senior CIA officers warned it was flawed, with Brennan allegedly saying, “doesn’t it ring true?
• Gabbard has called these actions a “treasonous conspiracy” led by Obama, Brennan, Clapper, James Comey, Susan Rice, and others, aimed at undermining Trump’s presidency. She has referred the documents to the Justice Department and FBI for investigation into potential criminal implications.

And now we have the Durham annex… which includes a 2016 memorandum alleging that Russian intelligence knew of a Clinton campaign plan to tie Trump to Russian hackers. This memo claims the plan was designed to “distract the [American] public from the Clinton email server scandal.” Gabbard’s HPSCI report similarly references Russian intelligence claiming Clinton’s campaign discussed linking Putin to Trump.

• Clinton’s Approval of Smear Campaign: Pages 4 and 5 of the annex, highlighted in X posts, contain a 2016 memorandum alleging that Clinton personally approved a plan on July 26, 2016, to frame Trump with Russian hacking claims. • The memo suggests this was to distract from her email scandal, with coordination involving DNC leadership and outside groups.
Russian Intelligence Awareness: The annex confirms that Russian intelligence was aware of this plan, which aligns with Gabbard’s claim that the FBI and CIA had access to this information but pursued the Trump-Russia narrative anyway.
• No New Criminal Charges: Despite these allegations, Durham’s broader investigation (2019–2023) found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy among Obama officials to fabricate intelligence. He criticized the FBI’s handling of the Steele dossier and Crossfire Hurricane but did not charge Brennan, Clapper, or others named by Gabbard.

As ZH regular TechnoFog notes;

To briefly summarize, the Classified Appendix provided further information about the matters covered in parts of Durham’s report – specifically, those relating to Hillary Clinton’s plan to link Trump and Russia; the threat of foreign influence by a foreign government; and the Carter Page FISA application renewals. But the most material information covers the Clinton Plan, and provides further details on how that plan started, efforts by Clinton and her team to influence officials within the Obama Administration, and how the Clinton Campaign would use Crowdstrike to further their theory that the Russians hacked and leaked information from the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). The Smoking Gun(s)…

And as Michael Shellenberger notes, the CIA believed Russian memos mentioning a Clinton plan to smear Trump as a Russian asset: “The CIA prepared a written assessment of the authenticity and veracity of the above-mentioned intelligence. The CIA stated that it did not assess that the above [redacted] memoranda or [redacted] hacked U.S. communications, to be the product of Russian fabrications.” What’s more, other memos reveal that the plan was to have Crowdstrike and ‘ThreatConnect’ spin narratives to the media in the absence of actual evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. Stay tuned, things are getting spicier…

Read more …

“..Clinton’s foreign policy adviser Julianne Smith, who said the future Russiagate “will be a long term affair to demonize [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and Trump.”

Declassified Document Links Russiagate Hoax To Soros (RT)

A newly unclassified document suggests George Soros’ Open Society Foundation was involved in the effort by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 to falsely accuse then-candidate Donald Trump of ties to Russia. The document, a 29-page annex to John Durham’s 2023 Special Counsel report, was released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday shortly after it was declassified. It sheds more light on what Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) described as “one of the biggest political scandals and cover-ups in American history.” “Based on the Durham annex, the Obama FBI failed to adequately review and investigate intelligence reports showing the Clinton campaign may have been ginning up the fake Trump-Russia narrative for Clinton’s political gain… These intelligence reports and related records, whether true or false, were buried for years,” Grassley said in a statement.

The annex cites several emails allegedly sent by Leonard Benardo, senior vice president of Open Society Foundations, throughout July 2016, which provide details on the Clinton campaign’s plans to falsely accuse Trump of Russia links and tie him to the alleged Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack. Analysis by the Durham team concluded the Benardo emails “were likely authentic,” the annex states.“During the first stage of the campaign, due to lack of direct evidence, it was decided to disseminate the necessary information through the FBI-affiliated ‘attic-based’ technical structures… in particular, the Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect companies, from where the information would then be disseminated through leading US publications,” one of the emails reads.

Another email purportedly sent by Benardo states that the “media analysis on the DNC hacking appears solid” and suggests that “later the FBI will put more oil into fire,” apparently predicting the probe by the agency. It also cites an individual named “Julie,” identified in the annex as Clinton’s foreign policy adviser Julianne Smith, who said the future Russiagate “will be a long term affair to demonize [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and Trump.”

Read more …

“It’s time to confiscate Russian assets, not just freeze them..,”

Zelensky Calls For ‘Regime Change’ In Russia (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has called on Kiev’s Western backers to push for regime change in Moscow in order to “defend” themselves from alleged “Russian aggression.” The Ukrainian leader delivered his remarks during a conference marking the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords, which emphasized equal and indivisible security for all. In an article published for the same occasion, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov argued that the West’s betrayal of those core principles was a key factor that led to the ongoing conflict. “I believe Russia can be pushed to stop this war… But if the world doesn’t aim to change the regime in Russia, that means even after the war ends, Moscow will still try to destabilize neighboring countries,” Zelensky said in his virtual address.

“It’s time to confiscate Russian assets, not just freeze them,” he added, urging Kiev’s sponsors to “put every frozen Russian asset… to work defending against Russian aggression.” Moscow has repeatedly dismissed speculation that Russia plans to attack the EU and NATO as “nonsense.” Lavrov said the EU is sliding into what he described as a “Fourth Reich,” marked by a surge in Russophobia and aggressive militarization, while President Vladimir Putin has accused Western states of deceiving their populations to justify inflated military budgets and cover up economic failures.

Russia has stated that it is ready to negotiate peace with Ukraine and has held several rounds of direct talks with Kiev in recent months. At the same time, it has accused Ukraine and its Western backers of lacking interest in reaching a long-term solution that addresses the root causes of the conflict and the territorial reality on the ground. Moscow has also raised concerns about Zelensky’s legal authority. His five-year presidential term expired in May 2024, but he has refused to call new elections, citing martial law. Russian officials have suggested that any documents signed under his name could later be challenged, insisting that the true power now lies with the Ukrainian parliament.

Read more …

“If they want to be part of the process, they must learn proper manners, abandon diktat and colonial instincts, and get used to equality and teamwork.”

Germany and Rest of EU Transforming Into Fourth Reich – Lavrov (RT)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has accused Germany and the wider European Union of sliding into what he described as a “Fourth Reich,” marked by a surge in Russophobia and aggressive militarization. The stark warning was delivered in an article published on Friday in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act on European security. Lavrov criticized the EU and NATO for betraying the core principles of the Helsinki process, which emphasized equal and indivisible security for all. Instead, he claimed that Western powers have pursued unilateral dominance, NATO expansion, and political interference in sovereign states under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights.

“Today’s Europe has completely plunged into a Russophobic frenzy, and its militarization is becoming, in fact, uncontrolled,” Lavrov wrote, citing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s calls to build Europe’s strongest army and reintroduce conscription as evidence. He also pointed to recent remarks by Germany’s defense minister about the need to be prepared to kill Russian soldiers as further proof of a hostile and dehumanizing agenda. This brings historical events to mind. With their current leaders, modern Germany and the rest of Europe are transforming into a Fourth Reich. He argued that the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has failed in its mission and has instead become a vehicle for Western propaganda and selective enforcement. He said the West ignored Russian calls for equitable security guarantees, and that NATO’s continued encroachment on Russia’s borders left Moscow no choice but to launch its 2022 military operation in Ukraine.

To defuse tensions, Lavrov called for “an honest dialogue” aimed at stabilizing the situation on the Eurasian continent through a new security framework based on sovereign equality and the principles of the UN Charter. “There will be a place for European countries within this architecture,” he wrote, “but they certainly will not be the ones calling the tune. If they want to be part of the process, they must learn proper manners, abandon diktat and colonial instincts, and get used to equality and teamwork.” Lavrov concluded by warning that if NATO and the EU continue to hollow out the OSCE’s core principles, the organization may collapse altogether, and history will remember those who “buried” the last chance for peaceful coexistence in Europe.

Read more …

“Europe is leaving the world stage in disgrace..”

The EU Can’t Make Peace – Only Enemies (Bordachev)

The most dangerous thing about Western Europe today is not just its decline, but its refusal to recognize it. The half-continent continues to posture, continues to lecture, and continues to imagine itself as a pillar of global order. But it has lost the internal resources that once sustained that illusion. What remains is a hollow echo of power, wrapped in a language of values that even those same Western Europeans no longer seem to believe. The region’s failure is most visible in its inability to make peace. Time and again, it chooses confrontation – with Russia, with China, with reality itself. Devoid of meaningful autonomy, it now functions as a permanent appendage of the US. It is no longer an actor on the world stage, but a supporting cast member, often unwelcome and increasingly irrelevant.

Western Europe’s descent has been rapid. Just 10 or 15 years ago, it projected global importance and confidence. Today, the cracks are impossible to ignore. The reasons are many: Elite degradation, political inertia, a population gripped by apathy. But above all, it is the bloc’s unrelenting selfishness – its refusal to give, only to demand – that lies at the heart of this collapse. Nowhere was this clearer than in last week’s failed EU-China summit. Eurocrats went to Beijing with nothing to offer, only with a desire to extract. China, which has no historical affection for Western Europe, responded accordingly. There was simply nothing to discuss.

And then, as if to underscore its strategic drift, the bloc offered a humiliating concession to the US. Faced with the threat of new tariffs, Brussels agreed to purchase American energy and weapons in vast quantities. So much for ‘strategic autonomy’. These are not signs of a serious power. These are the actions of a civilization on the back foot, stumbling blindly into dependence. Anyone still speaking of a sovereign EU industrial or defense policy is either a fantasist or a liar. What then does Western Europe have to offer the world? One might say historical symphonic music. But beyond that, its legacy is one of oppression and self-justifying tyranny. Its technical achievements were built to subjugate others. Its political philosophy was designed to defend conquest and exploitation.

Fifteen years ago, I sat in a closed meeting organized by Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief at the time. The topic: Western Europe’s new role in the world. The one suggestion they could not accept was that the bloc should offer something to the world without expecting a reward. Their worldview simply doesn’t allow for that. Even in climate change – a cause that should unite the planet – the EU has turned the issue into a cynical trade weapon, using green regulations to punish developing countries. The result? Western Europe stands alone. It has lost its power, and with it, its relevance. Worse, it doesn’t even seem to understand what it’s lost.

Can the region still pose a threat? Possibly. But not because it has the strength. Rather, because it has the recklessness. Its politicians lack vision, competence, or restraint. They cannot imagine peace. And so they default to confrontation – especially with Russia. The danger is not that Western Europe is ready to fight. Its people enjoy lives too comfortable to risk. Its defense industry is in disrepair. But wars can begin through stupidity as well as strength. EU elites, betting on regime change in Moscow, continue to pour weapons into Ukraine. Some dream of extending the conflict into the Baltics. Others talk of arming mercenaries to fight Russia directly.

The Americans won’t die for Europe. That much is clear. But the EU may yet drag the world into catastrophe, simply by being incapable of restraint. If by some miracle a wider war is avoided, what then? What is Western Europe’s future? A museum of irrelevance? A vassal of Washington? Already it is falling behind in science, in technology, in global influence. It doesn’t know where it belongs, and is incapable of adjusting. It will become a permanent satellite of the US – militarily, politically, and economically. Key industries will be handed over. National elites will lose the power to govern. The Collective West as we know it will vanish. In its place: America, and a few adjacent territories managed by obedient proxies. Perhaps this is what Western Europe deserves. It is certainly the path it has chosen.

Read more …

“Because of that immunity, he loses the ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment if he’s called before a grand jury..”

Even If Obama Has Immunity, He Could Face Prosecution (Margolis)

Barack Obama may soon be facing the consequences of a trap he helped set. As we previously reported, investigative journalist John Solomon told Steve Bannon last week that Obama likely won’t be indicted for his role in the Russiagate scandal despite the mounting declassified evidence tying him directly to the scheme. However, he may be wrong. As I’ve pointed out, Obama could indeed face indictment because the Supreme Court did not give presidents blanket immunity. The court ruled that “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.” Still, Solomon believes that while Obama may avoid formal charges, he’s far from out of legal jeopardy and could be facing serious trouble ahead.

Appearing on Real America’s Voice, Solomon laid out the real legal problems facing the former president. He echoed the widespread belief that the Supreme Court’s ruling shields Obama from prosecution for official acts performed as president. Solomon didn’t stop there. Even he knows that’s not the full story, and this time, neither immunity nor the careful spin of “official acts” will shield Obama from scrutiny. “However, Barack Obama can now be summoned before a grand jury. He cannot take the Fifth Amendment because he has immunity from prosecution. He’ll have to tell the truth. If he lies as a private citizen about what he did as president, he’ll no longer have that immunity.”

It’s an irony that hangs heavy, given Obama’s own tactics as president. “The irony of that is significant, because on Jan. 5, 2017, he presided over a meeting in the White House where the FBI had just cleared Mike Flynn of any wrongdoing. And they schemed in that meeting how they might be able to jam up Mike Flynn. They came up with the idea: ‘We’ll lure him into an interview, catch him in a lie, and then prosecute him that way.’ Barack Obama is now about to face a potentially similar situation—one he unfairly created for Mike Flynn.”

If we accept Solomon’s assessment that Obama has immunity that may keep him safe in the technical sense for official acts, it’s now a double-edged sword. Because of that immunity, he loses the ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment if he’s called before a grand jury to testify about what actually transpired in his White House during those fraught days—especially regarding the plotting against General Flynn. He’ll be compelled to answer directly, under oath. And if he lies, he is in legal jeopardy—the exact “trap” his own administration foisted on Flynn. I still think Obama isn’t protected because the Supreme Court indicated that not all acts by the president are official. Actions motivated by politics or personal vendetta don’t get the same constitutional shelter as legitimate actions. Nobody gets to walk free simply because they once held power. The Supreme Court’s ruling was a test, and Obama is about to find out just how limited immunity can be once he steps outside those constitutional boundaries. One way or another, justice may come for Barack Obama.

Read more …

Good on her. Got to start somewhere.

MTG introduces Clean Skies Act Banning Weather Modification, Geoengineering (AmG)

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has introduced the Clear Skies Act of 2025 calling for an end to what she calls the “dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering.” The bill, designated H.R. 4403, would prohibit weather modification through the use of geoengineering, cloud seeding, and solar radiation management through the release of chemicals into the atmosphere to change the weather, temperature, climate or to block out sunlight. If enacted, the law would punish weather modification violations as a felony with offenders facing up to $100,000 in fines and/or five years in prison for each violation.

Greene says her bill is similar to Florida’s S.B. 56 which repeals the state’s ability to issue permits for geoengineering and weather modification and prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity. Under the Clear Skies Act, all existing federal authority and executive orders permitting weather modification would be repealed and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Justice (DOJ) would be directed to investigate and prosecute violations.

H.B. 4403 would also create a public reporting system that would allow Americans to report suspicious activity and which the EPA would be required to investigate. In announcing the Clear Skies Act Greene spoke of the need to protect the nation’s skies, waters and people from weather modification, saying, “It’s time to end this dangerous and unregulated practice.”

Read more …

“Over 39 years, the VICP has awarded just $5.4 billion to 12,000 victims. That comes out to about “1.2 awards per million doses administered.”

RFK Jr. Drops Stunning New Vaccine Announcement (VF)

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just took aim at a system that has failed Americans for nearly 40 years, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). This program was created under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which shielded vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits over injury claims. Before becoming HHS Secretary, Kennedy exposed how vaccine manufacturers were being hammered with lawsuits due to injuries. One of the largest manufacturers at the time, Wyeth (now part of Pfizer), reportedly told President Reagan: give us legal protection or we’ll stop making vaccines. Reagan’s response? Why not just make safer vaccines? Wyeth’s answer: Vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”

That phrase—“unavoidably unsafe”—would later appear in a Supreme Court decision and reflects the legal premise that some vaccine injuries are inevitable. “And so, anybody who tells you vaccines are safe and effective, the industry itself got immunity from liability by convincing the President and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe,” Kennedy previously stated. Senator Edward Kennedy, a key sponsor of the law, wrote at the time: “When … children are the victims of an appropriate and rational national policy, a compassionate government will assist them in their hour of need.” That compassionate government never showed up. Over 39 years, the VICP has awarded just $5.4 billion to 12,000 victims. That comes out to about “1.2 awards per million doses administered.”

In a brand-new statement on X, Secretary Kennedy said he intends to FIX the broken system. He explained that the court was meant to resolve claims “quickly and fairly,” with “doubts about causation resolved in favor of the victim.” But that hasn’t happened. “The structure itself hobbles claimants,” Kennedy wrote. “The defendant is HHS, not the vaccine makers; and claimants are therefore facing the monumental power and bottomless pockets of the U.S. government represented by the Department of Justice.” He explained how Special Masters, who decide the cases, often come from government or political backgrounds and typically show a strong pro-government bias. “There is no discovery, and the rules of evidence do not apply,” Kennedy lamented.

He added that petitioners’ attorneys report retaliation, fee suppression, and even denied access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a taxpayer-funded CDC database containing the best data on vaccine injuries. Worse, expert witnesses for injured children have reported intimidation and threats to their careers, including the loss of NIH funding if they testify. But Kennedy says that era is over. “The VICP is broken, and I intend to fix it,” he wrote on X. “I will not allow the VICP to continue to ignore its mandate and fail its mission of quickly and fairly compensating vaccine-injured individuals.” Kennedy added that he is working closely with AG Pam Bondi and HHS staff to restore the court’s original mission and pledges to “steer the Vaccine Court back to its original Congressional intent.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1950715548259459211

werner
https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1950885611147002295

lagarde

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Jul 272025
 


René Magritte La belle captive 1946

 

Devin Nunes Discusses the DNI Revelations Released by Tulsi Gabbard (CTH)
Trump Goes There: Calls Out Bill Clinton in Epstein Scandal (Margolis)
Obama’s CIA Chief ‘Knowingly Used False Intelligence’ To Undermine Trump (Margolis)
Team Obama Is Running Scared as Russiagate Cover Story Collapses (Margolis)
Democrats Let California Burn While Aid Went Missing – Trump (RT)
From Hero to Zero (Ian Proud)
Kiev Kleptocracy… Stench of Corruption Fouls NATO Regime’s Endgame (SCF)
Zelensky Thought He Was Killing It. He Was (Loginov)
The Kremlin Hates von der Leyen About As Much As EU Lawmakers Do (Marsden)
Hungary Opposes Turning EU’s Budget Into Ukraine’s (RT)
Ukraine’s Accession Will Bring War To EU – Orban (RT)
EU Secretly Pressures US Firms To Censor Immigration Criticism: House GOP (JTN)
Ghislaine Maxwell Gets Limited Immunity, Gives DOJ ‘100 Different People’ (NYP)
Rubio Shares Trump’s Feelings About Russia-Ukraine Conflict (RT)
Destroy Russia. Fail? No Problem: Let’s Destroy China! (Pepe Escobar)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1948832714456793580

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1948791933859508340

debt
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1949108419891225023

 

 

 

 

Little things. Devin Nunes is the former chairman of the House Intelligence Commitee, head of Trump Media, and now Chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board. Through him, Sundance describes a March 2022 lawsuit filed by Trump vs a large group of individuals and entities. Only, it didn’t look like a lawsuit, lots of details were missing. Sundance figured out that it wasn’t meant as a lawsuit, it was “a legal transfer mechanism”. Trump needed evidence available to lawyers somewhere, things needed to be “on the record”, but ‘because of the construct of the lawfare being deployed against Trump, any lawyer would need a “reason* to review the evidence. The Trump -v- Clinton et al lawsuit becomes that ‘reason.’

Great conversation with Gaetz and Nunes.

Devin Nunes Discusses the DNI Revelations Released by Tulsi Gabbard (CTH)

Former House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes appears on OAN with former Congressman Matt Gaetz to discuss the information released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. As noted by Nunes, why did it take this long for the information to surface? That question showcases how corrupt the DC system -the Intelligence Community- is in its effort to protect itself from accountability. Nunes also points to the raid on Mar-a-Lago as a possible entry point for investigative accountability.

Let me refresh on something that could potentially be a revelation down the road. In 2022 a Florida judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by President Trump against Hillary Clinton. [65-page Ruling Here] The media enjoyed ridiculing Trump using the words of the judge who dismissed the case. As noted by the Washington Times, “Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, a Clinton appointee, said Mr. Trump’s filing was too lengthy, detailing events that “are implausible because they lack any specific allegations which might provide factual support for the conclusions reached.” When I originally read the 108-page Donald Trump lawsuit filed in March 2022, it took me a few moments, and then I realized this was not a lawsuit; this was a legal transfer mechanism created by lawyers to establish a proprietary information silo.

Here’s a totally different take on the issues surrounding the Trump -v- Clinton lawsuit, which -from the outset- I always believed was going to be dismissed because suing all of those characters under the auspices of a civil RICO case was never the objective. In the aftermath of the filing, the silo created by the lawsuit is grounded upon attorney-client privilege, a legal countermeasure to a predictable DOJ-NSD lawfare maneuver, which unfolded in the FBI Mar-a-Lago raid and the subsequent Jack Smith targeting operation. In March 2022 President Trump filed a civil lawsuit against: Hillary Clinton, Hillary for America Campaign Committee, DNC, DNC Services Corp, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Dolan, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Phillipe Reines as well as Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith and Andrew McCabe. [108-Page Lawsuit Here]

When I was about one-third of the way through reading the lawsuit, I initially stopped and said to myself this is going to take a lot of documentary evidence to back up the claims in the assertions. Dozens of attachments would be needed and hundreds of citations to the dozens of attachments would be mandatory. Except, they were not there. After reading further, while completely understanding the background material that was being described in the filing, I realized this wasn’t a lawsuit per se’. The 108-pages I was holding in my hands was more akin to legal transfer mechanism from President Trump to lawyers who needed it. The lawsuit filing was contingent upon a series of documents that would be needed to support the claims within it. Whoever wrote the lawsuit had obviously reviewed the evidence to support the filing. However, the attachments and citations were missing. That was weird.

That’s when I realized the purpose of the lawsuit. In hindsight, things became clear when the FBI later raided the home of Donald Trump, and suddenly the motive to confiscate documents, perhaps the missing lawsuit attachments and citations, surfaced. With the manipulative, and I said intentional, “ongoing investigation” angle created by the John Durham probe essentially blocking public release of declassified documents showing the efforts of all the lawsuit participants (Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax), in 2021 President Trump needed a legal way to secure and more importantly share evidence.

Think of it like the people around Trump wanting to show lawyers the evidence in the documents. However,because of the construct of the lawfare being deployed against Trump, any lawyer would need a *reason* to review the evidence. The Trump -v- Clinton et al lawsuit becomes that ‘reason.’ The “documents” (classified or not) were likely reviewed by lawyers in preparation for the lawsuit. This is their legal justification for reviewing the documents. In essence, the lawsuit was a transfer mechanism permitting the Trump legal team to review the evidence on behalf of their client, former President Donald Trump.

Read more …

Why does Trump go there? “Clinton flew with a known predator, when to his island, and is seen in photographs with Epstein victims… yet the press won’t ask why..”

Trump Goes There: Calls Out Bill Clinton in Epstein Scandal (Margolis)

In a political world where Democrats are scrambling to memory-hole every scrap of the Jeffrey Epstein disaster that is damaging to their own party, and trying to make it a Donald Trump scandal, the media is more than happy to help them rewrite history. And President Trump has had enough. After all the fake news and the bogus accusations, on Friday, Trump decided he’d had enough, and barreled right into the hornet’s nest and started torching it with a flamethrower. Reporters asked about the pervert financier’s infamous sex trafficking operation—and Trump didn’t dodge or deflect. He unloaded, pointing the finger straight at former President Bill Clinton. “You ought to be speaking about [former Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. You ought to be speaking about some of, uh, his friends that are hedge fund guys. They’re all over the place. You ought to be speaking about Bill Clinton, who went to the island 28 times. I never went to the island.”

When a reporter followed up by asking whether he had written a letter for Epstein’s birthday party, Trump flatly rejected the claim. “I don’t even know what they’re talking about,” he said. “Now, somebody could have written a letter and used my name, but that’s happened a lot. All you have to do is take a look at the dossier, the fake dossier.” He continued attacking Democrats, accusing them of spreading misinformation and fabricating evidence: “Everything’s fake with that administration. Everything’s fake with the Democrats. Take a look at what they just found about, about the dossier.” Repeating the theme, Trump added, “Everything is fake. They’re a bunch of sick people.”

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1948743571495899323

Clinton has spent years denying he ever visited Epstein’s island. In his 2024 memoir, he repeats the same tired line, pretending he barely knew Epstein, however, it’s public record at this point that Bill Clinton hobnobbed with Epstein, jetted off to his notorious island over and over. But the media has turned a blind eye to Bill Clinton’s deep, well-documented relationship with Epstein. Clinton wants America to take his word that he was just there for the sunshine and cocktails. However, Johanna Sjoberg, an Epstein accuser who testified under oath in 2016, says Epstein once told her “Clinton likes them young, referring to girls.” Meanwhile, Clinton’s team refused to answer questions about a birthday letter he reportedly sent to Epstein, and instead recycled the same tired statement that he cut ties with Epstein “more than a decade before” Epstein’s 2019 arrest—and supposedly knew nothing about his crimes.

Trump, meanwhile, has said plainly he never set foot on the island—and there’s no evidence to the contrary. But the press keeps hounding him, while running cover for Democrats. Working-class Americans see the double standard. Clinton flew with a known predator, when to his island, and is seen in photographs with Epstein victims… yet the press won’t ask why. There’s no outrage, no wall-to-wall coverage—just more selective silence, buried like the Hunter Biden laptop. The hypocrisy is obvious. If Trump sneezes, it’s a crisis. But Democrats can cozy up to monsters and never be called out for it. Well, Trump’s calling them out now.

Read more …

“Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe obstructed the House Intel Committee by prohibiting interviews with more than 30 FBI employees involved in supporting Brennan’s notorious “fusion cell.”

“Brennan “knowingly used false intelligence” to try to undermine President-elect Trump, a federal offense that constitutes outright fraud against the American government..”

[..the Steele Dossier]: “When senior officers called out its obvious flaws in a Dec. 2016 Langley meeting, Brennan stubbornly insisted, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?”

Obama’s CIA Chief ‘Knowingly Used False Intelligence’ To Undermine Trump (Margolis)

If you thought the Russian collusion hoax couldn’t get any uglier, think again. The circus orchestrated by Obama’s intelligence brass is unraveling in spectacular fashion, and John Brennan finds himself squarely in the crosshairs, not for a political dispute, but for criminal prosecution. This latest chapter, now marked by damning revelations, reeks of a conspiracy to subvert not only a presidency, but the very core of American democracy. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s recent confirmation hit like a thunderbolt: Barack Obama, the architect of this mess, has been named in an official criminal referral to the Justice Department. Brennan, Obama’s CIA chief and a man whose fingerprints are found all over this operation, is most likely staring down an indictment. James Comey isn’t far behind, either; both he and Brennan are already under extreme scrutiny by the FBI. It’s as if each turn yields another layer of deception and abuse of power. Even hardened law professors like Jonathan Turley recognize Brennan as a high-profile trophy for prosecutors—he’s now the “30-point buck out in the open,” primed to fall.

The scope of misconduct here borders on the surreal. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) dropped a 46-page bombshell report that systematically destroyed Brennan’s ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment), which Obama ordered up as a final act of sabotage against Donald Trump. According to Paul Sperry, an investigative reporter for RealClearInvestigations, the findings were so relentlessly damning that the CIA refused to cooperate, went as far as obfuscating evidence, and sabotaged committee investigators: Shockingly, two key developments torpedoed any last defense for Brennan.

First, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe obstructed the House Intel Committee by prohibiting interviews with more than 30 FBI employees involved in supporting Brennan’s notorious “fusion cell.” Not a single FBI analyst connected to the ICA was allowed to testify; they were all silenced. Second, DNI Gabbard revealed that Brennan “knowingly used false intelligence” to try to undermine President-elect Trump, a federal offense that constitutes outright fraud against the American government. But perhaps the most grotesque twist in this saga is the beating heart of the Russian collusion hoax: the Steele Dossier. Long debunked, thoroughly discredited, and condemned by the same CIA Russia analysts Brennan himself supervised, the dossier was forcibly embedded in Obama’s handpicked ICA.

When senior officers called out its obvious flaws in a Dec. 2016 Langley meeting, Brennan stubbornly insisted, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?” In other words, narrative trumped evidence for Obama’s CIA. Despite heated objections, the ICA’s drafters, chosen by Brennan himself, followed marching orders to weaponize dubious rumor and produce a document that served political ends, not reality. As we’ve noted before, the original assessments from Obama’s own intelligence community found no evidence that Russia altered the outcome of the 2016 election. But that didn’t suit the narrative Obama wanted. So he ordered the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) to be rewritten—pressuring John Brennan and his allies to force their preferred conclusion into the official record.

It wasn’t about accuracy or national security. It was about sabotage. They leaked their distortions to a compliant media and set out to delegitimize a duly elected president. The damage they caused to the American republic was—and still is—immeasurable. Now, the truth tumbles out into the open. Brennan’s strategy of “just making it ring true” has collapsed. Those responsible must be held accountable—not because of partisanship but because weaponizing U.S. intelligence agencies to undermine the will of the people is one of the gravest threats imaginable. Americans deserve justice, and the reckoning for Brennan and his Obama-era co-conspirators cannot come soon enough.

Read more …

“The legacy media is once again doing damage control—this time by rolling out anonymous Obama allies to accuse Trump and Gabbard of fabricating “treason” claims to distract from the Epstein scandal..”

Team Obama Is Running Scared as Russiagate Cover Story Collapses (Margolis)

Team Obama is panicking. You can see it in every flailing move, every desperate media blitz, and every attempt to deflect from the deep, unresolved questions about the origins of Russiagate. The architects of the infamous hoax—Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey—have all been exposed, thanks to the tenacity of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who recently dropped declassified documents implicating the Obama-era intelligence cabal in concocting and perpetuating the false Russia narrative that hounded President Donald Trump throughout his first term. The stakes are real. Gabbard’s release didn’t just shine a light on the feverish efforts to smear Trump; it laid bare how these intelligence heavyweights cobbled together artificial intel on Trump while deliberately concealing explosive evidence that raised grave concerns about Hillary Clinton’s fitness for office.

Yeah, we’re not forgetting about that. The legacy media is once again doing damage control—this time by rolling out anonymous Obama allies to accuse Trump and Gabbard of fabricating “treason” claims to distract from the Epstein scandal. It’s a transparent attempt to spin the narrative and pressure Republicans into ignoring the growing pile of evidence. I previously wrote about how former State Department spokesperson Ned Price, an Obama White House veteran and ex-CIA analyst, wrote a panicked op-ed for Fox News, lashing out at Tulsi Gabbard, accusing her of pushing revisionist history and dangerously inflating the 2016 Russia collusion narrative. Remarkably absent from his piece is any substantive defense of the narrative he once championed, namely, that Russia tried to influence the election. Of course, he’s not alone.

Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has not only hit the media circuit but has also revealed he’s lawyered up. Former CIA Director John Brennan slammed the Trump administration’s findings about the 2016 Russia assessment as “unsurprising, very troubling, and very dangerous.” He called the administration’s defense “ludicrous,” comparing it to “a third-rate lawyer who realizes she has nothing to defend her client and is going to put together an absurd brief that’s laughable on its face.” Brennan claimed the original report was “very carefully worded, meticulously done,” and “stands up to scrutiny,” and continued to lean on the claim it showed Russia acted “at President Putin’s direction” to influence the election in favor of Trump. Susan Miller, a retired CIA officer who helped craft the 2017 intel assessment on Russian election interference, is accusing Gabbard and the Trump White House of “lying” about the intel report’s findings.

Speaking to NBC News, Miller claims the intelligence clearly showed Russia aimed to help Trump win in 2016—though she acknowledged there was no evidence of collusion between Trump’s team and Moscow. Her remarks appear to be a defensive pushback against growing scrutiny of the intel community’s role in shaping the now-discredited Trump-Russia narrative. Team Obama’s panic is nothing short of palpable. The exposure of their manufactured narrative is unraveling before their eyes. Each frantic appearance, each attempt to discredit their critics, only serves to confirm what the American public is starting to see: The hoax was real, and its architects are running out of places to hide. The more they scramble, the more obvious it becomes—Obama’s team is scared, and for the first time, genuinely unsure of what awaits them next.

Read more …

$100 million dollars was raised through a FireAid concert for victims of California’s January wildfires. $100 million dollars is missing.

Democrats Let California Burn While Aid Went Missing – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has accused Democrats of mishandling $100 million raised through a FireAid concert for victims of California’s January wildfires, calling the initiative “a total disaster” and alleging the money has not reached those affected. Wildfires broke out in early January across Southern California, killing at least 31 people, destroying more than 18,000 structures, leaving tens of thousands displaced, and causing total property losses between $76 billion and $131 billion. The FireAid concert, held January 30, was said to have raised approximately $100 million for wildfire relief. During the broadcast, host Samuel L. Jackson told viewers that “all the money will go directly to people who need help.”

However, in a Truth Social post published on Friday, Trump slammed FireAid as a “total disaster” and “another Democrat inspired scam.” “100 million dollars is missing. Was supposed to go to the Los Angeles fire victims, fires that, with proper management, would never have even happened,” Trump wrote. His comments come after several investigations found that the FireAid funds never reached the wildfire victims. David Howard, who lost two homes in Pacific Palisades, told Fox News, “I have not seen any benefit from the FireAid money, and I am very involved here and neither have my neighbors.” Another victim, Mark Jones, said he expected help after the concert but was never contacted.

FireAid has since stated that it does not distribute funds directly to individuals and has reported that $75 million has been granted so far to 188 nonprofits, with the remaining $25 million scheduled for release in August for long-term recovery, environmental resilience, and rebuilding. While no evidence of fraud has been disclosed, Trump has said that he would be referring the case of the missing funds to the US attorney general, telling reporters that “I think they are going to act very strongly.” Trump has repeatedly blamed California Governor Gavin Newsom and his policies for the fires, accusing him of restricting access to water in the state. Newsom has repeatedly denied the allegations, calling the claims “pure fiction.”

Read more …

Zelensky is losing “it”. The tide is turning.

“He has been completely immune from any criticism in the west, with all allegations dismissed and labelled as Kremlin talking points. Yet, in an instant, that illusion has been shattered.”

From Hero to Zero (Ian Proud)

Since the start of the war in Ukraine, in February 2022, Volodymyr Zelensky has been elevated to the status of a hero King, pure in thought and deed, interested only in saving humble Ukraine from the onrushing hordes of Russian Orcs. Like Aragorn from Lord of the Rings, but short, thin-skinned and with a gravelly voice. He has been completely immune from any criticism in the west, with all allegations dismissed and labelled as Kremlin talking points. Yet, in an instant, that illusion has been shattered. For the first time since February 2022, Zelensky has been revealed as, in practical terms, no different from other Ukrainian Presidents who have preceded him since the country gained independence in August 1991; corrupt and authoritarian. This comes as no surprise to most realists, but will be a devastating blow to the neo-liberal true-believers who have invested their reputations and cash into defeating Russia.

This week, President Zelensky signed a law that strips two important anti-corruption bodies – the National Anti-Courrption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) of their independence, making them report to the Prosecutor General, who he appointed. Let’s be clear, corruption is and has been a hugely totemic issue in Ukraine, right back to the onset of the Maidan protests in late 2013. During my visits to Ukraine, while posted to Russia, it was absolutely clear that young people believed tackling corruption to be a top priority for the government. This formed part of their desire for Ukraine to move towards European Union membership, for their country to integrate into a community more clearly governed by democracy and the rule of law.

Whether they might consider the European Union to be democratic today, as unelected Commission President Ursula von der Leyen centralises ever more powers, is another question. But that European and anti-corruption aspiration was very real back in 2013. Yet scant progress has been made in tackling corruption since that time. In February 2015, one year after the heigh of the Maidan protests, the British Guardian newspaper published a long piece entitled ‘Welcome to Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe’. The Ukrainian Prime Minister, Arseny Yatseniuk, who had been personally selected by Victoria Nuland at the U.S. State Department, was forced to resign in April 2016 in the face of allegations of widespread corruption within his government.

In 2021, the European Court of Auditors produced a report entitled Reducing Grand Corruption in Ukraine: several EU initiatives, but still insufficient results. It defined Grand Corruption as ‘the abuse of high-level power that benefits the few, and causes serious and widespread harm to individuals and society’. In January 2023, an article in the Hill remarked on the need to defeat corruption as Ukraine’s ‘other enemy’. Shortly after that article, a piece, again in the Guardian, discussed the challenges faced by the Head of Ukraine’s National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NACP), which works closely with the now de-clawed NABU and SAPO.

That report in particular talked about specific examples of corruption in President Zelensky’s inner circle. Occasionally, Zelensky has purged his cabinet, to show his commitment to governmental reform, for example, sacking his former Defence Minister, Oleksii Reznikov, in the face of widespread accusations that the Ukrainian Defence Ministry was siphoning off foreign donations on an industrial scale. But the occasional show trial has never taken the whiff away that Zelensky’s administration is every bit as corrupt as those that preceded it. And President Zelensky was voted into office in 2019 on a platform to eradicate corruption in Ukraine. In truth, he has done nothing to tackle it.

Read more …

“The Washington Post reported: “Ukrainians protest as Zelensky cracks down on corruption watchdogs.” Ditto, among others, The New York Times, Time, CNN, France 24, The Economist, BBC, and even the usually supportive CIA-run Radio Free Europe. With remarkable uniformity, the Western media were condemning their erstwhile favorite “Churchillian figure”..

Kiev Kleptocracy… Stench of Corruption Fouls NATO Regime’s Endgame (SCF)

Previously, any observer who had pointed out the rampant corruption that is endemic in the Kiev regime was automatically denounced by Western governments and media as a peddler of Russian disinformation. Hilariously, though, this week, the Kiev kleptocracy burst open in such a spectacular way that even the American and European apologists for the regime could no longer maintain the worst-kept secret of their charade. The fiasco exploded after the self-appointed President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, passed a law that stripped two anti-corruption agencies of their independent powers. Citizens took to the streets of Kiev and other cities in furious protest against what they openly lambasted as an autocratic regime trying to prolong its corrupt racketeering. The demonstrations were the largest seen on the streets of Ukraine despite the country being at war with Russia for over three years.

As the Wall Street Journal reported: “The protests exposed long dormant divisions between the government and society.” Zelensky, whose official presidential mandate expired last year, was stunned by the upsurge in public anger. By the end of the week, he was backtracking on the move to close the anti-graft agencies and was claiming, somewhat unconvincingly, that he was drafting a new bill to return the investigative powers. It was damage-limitation mode and largely prompted by the alarm of his Western backers. It is not clear if the U-turn will appease the Ukrainian public, who appear to have reached a pivotal level of disgust with the Kiev regime, not just over its endemic corruption but also over the grinding war with Russia and forced mobilization of reluctant military recruits.

Significantly, the Western governments and media also reacted with extraordinary contempt towards Zelensky and his ruling circle. Western media headlines highlighted the problem of corruption in Ukraine and Zelensky’s brazen attempt to curb the anti-corruption organizations. The Washington Post reported: “Ukrainians protest as Zelensky cracks down on corruption watchdogs.” Ditto, among others, The New York Times, Time, CNN, France 24, The Economist, BBC, and even the usually supportive CIA-run Radio Free Europe. With remarkable uniformity, the Western media were condemning their erstwhile favorite “Churchillian figure”. Even the slavishly supportive U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham rebuked Zelensky. Were they all of a sudden drinking Russian Kool-Aid?

The Wall Street Journal reported: “Ukrainians ramp up protests as Zelensky tries to find a way out.” Likewise, the BBC headlined: “Zelensky backtracks on law over anticorruption bodies after protests.” There are signs that the scandal has gone too far for Zelensky to now try to put the stench back in the bottle. This is what the staunchest backers of the Kiev regime are really worried about. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer were among the European leaders who vigorously remonstrated with Zelensky over the corruption debacle. Von der Leyen chided Zelensky that anti-corruption was key to the country’s path towards eventually joining the EU, if it ever does, which, like its aspiration to join NATO, is doubtful.

What worries the NATO sponsors of the proxy war against Russia is that the corruption in Kiev will hasten a disorderly collapse of the regime. And with that, their long-term geopolitical game to confront and weaken Russia is over. The news of corruption is hardly new, and the Western governments know that. Pentagon auditors have long noted the vast amount of money that has disappeared unaccountably under Zelensky.

The racketeering has become even more brazen since Zelensky declared martial law and cancelled elections last year, making him a self-appointed president indefinitely. The Ukrainian people have had it with his crony rule, while thousands of men are killed and maimed every week on the front lines. Adding to the public anger and resistance are the goon squads that the regime dispatches to drag men off the streets to be sent to the front lines and certain death. Videos increasingly show Ukrainian communities standing up to snatch squads who are terrorizing them.

Read more …

“Over time, it became clear that Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies served not only their official mission but also the political interests of a specific faction – namely, the US Democratic Party.”

Zelensky Thought He Was Killing It. He Was (Loginov)

Ukrainians have had plenty of reasons to take to the streets: the cancellation of elections, forced mobilization, the refusal to demobilize soldiers who’ve been on the front lines for over three years, the persecution of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, corruption in the construction of fortifications, the state’s failure to have the bodies of fallen soldiers returned, and – above all – the complete absence of a plan for ending the conflict with Russia. This list could go on. And yet, none of these issues has triggered large-scale protests. What we’ve seen instead are isolated outbursts: in towns and villages, women block draft officers from entering their neighborhoods; churchgoers physically defend their parishes; the wives and mothers of Ukrainian soldiers stage small rallies to draw attention to their plight.

And yet, even in this atmosphere of fear and suppression, Vladimir Zelensky has managed to ignite a political crisis. The hasty passage of Bill No. 12414 – which stripped the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) of their independence – sparked a wave of demonstrations that haven’t let up for days. It’s the first major popular protest since the start of Russia’s military operation, and it poses a serious challenge to Zelensky’s grip on power. Rallies have broken out in Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Rovno, and Nikolayev. While officials have tried to frame them as spontaneous, local expressions of concern about anti-corruption institutions, the scope and coordination suggest otherwise. The message to Zelensky is simple: the pressure is just beginning.

To understand why the anti-corruption issue struck such a nerve, we need to go back to the beginning. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) were established in 2015 with active backing from the United States – just a year after the coup in Kiev. At the time, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin openly stated that the idea for NABU came directly from then–Vice President Joe Biden. From the outset, these agencies functioned as tools of external oversight over the post-Maidan Ukrainian government. President Petro Poroshenko, who was still consolidating power and ideology, did not resist Washington’s involvement. NABU’s early targets included oligarchs like Igor Kolomoysky and Rinat Akhmetov, who controlled major media holdings. This suited Poroshenko, whose own business interests, notably, remained untouched.

Over time, it became clear that Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies served not only their official mission but also the political interests of a specific faction – namely, the US Democratic Party. A prime example is the Paul Manafort case. In 2016, The New York Times, citing NABU sources, published claims that Manafort – then campaign chairman for Donald Trump – had received undisclosed payments from Ukraine’s Party of Regions under President Viktor Yanukovych. These claims prompted a US investigation into possible Ukrainian interference in the American election. In 2019, the Senate ultimately found no evidence – but the episode left a lasting impression. That same year, NABU played a role in deflecting scrutiny from the Burisma scandal – the energy company whose board included Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

Over time, the link between these anti-corruption institutions and the US Democratic Party became apparent to many Ukrainians. And with Republicans now back in power in Washington, Zelensky appears to have decided it was time to free himself from external control. Zelensky likely assumed that the new American administration wouldn’t go out of its way to defend the Democratic Party’s proxies in Ukraine. Judging by Washington’s muted response, that calculation may have been correct. What he failed to consider, however, was the level of domestic resistance to his growing concentration of power.

Ukraine today is full of pressure points. Discontent is widespread – but scattered and disorganized. Zelensky’s opponents simply lack the means to unseat him. Moreover, Zelensky remains the centerpiece of the West’s anti-Russian strategy – a leader willing to accept any domestic cost in service of that agenda. Even policies that threaten the foundations of Ukrainian statehood are tolerated, so long as the broader project of an “anti-Russia” continues.

Read more …

“If there are extraterrestrials somewhere out there, they may not know much about Earth, except for the fact that von der Leyen is obsessed with Russia – a phenomenon easily visible from space.”

The Kremlin Hates von der Leyen About As Much As EU Lawmakers Do (Marsden)

Apparently, trying to hold Ursula von der Leyen accountable is now a Russian op, reports Der Spiegel, citing a new NATO-linked think tank report. The study treats elected oversight and European lawmakers whose job, ideally, involves more than clapping like trained seals every time an unelected Eurocrat lights public money on fire, like elements of some kind of Russian infiltration plot. “Massive support for this effort was also found by pro-Kremlin media outlets, bloggers, and online influencers, as the Lithuania-based organization Debunk.org specializes in analyzing disinformation and Russian propaganda, which is seen as part of Russia’s hybrid warfare against the EU,” Spiegel wrote, describing Russian-linked media “fueling” a recent von der Leyen non-confidence vote in the EU Parliament. “Among the larger portals were those of the Russian propaganda channel RT…”

According to the advance copy of this report seen by Spiegel, the study reviewed 284 articles from Russian-linked media. Exactly how many of those articles expressed something like only von der Leyen’s ouster could save Europe? 90%? 75%? Maybe half? Nope, just 35%. Roughly the same percentage of voting EU lawmakers who favored ejecting her (32.7%). So by this logic, the Kremlin is about as supportive of Ursula as Brussels is. Awkward. Spiegel said that was the most common so-called Kremlin-backed narrative that the study found. Others included the suggestion that von der Leyen is part of a corrupt elite that robbed citizens to fill Big Pharma’s pockets. Because apparently, saying that hey, maybe EU contracts shouldn’t be inked via disappearing text messages with the CEO of a company, means that you’re doing Putin’s bidding. Real democracy means that you shut your mouth when you see your overlords doing shady stuff.

Another alleged Kremlin line? That Ursula, despite her presidential title, was never elected. As someone who personally refers to her as “Queen Ursula,” I’m actually surprised that one didn’t rank higher. It’s not like she won a popular vote or anything. She was handpicked in shady backrooms and then subjected to a simple confirmation by EU lawmakers. Her sole opponent in this so-called “election” was literally just “not Ursula.” Only the EU, in all its dystopian delusion, would call that an “election”. Then there was the claim that she’s obsessed with confronting Russia. Which is just, uh, objectively true? I mean, come on. If there are extraterrestrials somewhere out there, they may not know much about Earth, except for the fact that von der Leyen is obsessed with Russia – a phenomenon easily visible from space.

Even right before the vote, she accused the lawmakers subjecting her to democratic accountability of being Kremlin stooges just because they wanted her to explain herself. “There is ample proof that many are supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere. What we hear from you are movements fueled by conspiracies, from anti-vaxxers, to put in apologists and you only have to look at some of the signatories of this motion to understand what I mean,” she pleaded.

Let’s back up here. Why exactly did she face this no-confidence vote? Because no one who’s elected and accountable at the EU has actually been able to provide concrete details of contract terms for the tens of billions of euros in Covid jabs that she strong-armed European governments into paying for. Jabs that are now so useless they’re being dumped in landfills all over Europe, where one-eyed stuffed animals, soggy pizza boxes, and a moldy futon just got their third booster, courtesy of the EU taxpayer. One of those contracts followed a flurry of text exchanges between Ursula and Pfizer CEO, Robert Bourla, which she bragged about to the New York Times right before they pulled a Houdini.

The courts have so far politely asked her to explain herself. And that’s where we’re stuck right now. So frustrated lawmakers figured that they could at least make her publicly squirm with a non-confidence vote in an attempt to get her to cough up at least some of the answers for taxpayers. The result? Ursula’s interpretive song and tap-dance routine in Parliament: “Putin Did It: Paranoia in Three Acts.” She ultimately survived the vote thanks to some budget crumbs thrown at the lefties who were otherwise saying that they would have voted against her. But even they told Politico that it was her “absolute last chance.”

Read more …

“The €2 trillion ($2.17 trillion) 2028–2034 [budget].”

“..analysts who estimate up to 25% of the budget could end up being spent on Kiev.”

That’s $500 billion. Fool’s gold.

Hungary Opposes Turning EU’s Budget Into Ukraine’s (RT)

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has slammed the European Commission’s proposed seven-year EU budget as a “budget for Ukraine,” in an interview with RIA Novosti published on Friday. The €2 trillion ($2.17 trillion) 2028–2034 spending plan published by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, which includes around €100 billion in aid for Ukraine and funds for potential EU accession, is “unacceptable,” according to the top Hungarian diplomat. The budget must be approved unanimously by all 27 member states, giving Hungary the power to block it. “We will not give it support or consent,” Szijjarto told RIA Novosti, adding, “this isn’t even the budget of the European Union – it’s a budget for Ukraine.”

Budapest has also warned that the draft shifts funds from cohesion policies and agricultural subsidies, which are vital to Central Europe. The proposal could undermine EU food security by forcing farmers out of business and increasing import reliance, Hungarian officials have said. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has also denounced the draft budget, warning it could “destroy the EU” and claiming its only purpose is “to admit Ukraine to the EU.” He has also cited analysts who estimate up to 25% of the budget could end up being spent on Kiev.

Germany has likewise rejected the plan, calling it “unacceptable” amid efforts by EU members to reduce their national deficits. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has noted that Ukraine is unlikely to even join the bloc before 2034, when the current budget cycle ends. Ukraine has designated EU accession as a national priority. While Brussels has suggested Kiev could join by 2030, all existing members must approve its entry. Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland remain opposed, citing concerns about Ukraine’s readiness and its potential financial burden on the bloc. While the Kremlin initially said Ukraine had the sovereign right to join the EU, Russian officials have since hardened their stance, accusing the bloc of undergoing “rabid militarization” and becoming an offshoot of NATO.

Read more …

“He argued that Kiev’s full membership would come with “war risks.” “Ukraine is a buffer state, and we do not wish to share its fate. We understand what that means, having once been on the western periphery of the Soviet Union..”

Ukraine’s Accession Will Bring War To EU – Orban (RT)

Ukrainian membership in the European Union would threaten Hungary’s security and raise the risk of war in the region, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said. Ukraine, which was granted EU candidate status in 2022, has made joining the bloc a national priority. While Brussels has floated 2030 as a possible accession date, all current member states must approve the move. Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland remain opposed, citing concerns over the country’s preparedness and the financial strain its membership could place on the EU. Warsaw has additionally insisted that Kiev come to terms with war crimes committed by Ukrainians during WWII. In an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday,

Orban said that Hungary, which shares a border with Ukraine, would be especially vulnerable to any escalation resulting from the EU’s expansion. He argued that Kiev’s full membership would come with “war risks.” “Ukraine is a buffer state, and we do not wish to share its fate. We understand what that means, having once been on the western periphery of the Soviet Union,” he said. “If Ukraine’s membership is accepted, then we will become the battlefield. The war will geographically affect the neighboring region. This is unacceptable. A lot of young Hungarians would also die. This is not a tactical issue, but an existential one,” Orban added. He proposed a strategic partnership with the EU as an alternative to full accession.

Earlier this week, Orban – a frequent critic of EU leadership – rejected the European Commission’s proposed seven-year budget, warning that it could “destroy the European Union.” He claimed the proposal was designed primarily to finance Ukraine’s membership, citing estimates that up to 25% of the budget could be allocated to Kiev. Budapest has blocked multiple EU military aid packages for Kiev and has repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire with Russia. Hungary has also warned that the financial and security implications of Ukraine’s integration could outweigh any potential benefits, framing the issue as a matter of national survival rather than political preference.

Read more …

Trump will not like this one bit.

EU Secretly Pressures US Firms To Censor Immigration Criticism: House GOP (JTN)

The European Union is secretly leaning on tech platforms to censor routine political speech and even jokes as a legal obligation under its Digital Services Act, according to an interim staff report Friday by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, which has also probed Brazil’s censorship, Biden administration jawboning and ideological advertiser boycotts. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said it was prompted by then-EU Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton’s threat against X last summer, later disavowed by the European Commission, that owner Elon Musk’s scheduled livestream with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump might constitute “illegal content” under the DSA. Though Breton resigned “under pressure from EU President Ursula von der Leyen” after Jordan demanded a briefing from Breton on his threats, his successor, Henna Virkkunen, “remains strongly supportive of the DSA’s censorship provisions and continues to enforce them against American companies,” the report says.

“Camouflaged as a regulation to increase online safety,” the DSA lets European regulators “suppress speech globally” by threatening fines up to 6% of global revenue against platforms, based anywhere, that refuse to censor “humor, satire, and core political speech” that offends bureaucrats and align content moderation with EC preferences, it says. The law empowers them to “temporarily shut down platforms within the EU” if “extraordinary circumstances lead to a serious threat to public security or public health in the Union.” Platforms must allow “certified third-party arbitrators to resolve content moderation disputes,” who “do not need to be independent from the European regulators who certify them, incentivizing arbitrators to heed regulators’ censorship demands,” the report says.

Because “platforms bear the cost when they lose at arbitration,” they are also incentivized to censor flagged content “before arbitration begins.” The DSA has an “arbitrary threshold” of 45 million monthly users to qualify as a strictly regulated “very large online platform,” seemingly chosen to “sweep in major American companies while carving out Europe’s top tech companies,” with only Booking.com and “pornography websites” qualifying, the report says. The EC “invented workarounds” to exempt other European companies from VLOP classification, for example Spotify, which gets to split its products between music and podcasts “for the purpose of counting EU users,” the report says. It cites a critic that alleges a “clear discrepancy” between “self-declared” monthly users and “reality.”

“Absolutely nothing in the DSA requires a platform to remove lawful content,” EC spokesperson Thomas Regnier told Politico EU in response to the staff report, claiming freedom of expression is “a fundamental right in the EU” and “at the heart of our legislations.” Regnier said “content removals based on regulatory authorities’ orders to act against illegal content account for less than 0.001 percent” of the content moderation decisions, with platforms “proactively” deciding the rest based on their own terms and conditions. ‘I’m not racist, but …’ is ‘coded language to express anti-Muslim sentiment’

The committee’s subpoenas revealed content from the EC’s May 7 workshop with DSA stakeholders, which unlike its “contemporaneous” Digital Markets Act workshops was closed to the public and operated under the Chatham House Rule, banning participants from describing “exercise scenarios” or naming or quoting participants without permission. It also obtained emails between EC staff and tech companies on purportedly “voluntary” codes of conduct on hate speech and disinformation, showing “regulators repeatedly and deliberately reached out to pressure reluctant platforms to join” and retaliated against resisters, opening a probe of X for refusing to use purported fact-checkers. “The censorship is largely one-sided, almost uniformly targeting political conservatives,” the report’s press release says.

Read more …

“The proffer immunity granted to Maxwell allowed her to answer questions without her responses later being used against her in a criminal case..”

Ghislaine Maxwell Gets Limited Immunity, Gives DOJ ‘100 Different People’ (NYP)

Notorious sex criminal Ghislaine Maxwell answered questions from Justice Department officials about “100 different people” linked to late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, an attorney for the disgraced socialite claimed Friday following two days of interrogation led by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche during which she was reportedly granted limited immunity. David Oscar Markus told reporters that his client, currently serving a 20-year sentence after being convicted in Manhattan of federal sex trafficking and conspiracy charges in December 2021, was “asked about every possible thing you could imagine – everything.” “This was the first opportunity she’s ever been given to answer questions about what happened,” Markus added. “The truth will come out about what happened with Mr. Epstein and she’s the person who’s answering those questions.”

Blanche had “every single question” answered during the sitdown, Maxwell’s attorney also said, with the British-born convict declining to plead the Fifth Amendment. “If she lies they could charge her with lying,” Markus noted. “They did charge her with lying,” a reporter challenged him, referring to two perjury counts that Markus noted were dropped by the feds after her conviction. “No one is above the law — and no lead is off-limits,” Blanche posted on X Tuesday in announcing he would speak with Maxwell. Maxwell, 63, is appealing her conviction and sentencing, and legal observers have speculated her willingness to answer questions is tied to a potential clemency grant by President Trump. Her attorney described the commander in chief Friday as “the ultimate dealmaker” and claimed his client had “been treated unfairly for the past five years” and “didn’t get a fair trial.”

“We hope he exercises that power in a right and just way,” Markus added. Trump, 79, told reporters after landing in Glasgow, Scotland that “I don’t know anything about the conversation” between Blanche and Maxwell because “I haven’t really been following it.” “This is no time to be talking about pardons,” the president added after saying hours earlier while leaving the White House that “I haven’t thought” about the idea. Maxwell reportedly initiated the sitdowns with the DOJ and answered questions for roughly nine hours, according to ABC News. The proffer immunity granted to Maxwell allowed her to answer questions without her responses later being used against her in a criminal case, sources told the outlet. Proffer immunity is typically granted to individuals prosecutors want cooperation from in a criminal case.

In 2022, the Department of Justice expressed doubts that Maxwell could be truthful, writing in court filings that she displayed a “significant pattern of dishonest conduct” and failed to take responsibility for her heinous crimes. Court papers the prior year revealed that prosecutors never seriously entertained the prospect of offering the women dubbed “Epstein’s madam” a plea agreement after the financier was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell while awaiting his own federal trial on Aug. 10, 2019. According to Markus, Epstein’s attorneys had been informed that “no potential co-conspirators would be prosecuted” as part of his talks with government lawyers following his July 2019 arrest on sex trafficking charges. “I don’t think President Trump knows that the Justice Department took the position that that promise should not be upheld,” he claimed.

Read more …

Go to Moscow. Leave the European and US warmongers alone.

Rubio Shares Trump’s Feelings About Russia-Ukraine Conflict (RT)

US President Donald Trump is growing impatient with Russia over resolving the Ukraine conflict, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said. Moscow maintains it is open to diplomacy, but has said any settlement must take into account its security concerns. Speaking to Fox News on Saturday, Rubio claimed that while Trump is focused on peace and has done his best to bring hostilities to a close, his overtures to Russia appear to be yielding little result so far. “He’s done everything possible to bring it to an end. I think he is growing increasingly frustrated,” he said. According to Rubio, despite “good interactions with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and phone calls, it never leads to anything.”

“He is losing patience, losing his willingness to continue to wait for the Russian side to do something to bring an end to this war that wasn’t his, but he wants to see it come to an end,” Rubio added, accusing Moscow of using “delaying tactics.” His comments come after Trump imposed a 50-day ceasefire deadline on Moscow, warning of “very severe” new sanctions, including 100% “secondary tariffs” on countries buying Russian oil.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that the sanctions threat would be interpreted by Kiev as a “signal to continue the war” rather than to seek peace. He has also described Trump’s style as “rather harsh,” while confirming that “Moscow intends to continue dialogue with Washington” and follow “a line of repairing the significantly broken bilateral relations.”

Earlier this week, Russia and Ukraine held a third round of direct talks in Istanbul, with Moscow proposing short ceasefires for retrieving wounded and fallen soldiers. Additionally, the Kremlin offered to continue prisoner exchanges and return the remains of fallen soldiers. However, the two sides remain far apart on a potential peace settlement, with Moscow insisting that Ukraine should recognize the loss of five of its former regions that joined Russia in public referendums, withdraw its forces from them, commit to neutrality, and limit its own military capabilities. Kiev has dismissed the terms as an “ultimatum.”

Read more …

“China is encouraging BRICS nations and partners to use the yuan “for trade settlement, thereby creating a self-sustaining cycle” driven by “real trade demand.” This is the system those clowns want to regime-change.”

Destroy Russia. Fail? No Problem: Let’s Destroy China! (Pepe Escobar)

[..] On the American ability to maintain the US dollar’s reserve currency status, Miao points to two factors: “whether the United States can continue to lead the technological revolution”; and “whether it can preserve the advantages of its financial system, such as the Federal Reserve’s independence and the self-regulating and corrective capabilities of its financial markets.” Yet what’s accelerating now is rather the “fragmentation of the international monetary system”. So we should expect increased use of yuan in payment settlements and as “a store of value”; that’s already happening all across BRICS. Miao points to the key vector: the yuan is now “a low-interest currency, while the US dollar is high-interest.” Trump 2.0 tariffs “on all countries have contributed to the appreciation” of the yuan.

This high-speed train is now leaving the station: “By leveraging China’s manufacturing strengths in sectors such as machinery, electronics, and new energy equipment”, China is encouraging BRICS nations and partners to use the yuan “for trade settlement, thereby creating a self-sustaining cycle” driven by “real trade demand.” This is the system those clowns want to regime-change. Well, they did not learn anything out of the collective West humiliation in the proxy war in Ukraine. A top old school hand of the Deep State, now retired, and familiar with the glory days of the OSS, sums it all up. Relevant excerpts of our conversation: “The US and Europe are already at war with Russia and they are losing it. The US has 20,000 armed troops in Europe to face Russia. NATO forces are largely a figment of the imagination.

Ukraine is nothing but a front in the US battle for control of the Eurasian land mass a la Mackinder. The US cannot supply both Israel and Europe at the same time. It has overstretched itself. As for Europe, it has no army of any consequence and most of its equipment is antiquated. All of it is pure bluff.” He adds, “the Europeans are waking up to the fact that the US has a moat around it so that it can be reached only by ICBMs and submarine missiles but Europe is in itself indefensible as short range conventional missiles can destroy it. Nukes are not required to destroy Europe in one day but a rain of Russian missiles.” Now compare that with Russia’s top negotiator in the Istanbul kabuki, historian Medinsky, when asked whether Moscow fears new sanctions by the EU and the US:

“This is not a question for us, not for the negotiating group. I can tell you this. After the revolution and civil war in 1920, again, another historical reference, we had not only sanctions, we had an absolute diplomatic and economic blockade of Soviet Russia from everyone. Everyone! It did not prevent us from winning World War II (…) Nothing will prevent Russia from winning now, The only question is the price of victory and the time it takes to achieve it.” This is something that will never sink in amongst Think Tankland in D.C. As much as the technological accomplishments – now visible – of the Made in China 2025 plan will never sink in. Enter bluster, hubris, the regime change obsession – and worse. Because if the US ruling class psycho killers finally conclude they cannot maintain their unilateral world hegemony even via war, they will abandon their cherished Think Tankland “reports” for good and even resort, in despair, to a Samson option.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

vibrate


NY

foal

scott

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Jul 262025
 


Rembrandt van Rijn The Angel Appearing to the Shepherds 1634

 

Absolutely Not – Senators Want Special Counsel to Investigate Obamagate (CTH)
DNI Tulsi Gabbard Reacts to former DNI James Clapper Hiring Lawyers (CTH)
Barack Obama ‘Not Going to Be Indicted’ but There’s Good News (Margolis)
Actually, Obama Can Be Indicted. Here’s Why (Margolis)
Revenge or Justice? (Victor Davis Hanson)
“Baseless?” (James Howard Kunstler)
Zelensky’s Days are Numbered, He’ll Be the Ultimate Loser (Sp.)
Out of Grace: Zelensky Loses US Backing: Larry Johnson (Sp.)
Zelensky Broke The American Controls – and Now Faces The Consequences (RT)
Putin-Zelensky Summit Only Possible To Finalize Peace Deal – Kremlin (RT)
UK Could ‘Easily’ Stab US In The Back – Patrushev (RT)
Trump Makes Alina Habba Acting US Attorney In NJ (ET)
Israel Just Drew A New Map – Without Saying It Out Loud (Blade)

 

 

 

 

Nunes


Tulsi

Rebate


hack
https://twitter.com/LarryOConnor/status/1947628066974359870

judge
https://twitter.com/RodDMartin/status/1948560536066511060

 

 

 

 

Sundance points out that a special counsel is counterproductive, because it won’t have the cross-agencies (silos) powers that Tulsi has. Guess the fact that Lindsey Graham is the one asking for a special counsel, should alert us.

Absolutely Not – Senators Want Special Counsel to Investigate Obamagate (CTH)

Senator Lindsey Graham (Judiciary Committee) and Senator John Cornyn (SSCI) are requesting Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint a special counsel to look into the Obama administration’s weaponization of the U.S. Intelligence Community to target Donald Trump with fabricated smears and false evidence using a fraudulent Russia connection. This should be an immediate hard no for a few reasons. Number one, the special counsel process is where investigations go to die intentionally as a design of the legislative branch defense process. Second, the special counsel would not have cross-silo access to exfiltrate information unless it was accompanied by very specific Presidential authority. It just will not work. The intelligence community information that exposes the plot will be found in very distinct ‘silos’, essentially the intelligence agencies that house the information.

Additionally, inside each of the silos there is a formal and informal process to designate that information based on its internally defined national security value. An example of silo retention can be found in the issue of the FBI housing information in “prohibited access” files. These files are not even discoverable by most internal search efforts. Within the Sentinel system there are “Restricted Access” files that are used to control who can view the file information (sources and methods etc.). The FBI or investigative official (think authorized special counsel) can see the file but cannot access the information within it without a higher clearance level. In these files the Special Counsel can request access and then review. However, recently people discovered there are “Prohibited Access” files that makes the file invisible to both outside and inside searches or queries and are exclusively controlled by the FBI Director and FBI Deputy Director.

This is an example of a sub-silo (secret file keeping) within a distinct silo (FBI, Sentinel system). A special counsel would never discover the “prohibited” files, because there’s no way from outside the system to find it. It’s a little complicated but DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been finding, declassifying and releasing these ‘prohibited access’ types of information, because as Director of National Intelligence -her clearance and position- allow her to gain full administrative level access to the entire metadata of IC information. Tulsi can essentially log into all of the 18 intelligence agencies and review everything in the data storage system. A special counsel, regardless of authority, cannot do this. President Trump can demand full administrative access for himself and so can DNI Tulsi Gabbard. The rest of the silo administrators can only see the information inside their silo.

This limited access issue is how the intelligence agencies hide information. They rely on the inability of external reviewers to see the full scope and then cross reference to all other silos using the same terminology, data points and search sequences.

EXAMPLE – Making up an operational name like “Zero Footprint“, when DNI Tulsi Gabbard is looking at that operation, she can see the full scope of information related to Zero Footprint as the information goes from the White House (finding memo) to the CIA, to the State Dept, to the Pentagon, to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), possibly to the Joint Chiefs and then beyond to international partners (whole or part information shared). DNI Gabbard can see the entire continuum, cross reference each step in the process, see who handled the organization, communication, logistics, assignments and track each process, which enables her to map the inputs and outcomes along with the timeline. She can even see the briefings (or lack therein) to the Gang of Eight or PDB as they are recorded.

A special counsel has nowhere near this capacity. In the example above, the research required to find, extract, cross-reference, organize and then assemble the totality of all information related to such a large intelligence operation (fyi, Zero Footprint was real), takes a lot of time and effort. Tulsi Gabbard is able to designate very specific aides to assist in this process, but the demand on her time is extreme even with help. DNI Gabbard recently told Fox News (video below) she was/is using AI as a tool to do autonomous spider crawls through the various silos looking for information that pertained to specific points, phrases, times, dates and people within the 18-agency silo system. Hundreds of thousands of “return positive” files must then be sifted and reviewed for connection to the participants, and again timelines become the key.

This is a big shift in the use of AI data search engine capability within the national security information space; however, it is exactly what I have been talking about for the past several years as I traveled back and forth to DC. Now, keep in mind what I am describing above is “non-public” information. If you want to really understand the insanity of how the silos operate, you need to accept the same filing and hiding system exists even within public information. The congressional staff don’t even know what the other congressional staff are doing with information from within two different committees, like the Senate Judiciary Committee (FISC oversight) and the Senate Homeland Security Committee (DOJ-NSD), or Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (FBI – Cointel).

In essence, there is little to no information sharing within the silo process, even within the guys on the “same team,” and making matters worse sometimes a research team can gain information that is much more pertinent to the other guys looking at similar issues from within another silo. Discovering this is beyond frustrating; however, it does explain how independent researchers who share on open-source crowd sharing platforms can walk down a research trail much faster. Bottom line, a Special Counsel is an exercise in futility, unless that special counsel has the same review and extraction capability as President Trump and/or DNI Tulsi Gabbard. The best option is a team of investigators within Tulsi Gabbard’s office to continue the digging and connecting the information; then share the discoveries with DOJ officials. Previously, I said a small group within the National Security Council might also be able to deliver a similar outcome. Lastly, a tip-line allowing the private sector crowdsourcing to push puzzle pieces toward the research team might also be a big help.

Read more …

“Our representatives were never representing us. The true DC enemy is ‘We The People‘..”

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Reacts to former DNI James Clapper Hiring Lawyers (CTH)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard appears with Greta Van Susteren to discuss the ongoing release of Intelligence Community documents showing how President Obama intelligence officials conspired to manufacture a false intelligence assessment, frame Donald Trump and begin the Trump-Russia narrative. At the end of this trail of manufactured evidence, we will inevitably end up at the Robert Mueller investigation. The continuum of the Trump-Russia narrative starts with Hillary Clinton (Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie), then transfers to the FBI (James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok); which includes the DOJ National Security Division (AG Lynch, DAG Yates, Mary McCord), then goes through the backdoor to Barack Obama (Susan Rice, Lisa Monaco) and the Legislative Branch (SSCI), and eventually elevates with DNI James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan manufacturing the 2017 intelligence product.

All of that collective effort, all of the former created inputs, eventually culminates into the Robert Mueller Special Counsel (Andrew Weissmann) and the Lawfare ideologues charged with upholding the manufactured premise. In my opinion, the greatest legal exposure is going to be with the Mueller team because that group intentionally and purposefully knew the information being received was fraudulent – yet they used it anyway. Keep in mind that John Durham laid the Mueller/Weissmann probe naked to their enemies. Unfortunately, Weissmann and Mueller do not have enemies in Washington DC, amid any party {. Our representatives were never representing us. The true DC enemy is ‘We The People‘ – and we choose to fight them. When Robert Mueller (silo 2) appeared before a congressional committee in June 2019 to answer questions about his Russia election interference report, he was asked about the origination of Trump-Russia.

Mueller’s jaw-dropping response was, “That was not in my purview.” Wait, how can your existence be predicated on investigating Trump-Russia, and yet the origin of Trump-Russia is not in your “purview”? See the problem?!

Read more …

The Supreme Court created a lot of leeway for what a president does in his official capacity. In what capacity did Obama sonspire against Trump?

Barack Obama ‘Not Going to Be Indicted’ but There’s Good News (Margolis)

Thanks to the evidence already released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, it’s now clear that Barack Obama engaged in corrupt efforts to sabotage President Trump. And we’re likely just scratching the surface. More damning revelations are almost certainly on the way. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean Obama will ever see the inside of a courtroom, let alone a jail cell, even if he deserves it. But don’t confuse a lack of prosecution with vindication. During a recent appearance on Real America’s Voice, investigative journalist John Solomon joined Steve Bannon to unpack the formation of a new Department of Justice Strike Force reportedly focused on unraveling the criminal conspiracy behind the Russia collusion hoax and the government’s weaponization against President Trump. And while Obama’s fingerprints are all over the operation, Solomon made it clear that a formal indictment is highly unlikely.

“What the team will do is they’ll bring in all the different skill sets,” Solomon explained. “I think the National Security Division will be brought in. Ironically, that’s the same division that pursued Donald Trump on the classified documents but took a dive on Joe Biden’s.” According to Solomon, this newly formed strike force is modeled after the methods used to break down organized crime families. The process will focus on collecting “overt acts of the conspiracy,” then analyzing the timeline to determine whether the statute of limitations applies or if charges can be brought due to long-hidden evidence. Grand juries, subpoenas, and strategic interviews are all expected. “There’ll be lots of work and then there’ll be grand jury subpoenas. There’ll be significant interviews going on,” Solomon said. “You’ll look for your cooperating witnesses.”

The goal? Reel in the smaller fish first. “One of the things that they do is they roll up people on the low end of the scale early, and then they try to get them to turn on their bosses and get us the truth,” he said. It’s the same strategy that brought down mob bosses and drug kingpins, and now it’s being turned inward, toward the deep state.Names like John Brennan and James Comey are among those believed to be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. But then came the elephant in the room: Barack Obama. “If the ultimate targets are someone like a John Brennan or … James Comey or Barack Obama — who, by the way, is not going to be indicted. Anyone who thinks Barack Obama’s going to be indicted: it’s not going to happen,” Solomon admitted.

That legal shield, ironically, may come courtesy of Donald Trump himself. “President Trump’s immunity victory last year in the Supreme Court’s gonna protect Barack Obama. Barack Obama should send a thank-you card to Donald Trump,” Solomon quipped. But while Obama may avoid prosecution, that doesn’t mean he’s off the hook entirely. “You could imagine a scenario where they lay out a conspiracy, and Barack Obama is named as an unindicted co-conspirator,” Solomon continued. “That would be one hell of a legacy for the 44th president.” Indeed, while Obama will almost certainly avoid legal consequences, the political and historical fallout could be devastating. If he’s officially named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to frame his successor, and the people who carried out that plot end up in prison, his legacy won’t just take a hit; it’ll be permanently disfigured. It’s hard to claim innocence when everyone who did your bidding goes down for the crime.

A scenario like that isn’t something CNN or MSNBC can memory-hole, no matter how hard they try. No, Barack Obama won’t be frog-marched out of his Martha’s Vineyard mansion. But if this investigation follows through, the myth of his “scandal-free” presidency could collapse under the weight of a conspiracy that once masqueraded as patriotism but now reeks of abuse, corruption, and cover-up. Obama may not go to jail, but history may render its own indictment.

Read more …

SCOTUS: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”

Actually, Obama Can Be Indicted. Here’s Why (Margolis)

This week, investigative journalist John Solomon told Steve Bannon that despite all the evidence that has been declassified linking Barack Obama to the Russiagate hoax, Obama won’t and can’t be indicted for his role in the Russian collusion hoax. “Anyone who thinks Barack Obama’s going to be indicted: It’s not going to happen,” Solomon admitted. “President Trump’s immunity victory last year in the Supreme Court’s gonna protect Barack Obama. Barack Obama should send a thank-you card to Donald Trump.” But is Solomon right? The case Solomon is referring to, Trump v. United States (2024), was, of course, extremely consequential, but also widely misunderstood. Democrats branded the ruling as the Supreme Court granting “blanket immunity” for presidents, but that’s not what it does at all.

While the Court recognized a degree of immunity for official acts of the presidency, it drew a sharp line between what a president does in his constitutional role and what he does as a private individual or political actor. From the ruling itself: “It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.” With that in mind, the ruling does not give presidents the power to break the law with impunity. If a president lies to federal investigators, commits fraud, or abuses power outside the scope of his official duties, he can still face prosecution. The Court explicitly left the door open for criminal charges—even against sitting or former presidents—if the conduct in question was personal, political, or unrelated to the legitimate functions of the presidency.

And, let’s be honest: What Barack Obama did during the Russian collusion hoax wasn’t just political—it was a calculated abuse of power far outside the bounds of his official role. If a president lies to federal investigators, forges documents, or uses the office for personal or political revenge, those are not protected actions. He can be charged under the same criminal statutes as anyone else. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a crime to lie to federal officials. Wire fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, covers schemes involving deceit through electronic communication. Other statutes—like aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2), being an accessory after the fact (18 U.S.C. § 3), or even seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C.§ 2384)—can all apply if the president helps orchestrate or cover up unlawful acts.

That brings us to the documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, which suggest Barack Obama may have done exactly that. The material is nothing short of explosive. It confirms that Obama’s inner circle—including James Clapper and John Brennan, under Obama’s direction—engineered a political smear campaign disguised as an intelligence assessment. According to the files, a high-level meeting in December 2016, led by Obama’s top national security officials, launched the coordinated leaks to the media about so-called Russian election interference—even though pre-election intelligence assessments found no such evidence.

“The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment,” Gabbard stated. So obviously, the evidence suggests Obama is not innocent. The only real question now is whether he’ll ever be held accountable—or if the system will once again protect one of its own. That’s an entirely different question.

Read more …

“Obama-era officials and Clinton-campaign activists destroyed President Trump’s own credibility to sustain a workable relationship with a nuclear Russia..”

Revenge or Justice? (Victor Davis Hanson)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard just released a trove of apparently once-classified documents — with promises of much more to follow. The new material describes the role of the Obama administration’s intelligence and investigatory directors — purportedly along with former President Barack Obama himself — in undermining the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. In addition, their efforts extended to sabotaging the 2016-2017 presidential transition and, by extension, the first three years of the Trump presidency. The released documents add some new details to what over the last decade has become accepted knowledge. Congressional committees, special prosecutors, and the inspectors general had all previously issued reports that largely confirmed the general outlines of the skullduggery that began in 2015-16.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign, later aided by the top echelon of the FBI, CIA, and the Director of National Intelligence, sought — falsely — to seed a narrative that Trump had colluded directly with Russia to win unfairly the 2016 election. When that campaign gambit failed to alter the 2016 results, the Obama administration doubled down during the transition to undermine the incoming Trump presidency. Next, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “all-star” legal team found no evidence of direct Trump-Putin collusion to hijack the election. But his investigation did sabotage 22 months of Trump’s first term, marked by constant leaks and hysterical rumors that Trump was soon to be convicted and jailed as a “Russian asset.” By 2020, the frustrated intelligence agencies and former “authorities” now absurdly further lied that Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop had “all the earmarks” — once again — of Russian interference.

So, what could be new about Gabbard’s latest release? One, after the 2016 election of Donald Trump but before his inauguration, Obama convened a strange meeting with his outgoing intelligence and investigatory heads — CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and a few others. Contrary to a four-year Democratic Party narrative that “18 intelligence agencies” had long claimed Russian collusion, the top directors apprised Obama that their expert colleagues had found no such evidence of Trump-Putin collusion. Yet outgoing President Obama allegedly directed them to ignore such an assessment. Instead, they began spreading narratives that President-elect Trump had been colluding with the Russians. Leaks followed. Media hysteria crested. And soon Mueller and his left-wing “dream team” of lawyers targeted President Trump.

Further new information may confirm that Brennan’s CIA — and those he briefed in the Oval Office — had known for some time that the Russians themselves were confused about why they were falsely being accused of colluding with Trump to rig the election. Of course, Russian operatives, like their Chinese counterparts, often seek to cause havoc in American institutions, such as hacking emails or spreading online disinformation. But they may have been nevertheless curious why Hillary Clinton was making such false accusations that they were working directly with Trump, and why the Obama administration was acting upon them. Obama has now claimed these new charges are outrageous and beneath the dignity of the presidency. He did not, however, flatly contradict the new information. He should have issued an unambiguous denial that he had never ordered his intelligence chiefs in December 2016 to ignore their associates’ assessments and instead to assume Trump’s collusion with Putin.

These sustained efforts of the Clinton campaign, Obama appointees, and ex-intelligence chiefs and their media counterparts between 2015 and 2020 severely undermined the 2016 Trump campaign. They bushwhacked the 2017 presidential transition. They hamstrung the Trump presidency. And they may well have hurt Trump’s 2020 election bid. Summed up, here is the damage caused by the Trump-Putin collusion lies: 1. They emboldened “experts” in 2020 to again lie blatantly and shamelessly to the American people that the incriminating Hunter Biden laptop was yet another fake product of Russian interference to help reelect Trump. 2. The media were equally guilty. Journalists partnered with current and ex-Obama appointees by disseminating fake documents like the Steele dossier and working with giants like Twitter and Facebook. During the 2020 campaign, the FBI and social media sought to censor accurate news stories that the laptop was indeed authentic and already verified as such by the FBI.

3. These operations may have had serious consequences for U.S. foreign policy. Dictatorial Russia is an adversary of the U.S. But by needlessly and falsely claiming that Russia had intervened in two elections directly to partner with Trump, Obama-era officials and Clinton-campaign activists destroyed President Trump’s own credibility to sustain a workable relationship with a nuclear Russia. In addition, the lying and extra-legal operations of the FBI and CIA only further convinced the paranoid Russians that they could not trust the U.S. government — given it had been engaging in the very conspiracy lies that were more akin to its own than America’s. Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and others will likely never face legal consequences for the damage they’ve done to our institutions and foreign policy. But that does not mean they should be exempt from an ongoing and disinterested effort to find and finally expose the whole truth.

Read more …

“If you can arrest a former president named Donald Trump, you can arrest a former president named Barack Obama.” — Peachy Keenan on “X”

“Baseless?” (James Howard Kunstler)

Don’t you think it’s time for The New York Times to stop using the cliché “baseless” when referring to allegations — now, actually, official accusations— of the seditious conspiracy to run President Trump out of office after the 2016 election? Of all the fake “journalistic” blurts emanating from this bastion of degenerate sell-outs, “baseless” is the fakest, as if the word printed in a headline were so magically potent, the sheer assertion of it can make all your problems just — poof! — go away. It’s the thought process of wicked children who fail to develop a sense of true or false, right or wrong, who grow into adults specially licensed, by some new perversion of the social contract, to get away with anything. And those wicked children have become America’s managerial class, the elite who are supposed to do your thinking for you op-ed style, the credentialed experts, such as Tony Fauci, “economist” Paul Krugman, DEI avatar and NPR honcho Katherine Maher, Harvard law prof Lawrence Tribe. . . the list is interminable, but you get the picture.

This class is also the owner / operator of America’s political Deep State, which by 2016 had grown into a colossal racketeering operation, money-laundering gazillions of taxpayer dollars into NGOs dedicated to the country’s cultural and political destruction while it processed campaign donations into fantastic fortunes for people officially earning less than $200-K a year. The racket also managed to pay for the support of multitudes allergic to working for living, as long as they were available for riots and ballot-harvesting drives. It was working at such a high pitch by the end of Barack Obama’s two terms, with the most stupendously privileged creature in the Boomer bestiary ready to take her “turn” in the Oval Office — after amassing a $300-million-plus fortune serving as US senator (salary, $174-K / year) and Secretary of State (salary $199,700 / year, then) — that you must imagine the mighty freak-out at the prospect of one Donald John Trump, outsider vulgarian extraordinaire, promising to step in and drain the whole massive, putrid, necrotic, parasitical nepo-infested quagmire of predatory grifters, leaving them gasping for their lives on the stinking Potomac mudbanks like so many grunions dying on the beach at Redondo.

Barack Obama, apparently, Darth Vadar-ized himself and was handed a light-saber (Hillary’s Steele dossier) by John Brennan, Grand Duke of Planet Intel. . . and the rest should have been history — but instead festered in the US body politic for more than ten years like an inflamed tuberculoma and is now bursting out of the Beltway’s peritoneal cavity in a spectacular spray of ordure, sticking to everyone and everything like a thousand tails pinned on the everlasting Democratic donkey. Alas, Babylon-on-the-Potomac. . . . Also: “baseless,” my ass. . . . The basis for all this mischief is in the process of having proof supplied by the one figure, DNI Gabbard, in a position to retrieve the evidence, in writing, from the various heavily ring-fenced agencies over which she is the ultimate overseer, which has not been done before, especially back in the crucial weeks of late 2020 when John Ratcliffe was in that position. The reason Tulsi succeeded this time where Ratcliffe did not is probably due to newly available A-I systems which make collation of cross-searches much easier through the countless servers of the many intel agencies. And so, now it pours forth day by day.

That’s where things stand and the dust has not even begun to settle, with former President Obama seemingly hoisted on the petard of his own making back in December of 2016. Whether or not all the declassified info can be crafted into prosecutable cases is not yet determined, but you might imagine it will come together soon enough, if at all possible. It may not add up to treason per se, but there are plenty of other serious charges generally proceeding from deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242), to seditious conspiracy, i.e., overthrow of the president (18 U.S.C. § 2384) to stuff a number of former officials into orange jumpsuits behind bars.

Read more …

“The longer that Zelensky holds on and continues the fight with the encouragement of the West, he’s going to lose more and more..”

Zelensky’s Days are Numbered, He’ll Be the Ultimate Loser (Sp.)

“Russians hold all the cards. Zelensky has no cards. All he can do is play games and placate Trump,” says Michael Maloof, former senior security policy analyst in the US Office of the Secretary of Defense, in an interview with Sputnik. According to Maloof, Zelensky is stalling for time, hoping to paint Russia as an unreliable negotiator and gain favor with Trump. The Kremlin, however, has stated that any Putin-Zelensky talks are premature, as no common ground exists yet. “The longer that Zelensky holds on and continues the fight with the encouragement of the West, he’s going to lose more and more,” Maloof warns.

Zelensky is also facing unrest at home. On July 22, Ukrainians protested his attempt to take control of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). “I think the internal strife is going to have to be accelerated to the point where [Zelensky] is going to have to focus all of his attention on that if he intends to survive politically. But I think his days are numbered,” says Maloof. He suggests that Ukrainians may soon act to “get what’s left of Ukraine back on a stable footing with proper governance and representation.”

“Right now, the Russian perspective is that Zelensky is not a valid leader because his term had expired as president and he’s operating under martial law,” the analyst points out. Western support is also faltering, particularly after Zelensky’s controversial NABU/SAPO law, which contradicts the 2015 Ukraine–US–EU agreement on governance and foreign oversight. The West still holds financial leverage over Ukraine, while “the ultimate loser in the end will be Zelensky,” Maloof concludes.

Read more …

“There is nothing that Zelensky can point to where he can say, hey, I’ve got great support here, and I’m in good favor with Washington..”

Out of Grace: Zelensky Loses US Backing: Larry Johnson (Sp.)

Volodymyr Zelensky is facing his first wave of mass protests since 2022 — and it’s a bad omen for him, veteran ex-CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson tells Sputnik. The trouble has brewed for the past month, according to the pundit. “We had a news article by Seymour Hersh… that indicated that his sources from the CIA and Department of Defense were telling him that Zelensky was on his way out, that they’re going to get rid of him,” Johnson says. Johnson says the first impression is the protests looked staged: Pre-printed signs, some oddly in English, while Ukrainians mostly speak either Ukrainian or Russian.

Protested Zelensky’s power grab over the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), but not forced conscription, or the failure to return bodies and pay families who have lost loved ones in the war. “The fact that there are rumors circulating that Washington wants to get rid of Zelensky is a sign that the relationship is not what it was two years ago under Biden,” the CIA veteran says. Zelensky tried to appoint his ex-Defense Minister Rustem Umerov as ambassador to the US, but Washington rejected it. Despite promises, Trump has no weapons to send — just deals to sell arms to Europe to pass to Ukraine. Signs show the US has grown tired of Zelensky. “There is nothing that Zelensky can point to where he can say, hey, I’ve got great support here, and I’m in good favor with Washington,” Johnson concludes.

Read more …

If anyone wants to get rid of anyone else in Kiev, they just accuse them of corruption and embezzlement. Can’t miss.

Zelensky Broke The American Controls – and Now Faces The Consequences (RT)

On July 22, large-scale demonstrations broke out in major Ukrainian cities – Kiev, Lviv, Kharkov, and Odessa – and continue to this day. The protests erupted after the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian Parliament) approved a law limiting the authority of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), effectively placing them under the control of the Office of the Attorney General. This legislation came shortly after NABU and SAPO launched an investigation into former Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov, one of Zelensky’s closest allies. Officials in Zelensky’s Office claimed that the reform was necessary to improve coordination among government bodies amid ongoing military operations and to combat Russian influence over anti-corruption institutions.

However, public outrage stemmed not only from the law itself but also from the rapid centralization of power in Ukraine. Protests persisted even after Zelensky restored the independent functioning of NABU and SAPO. Below, RT explores the motives behind the dismantling of these anti-corruption agencies and why the protests pose a threat to Zelensky’s administration. When Vladimir Zelensky took office in 2019, he vowed to support anti-corruption efforts, urging anti-corruption agencies to investigate all cases and hold even high-ranking officials accountable. However, those promises were never fulfilled. On July 22, the Rada passed Bill No. 12414, originally addressing amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code related to disappearances of people during wartime.

However, MPs from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party added amendments that effectively restructured NABU and SAPO, placing them under the control of the Attorney General, who is appointed by the president. Notably, many MPs who voted in favor of the bill and received it with applause are themselves under investigation by these anti-corruption bodies. The official justification for targeting NABU and SAPO was the investigation into Chernyshov, a presidential ally considered a candidate for prime minister, who faced allegations of abuse of power and illicit enrichment. A major corruption scandal in the construction sector emerged, making Chernyshov the highest-ranking official within the president’s team to be embroiled in such an inquiry.

According to the publication Ukrainskaya Pravda, Zelensky ordered the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) to protect Chernyshov from arrest. Despite the allegations, the court did not suspend him from his post; however, he was eventually dismissed, and the ministry disbanded. Another notable case involves NABU’s investigation into Rostislav Shurma, the former deputy head of the President’s Office. After the case was initiated, he fled to Germany. In July, German authorities, in collaboration with NABU, conducted a search of his residence in the suburbs of Munich. NABU was preparing charges against Timur Mindich, a long-time friend of Zelensky and co-owner of Studio Kvartal-95, Ukrainskaya Pravda reported. He is suspected of embezzlement in the energy sector and drone production.

Sources indicate detectives may possess recorded conversations involving Mindich in which Zelensky is mentioned. These cases involving the Ukrainian leader’s close associates triggered the crackdown on the anti-corruption agencies. This narrative has been confirmed by The Times and The Economist. On July 21, the SBU and prosecutors conducted extensive searches related to NABU employees, targeting over 80 locations nationwide. Law enforcement acted aggressively, using armed groups to force people to the ground without presenting search warrants. Later, the agency reported the detention of Ruslan Magomedrasulov, the head of NABU’s regional office. Investigators claim his father is a Russian citizen, and he failed to disclose this before obtaining access to state secrets. Allegedly, he assisted his father in conducting business in Russia, and his mother reportedly receives a pension from the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and “makes pro-Russian comments” online. He is expected to face charges for “aiding Russia.”

Read more …

Putin already has a job. He can’t go sit at a table for endless negotiations.

Putin-Zelensky Summit Only Possible To Finalize Peace Deal – Kremlin (RT)

A summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky should only take place to finalize a peace settlement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Zelensky has repeatedly called for a face-to-face meeting with Putin in the past several months. The Ukrainian delegation has also proposed the idea during rounds of bilateral talks in Istanbul, framing such a summit as essential to ending the conflict. While the Kremlin has not ruled out a possible Putin-Zelensky meeting, Russian officials have consistently emphasized that the groundwork must be laid first.

“A summit meeting can and should put a final point in the settlement and record the modalities and agreements that are to be developed in the course of expert work. It is impossible to do the opposite,” Peskov told reporters on Friday. Following the third round of Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul this week, the Kremlin spokesman accused Kiev of prematurely pushing for a summit. “They are trying to put the cart before the horse,” Peskov said, stressing that “work needs to be done, and only then can the heads of state be given the opportunity to record the achievements that have been made.” Moscow has consistently pointed to concerns about Zelensky’s legal authority.

While Russia has stated it is open to negotiations with him, officials have warned that any documents signed under Zelensky’s name could face legal challenges in the future. Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024. He has refused to hold new elections, citing the ongoing state of martial law in Ukraine. Russia has argued that his status as head of state is no longer valid and that legal authority in Ukraine now lies with its parliament. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has suggested that Zelensky’s insistence on meeting both Putin and US President Donald Trump may be aimed at getting “a massive legitimacy boost” and using the meetings as a pretext to further delay elections.

Read more …

“The United Kingdom would not hesitate to sabotage a potential thaw in US-Russia relations..”

UK Could ‘Easily’ Stab US In The Back – Patrushev (RT)

The United Kingdom would not hesitate to sabotage a potential thaw in US-Russia relations, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on Friday. Nikolay Patrushev, a longtime national security official and senior Kremlin adviser, accused London of being prepared to carry out a false flag in order to derail efforts by US President Donald Trump to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and normalize ties with Moscow. “If necessary, London would easily stab Washington in the back. I believe officials in the White House realize what kind of ‘ally’ they are dealing with,” Patrushev told RIA Novosti.

His comments followed a statement last month by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), which alleged that British intelligence was directly involved in orchestrating covert Ukrainian operations. The SVR claimed the UK had acquired torpedoes of Soviet and Russian design for potential use in a false flag incident – specifically, a staged attack on an American naval vessel in the Baltic Sea. Since Trump’s return to office in January and the departure of Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, Russian officials have frequently pointed to London as the primary force behind the continued conflict in Ukraine. They argue that the British government’s firm support is an obstacle to peace and a strategic effort to block reconciliation between Washington and Moscow.

Moscow has portrayed the Ukraine conflict as a NATO-driven proxy war meant to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainian lives. Past reporting by The New York Times and The Times of London has confirmed that both US and British officials have played more active roles in directing Ukrainian military strategy than publicly acknowledged by their governments.

Read more …

Why did the U.S. district court judges of New Jersey refuse Habba and pick her assistant? i haven’t seen a single reason. Just because they could?

Trump Makes Alina Habba Acting US Attorney In NJ (ET)

President Donald Trump withdrew his nomination of Alina Habba to serve as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor, a Justice Department official confirmed on Thursday. The development comes after a federal court declined to retain Habba in the role of U.S. attorney for New Jersey and opted to install Desiree Leigh Grace. On Tuesday, U.S. district court judges of New Jersey selected Grace, who was Habba’s first assistant, to serve as U.S. attorney as Habba’s 120-day term in the office was reaching its end. Attorney General Pam Bondi then fired Grace in response to the judges’ decision. “[Habba] has been doing a great job in making NJ safe again. Nonetheless, politically minded judges refused to allow her to continue in her position, replacing Alina with the First Assistant,” Bondi wrote on X after the decision.

“Accordingly, the First Assistant United States Attorney in New Jersey has just been removed,” she said. “This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges — especially when they threaten the President’s core Article II powers.” A Justice Department official told The Epoch Times that Trump withdrew Habba’s nomination to be New Jersey’s U.S. attorney, and she was appointed first assistant U.S. attorney. This means Habba becomes the acting U.S. attorney, as the position is now vacant after Grace’s firing. “Donald J. Trump is the 47th President. Pam Bondi is the Attorney General. And I am now the Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,” Habba wrote in a statement posted to X. “I don’t cower to pressure. I don’t answer to politics. This is a fight for justice. And I’m all in.”

Earlier on Thursday, Grace wrote on LinkedIn that she’s honored the judges selected her “on merit” and that she is prepared to follow that order and “begin to serve in accordance with the law.” “I’ve served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. I’ve been promoted four times in the last five years by both—including four months ago by this administration. Politics never impacted my work at the Department. Priorities change, of course, and resources are shifted, but the work and the mission were steady,” Grace said.

However, due to Habba now serving as acting U.S. attorney, Grace likely can no longer assume that office. Habba previously served as Trump’s defense attorney in multiple court cases. Last week, Trump’s pick for U.S. attorney of the Northern District of New York, John Sarcone III, was rejected by judges on that district court. Bondi then appointed Sarcone as a “special attorney” to her, granting him the powers of a U.S. attorney indefinitely.

Read more …

“By offering the far right a symbolic prize on annexation, Netanyahu appears to be stalling a government collapse..”

Israel Just Drew A New Map – Without Saying It Out Loud (Blade)

In a significant yet non-binding move, the Israeli legislature has overwhelmingly approved a declaration urging the immediate extension of Israeli sovereignty over Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and the Jordan Valley. The motion, which passed by a vote of 71 to 13, was backed by right-wing and center-right factions including Likud, Shas, Religious Zionism, Otzma Yehudit, and Yisrael Beiteinu. The text declares that the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas — referred to in Israeli political discourse as the “Simchat Torah Massacre” — proves that the creation of a Palestinian state poses a mortal danger to Israel’s existence. “The Knesset declares that the State of Israel has the natural, historical, and legal right to all parts of the Land of Israel,” the resolution reads.

“The Knesset calls on the Government of Israel to act without delay to apply sovereignty… over all areas of Jewish settlement in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley.” Though labeled symbolic, Palestinian experts view the vote as laying the bureaucratic foundation for a permanent Israeli presence and governance in the West Bank, the heartland of a future Palestinian state as envisioned by international consensus. Saad Nimr, professor of political science at Birzeit University in the West Bank, told RT the implications of the Knesset’s move are far-reaching. “This is not symbolic at all,” Nimr said. “It means these settlements are now treated as Israeli cities. They’re no longer ‘occupied’ under military law. This is the legal and bureaucratic infrastructure of annexation.”

He continued: “The Israeli ministries — not the military — will now oversee health, welfare, planning, and infrastructure in these areas. It’s not about theory. It’s about bulldozers, budgets, and expansion.” Dimitri Diliani, a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, echoed that sentiment. “To describe the vote as symbolic is dangerously naive,” Diliani warned. “In Israeli politics, symbolism is often a precursor to de facto annexation. While the Knesset motion lacks binding legislative authority, it institutionalizes consensus in both government and opposition to expand the State of Israel’s settler-colonial project with new domestic political legitimacy.” Diliani added that members of the Knesset are already pushing legislation to replace the internationally recognized term “West Bank” with the biblical “Judea and Samaria” — further entrenching a nationalist narrative in Israeli law.

Many analysts see the vote not only as ideological, but also as a tactical political maneuver to preserve Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fragile governing coalition. “It’s quite clear this was a political exchange,” said Nimr. “[The leader of the National Religious Party–Religious Zionism Bezalel] Smotrich and [the leader of the Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”) party] Ben Gvir threatened to leave the government if negotiations in Doha led to a Gaza ceasefire. This vote is Netanyahu’s way of keeping them on board.” By offering the far right a symbolic prize on annexation, Netanyahu appears to be stalling a government collapse – even as truce talks with Hamas continue under Qatari mediation. Diliani described the move as “opportunistic,” adding: “It’s designed to pre-empt mounting international legal scrutiny, particularly after the International Court of Justice advisory opinion in July 2023, which declared Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory illegal.”

The reaction from the international community was swift but toothless. Jordan condemned the vote as “a blatant violation of international law.” The European Union and the Arab League issued similarly worded rebukes, reaffirming their commitment to a two-state solution. But both Palestinian analysts were unshaken by the lack of meaningful repercussions. “The historical record teaches us that international consensus does not always translate into action,” said Diliani. “Israel’s alignment with key Western powers, particularly the United States, has only grown stronger – even amid documented live-streamed Israeli genocide in Gaza and tremendous war crimes in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.” He cited continued US military support, which amounts to $3.8 billion annually in aid and has reached nearly $20 billion in additional military assistance since the war on Gaza began in October 2023.

“Israel continues to enjoy extensive trade privileges with the EU,” Diliani added. “Over three-quarters of a million illegal colonial Israeli settlers reside in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Yet the response from the international community remains negligible. Absent deterrent sanctions or accountability mechanisms, Israel interprets this as tacit permission to proceed.” Nimr was equally scathing. “Israel went into this decision with an overwhelming majority in the Knesset. That means they don’t care about the international community’s opinion. The EU witnessed with their own eyes the genocide in Gaza, the use of hunger as a weapon, and still didn’t take any real action.” “If there is no punishment,” Nimr said, “it’s interpreted as agreement. So now, they feel they have a green light.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Macron


play

hose

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Jul 242025
 


Max Ernst Inspired hill 1950

 

Gabbard Refers Obama for Criminal Investigation Over Russiagate (Margolis)
Obama’s Role In ‘Russia Hoax Lies’ Exposed – Gabbard (RT)
Tulsi Is About To Drop More Evidence Against Barack Obama (Margolis)
Canada Accepts No Trade Deal Before 35% Tariffs Kick In (CTH)
Trump Questions Kiev’s Use Of US Aid (RT)
Western Media Reacts To Zelensky’s Crackdown On Anti-Corruption Bureau (RT)
US Congresswoman Labels Zelensky ‘Dictator’ (RT)
Zelensky’s End Goal Is In Sight, And So Is His End (Amar)
Von der Leyen Warns Zelensky Over Risk To Ukraine’s EU Bid (RT)
US State Dept Accuses EU of ‘Orwellian Censorship’ (RT)
The Case For Media Transparency Within The EU Just Got Sexy (Jay)
Biggest US Power Grid Sets Power Costs At Record High To Feed AI (ZH)
Whose Politics Canceled Stephen Colbert? (Daniel McCarthy)
Macron’s Popularity Hits Record Low (RT)
Macron Sues Candace Owens For Defamation For Claiming His Wife Is A Man (ZH)

 

 

Treason

tulsi


Bannon

2020

Fed

Mearsheimer
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1947723599801925912

 

 

 

 

CNN does mention Obama and Tulsi now -in passing-, but only to assert that this story serves one purpose only: to divert attention away from the real and infinitely BIGGER story, which is that Trump is connected to the Epstein files. And then it has five different stories about that.

“The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact.”

Gabbard Refers Obama for Criminal Investigation Over Russiagate (Margolis)

Barack Obama has long pretended that he had no hand in the Russia collusion hoax, but that narrative is crumbling fast. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has just declassified a trove of explosive documents that reveal the Obama administration’s direct role in fabricating the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — the cornerstone of the bogus claim that Donald Trump was a Russian asset.nOne key piece of evidence is a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report that flatly states that there was no Russian cyber interference connected to Trump’s win. Despite that, Obama demanded a rushed intelligence assessment in the final weeks of 2016, deliberately designed to push the false claim that Vladimir Putin helped install Trump. The goal? To sabotage the incoming president before he was even sworn in.

According to the documents, Obama and his top advisers — working hand in glove with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and their loyal media allies — staged a coordinated, calculated effort to weaponize U.S. intelligence for political warfare. What began as a smear campaign has now turned into something much bigger. On Wednesday, Gabbard confirmed during a White House press briefing that her office has officially referred Obama to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation over his leading role in the conspiracy. “Do you believe that any of this new information implicates former President Obama in criminal behavior?” a reporter asked. “We have referred and will continue to refer all of these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the criminal implications of this,” Gabbard replied.

When asked point blank if that includes the former president himself, Gabbard didn’t flinch. “Correct,” she replied. “The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact.” A second reporter followed up, referencing Gabbard’s recent statement accusing Obama of helping to lead a coup against President Trump. “Do you believe President Obama is guilty of treason?” he asked. Gabbard stopped short of personally issuing a legal judgment but made it clear what she believes took place. “I’m leaving the criminal charges to the Department of Justice. I am not an attorney,” she said.

“But as I have said previously, when you look at the intent behind creating a fake manufactured intelligence document that directly contradicts multiple assessments that were created by the intelligence community, the expressed intent and what followed afterward can only be described as a years-long coup and a treasonous conspiracy against the American people, our republic, and an attempt to undermine President Trump’s administration.” The implications are staggering. For years, the media and Democrats insisted that Russia installed Trump; now, under the Trump administration’s own intelligence leadership, it’s Obama who stands accused of orchestrating the deception that fueled the entire narrative. On Tuesday, Obama’s office released a rare statement essentially denying Obama’s role in the scandal.

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,” the statement read. “Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.” Obama can scoff all he wants and hide behind carefully worded denials, but the truth is catching up with him — and fast. The declassified evidence paints a damning picture: not only did Obama know about the Russia hoax, but he was also the one orchestrating it from the top.

This wasn’t some rogue effort by low-level staffers or overeager Clinton allies. This was a calculated, top-down operation to sabotage President Trump and deceive the American public using the full weight of the intelligence community. And now, for the first time, there are real consequences on the horizon.

Read more …

“..the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.”

Obama’s Role In ‘Russia Hoax Lies’ Exposed – Gabbard (RT)

US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday released a previously classified congressional report, which she claims debunks “Russia Hoax lies” – a coordinated effort by former President Barack Obama to distort intelligence regarding Moscow’s alleged role in the 2016 election. This marks Gabbard’s second major declassification move, following her earlier allegation of a “treasonous conspiracy” aimed at undermining Donald Trump’s presidency. The newly public document – produced by the House Intelligence Committee in 2020 under Republican leadership – challenges the analytical foundation for the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help then-candidate Trump win the election.

It criticizes the CIA for failing to adhere to its own standards, citing “one scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports” as the basis for its assessment that Putin favored Trump. In a post on X on Wednesday, Gabbard called the report a “bombshell,” asserting it reveals “the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.” She accused Obama and his senior officials of collaborating with media allies to delegitimize Trump through what she described as a deliberate disinformation campaign. “They conspired to subvert the will of the American people,” Gabbard wrote, claiming the effort amounted to a “years-long coup” against Trump.

The report also claims Obama issued “unusual directives” to accelerate the release of the intelligence assessment before Trump’s inauguration, bypassing normal interagency coordination procedures within the intelligence community. Gabbard has argued that these actions warrant a criminal investigation and accused Obama-era officials of manufacturing a false narrative to discredit a sitting president. Trump has endorsed her findings, calling for prosecutions of Obama and top members of his administration. She also claimed that internal US intelligence assessments consistently concluded Russia lacked both the capability and intent to interfere in the 2016 election – but that these findings were deliberately suppressed. Russia has denied any involvement in US elections, and President Putin has repeatedly stated that Moscow does not favor any particular American political candidate.

Read more …

This is from before Tulsi dropped her second batch of files yesterday.

Tulsi Is About To Drop More Evidence Against Barack Obama (Margolis)

Barack Obama’s team is in full damage control mode after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified and released evidence that Obama and his top officials in his administration knowingly fabricated intelligence to push the false narrative that Trump was compromised by Russia—an operation designed to delegitimize his election and kneecap his ability to govern. On Tuesday, Barack Obama released a statement through a spokesman in response to the recent release of Russiagate documents implicating the former president in the effort to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. “Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” the statement read. “But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”

But, Gabbard isn’t backing down. In an appearance on “Rob Schmitt Tonight” on Newsmax Tuesday, she announced that her team will be releasing documents that directly contradict Barack Obama’s latest attempt to rewrite the history of the Russia collusion hoax. “We will be releasing further documents tomorrow that will refute that statement,” Gabbard said, dismissing the statement outright as part of pattern of misinformation pushed by top Democrats and their allies in the media ever since the release of what she called the “manufactured intelligence document” in January 2017. She didn’t stop there. “We will be pulling a whole host of statements that were made by the Obama administration, by Hillary Clinton, by senior Democrat officials, by their friends in the media,” she said. “They state over and over again after this January 2017 manufactured intelligence document was created that repeat the narrative.”

Gabbard laid out a damning list of examples. “The New York Times says, ‘Russian hackers acted to aid Trump in the election,’” she quoted. “Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan says, ‘There is strong consensus among us… to support the CIA claim Russian hackers aided Donald Trump’s election.’” And of course, Hillary Clinton’s infamous refrain: “I would be president if not for the Russian hackers supporting Donald Trump.” “There is a vast body of evidence and intelligence that debunks and refutes this statement you’ve just read and others coming from some of the Democrat leaders in Congress today,” Gabbard concluded. With more documents expected to drop soon, Gabbard is making it clear she intends to expose the Obama-era narrative for what it was—an orchestrated political operation designed to undercut the legitimacy of a duly elected president.

Now that the truth is starting to trickle out, the Obama crowd is sweating—and for good reason. Tulsi Gabbard’s document drops are pulling back the curtain on what looks like a coordinated effort by Obama and his top brass to sabotage a duly elected president using fake intelligence and a complicit media echo chamber. The phony Russia narrative was a deliberate attempt to delegitimize Trump before he even took the oath. And now, the evidence is catching up. No matter how hard Obama’s lackeys try to spin it, accountability is coming. And they know it.

Read more …

“..Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Mark Carney’s chief-of-staff, Marc-André Blanchard are once again coming to DC to ride their bicycles in slow circles at the bottom of the White House driveway while staring in the windows.”

Canada Accepts No Trade Deal Before 35% Tariffs Kick In (CTH)

I’ll repeat it as much as needed, until it sinks in. The U.S-Canada trade deal status is simply a no-brainer. President Trump will answer questions about Canada and tariffs, he’ll put people into seats to discuss trade with the Canadian delegation, and he’ll give every outward appearance of being favorable to Prime Minister Mark Carney…. BUT… In the background, Trump is simply waiting for the USMCA timeline to trigger a renegotiation. President Donald Trump is ambivalent to the trade partnership with Canada. This moot-status reality is why there’s no substantive engagement. ‘No deal’ -until USMCA redo- is a win for President Trump. For some bizarre reason that I simply cannot fathom, almost every Canadian politician seems entirely oblivious to this reality. Instead, Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Mark Carney’s chief-of-staff, Marc-André Blanchard are once again coming to DC to ride their bicycles in slow circles at the bottom of the White House driveway while staring in the windows.

An article in Politico notes the Canadian premiers are now accepting the August 1st deadline will pass without any agreement, and the 35% reciprocal tariffs on non-USMCA products (meaning a lot of stuff) is going to trigger. Literally, everything from Canada that has a non-USMCA component is going to be tariffed. Think about all the stuff from China, Asia (writ large) and Europe that Canada assembles for finished goods. All of that stuff will be subject to the tariffs. That said, there’s good news coming from the recent meeting between Prime Minister Carney and the Premiers. Within their statement they use the term “developing large infrastructure projects.” That’s Canadian political codespeak for them realizing they are going to have to get back to regular energy development, raw material use/refinement and ACTUAL MANUFACTURING.

Canada is going to have to bring back their ‘dirty’ industrial jobs. For our Treehouse friends in Canada, this is very good news. The Canadian assembly economic model has to change in order to get compliant with U.S. trade rules. THAT’S TRUMP’S ENTIRE POINT! The environmentalists within Canada will not like this, but economically they will have no choice; it’s the only way to avoid a complete economic depression.

HUNTSVILLE, Ontario — “Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canada’s premiers are tempering expectations that they’ll strike a new economic and security deal with Donald Trump by the end of the month. “We would like to have the ideal deal, as fast as possible. But what can we get?” Quebec Premier François Legault said Tuesday. “You almost need to ask Donald Trump, and I’m not even sure he knows himself what he wants.” It’s a shift in tone from the premiers and Carney, who ran for election on his economic record, arguing he’d be the best person to negotiate with the president. But Canada is finding it harder than it looks. Carney met the premiers in Muskoka, cottage country north of Toronto, to update them on Canada-U.S. negotiations. As the leaders emerged from a three-hour meeting, they downplayed hopes of an Aug. 1 deal, arguing that achieving a “good deal” is more important than hitting a deadline.”

[…] As the negotiations continue, the premiers spent Tuesday carving out a strategy to offset the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs on the aluminum, steel, auto and lumber sector. They spoke about developing large infrastructure projects, breaking down trade barriers between provinces and encouraging a “buy Canadian” approach.”

Canada is going to go into a deep economic recession; there’s no way to avoid it. However, if they restart their industrial base, drop the ridiculous ‘green’ energy stuff, start exploiting their own natural resources and train an apprentice generation -just like we are trying to do- then Canada can bounce back stronger than ever. We know there are Canadian wolverines who understand this concept; we saw thousands of them in the Truckers’ vaccine strike. Make Canada Great Again, by Making Dirty Jobs Great Again, eh?

Read more …

“They were supposed to buy their own equipment. But I have a feeling they didn’t spend every dollar on the equipment..,”

Trump Questions Kiev’s Use Of US Aid (RT)

US President Donald Trump has claimed that billions of dollars in American aid given to Ukraine under his predecessor Joe Biden may have been misused. The US became Kiev’s top foreign backer under the Biden administration, allocating over $170 billion in military and financial aid, according to official data. Trump, however, has long argued the total is far higher, estimating $350 billion in “equipment and cash” and criticizing Biden for “giving away” money without returns. He reiterated the point at a Republican meeting at the White House on Tuesday, questioning whether Kiev had actually used US aid for defense needs.

“Biden gave away $350 billion worth of equipment or cash. Worse than equipment – cash… They were supposed to buy their own equipment. But I have a feeling they didn’t spend every dollar on the equipment,” Trump said. “We want to find out about that [money], someday, I guess, right?” Trump’s comments echo growing concerns over corruption in Ukraine. The country has long struggled with graft, and its Defense Ministry has faced multiple scandals since the conflict with Russia escalated in 2022. Both the US and EU have pressed for audits and stronger anti-corruption measures. In April, US National Security Adviser Michael Waltz urged tighter oversight of aid, calling Ukraine “one of the most corrupt nations in the world.”

Despite calls for transparency, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky signed a law this week reducing the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies, claiming it would streamline investigations. The legislation has triggered international scrutiny and protests across the country, with critics saying the move could be aimed at shielding Zelensky’s inner circle and concealing the embezzlement of military funds. Moscow has long argued that Western aid prolongs the fighting without changing the outcome of the conflict. Russian officials have also long accused Kiev of misusing foreign funds. UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia told RT last month that it’s “an open secret” Ukraine “stole billions of dollars out of the aid” and that Zelensky clings to power to avoid consequences.

Read more …

First, he effectively shut down the independent anti-corruption bureaus. That led to major protests in the streets, the first in years. So he (they) tweaked it all a bit and he claimed they’re independent again. These guys have embezzled billions and for some reason they’re now afraid of being found out.

Western Media Reacts To Zelensky’s Crackdown On Anti-Corruption Bureau (RT)

Western news outlets have criticized Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky for stripping an independent anti-corruption bureau of its autonomy and placing it under the control of the prosecutor general. The move, carried out on Tuesday, drew widespread concern from journalists and observers. Zelensky signed legislative amendments on the subordination of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the office of the special anti-corruption prosecutor hours after they were rushed through parliament. The changes were enacted despite vocal opposition from the agency. Established in 2015 following the 2014 armed coup in Kiev, the NABU was a cornerstone of judicial reform conditions imposed by Western governments and international financial institutions.

The agency was intended to serve as a key check on official misconduct, along with Western-funded NGOs and media outlets. The move to “neuter” the NABU, as Axios described it, comes amid escalating tensions between the bureau and the Zelensky administration. Earlier this week, Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) executed search warrants against at least 15 NABU personnel and arrested a top investigator on suspicion of ties to Russia. Zelensky defended the measures, alleging that the NABU was ineffective and compromised by Russian influence, warranting what he called a necessary purge. The clampdown drew muted statements of concern from Western officials and warnings about its potential consequences from journalists.

”It is never a good sign when governments accused of corruption raid the agencies and activists trying to hold them to account,” wrote Bloomberg columnist Marc Champion. “It’s something the country cannot afford, just as it asks taxpayers across Europe to pump tens of billions of additional euros into its defense.” Champion also pointed to “an emerging pattern,” referencing the recent criminal charges filed against anti-corruption activist Vitaly Shabunin, who was accused of fraud and draft evasion. Axios noted that the assault on the NABU’s independence came after recent improvements in US-Ukraine relations. However, the outlet cautioned that Zelensky was “playing with fire,” recalling President Donald Trump’s characterization of him as a “dictator without elections” governing under martial law.

The Wall Street Journal accused Kiev of launching an “attack on anti-corruption institutions,” emphasizing the NABU’s role in assuring Western donors that financial support would be safeguarded from embezzlement. It also extensively cited criticisms by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists. Shabunin told the newspaper that the charges against him were meant to send a message: “Those who investigate corruption in Zelensky’s office will be punished.” Another person suggested Zelensky had grown emboldened by the West’s subdued response after Kiev rejected the independent selection of a NABU detective to lead another economic crimes agency. Foreign correspondents covering Ukraine expressed dismay at the developments on social media.

Oliver Carroll of The Economist called the legislation “shocking” and accused Zelensky of allowing “hubris” to jeopardize the goodwill of the foreign public. Yaroslav Trofimov of the Wall Street Journal claimed the crackdown represented “a gift of historic proportions to Russian propaganda” and to Western skeptics of further military aid for Ukraine. Financial Times correspondent Christopher Miller emphasized that the responsibility lay squarely with Zelensky and his chief of staff, Andrey Yermak. ”Orders came from the office of the president last night and the law enforcement committee passed it early morning in such great haste that members had to join over video,” Miller wrote. “This did not just happen overnight, even if it feels that way. This is a shift months in the making.”

Read more …

That Congresswoman can only be MTG.

US Congresswoman Labels Zelensky ‘Dictator’ (RT)

US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has labeled Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “a dictator” and called for his removal, citing mass anti-corruption protests across Ukraine and accusing him of blocking peace efforts. Her comments came after Zelensky signed a controversial bill into law that places the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) under the authority of the prosecutor general. Critics argue that the legislation effectively strips the bodies of their independence. The law has sparked protests across Ukraine, with around 2,000 people rallying in Kiev and additional demonstrations reported in Lviv, Odessa, and Poltava. “Good for the Ukrainian people! Throw him out of office!” Greene wrote Wednesday on X, sharing footage from the protests. “And America must STOP funding and sending weapons!!!”

Greene, a longtime critic of US aid to Kiev, made similar comments last week while introducing an amendment to block further assistance. “Zelensky is a dictator, who, by the way, stopped elections in his country because of this war,” she told the House. “He’s jailed journalists, he’s canceled his election, controlled state media, and persecuted Christians. The American people should not be forced to continue to pay for another foreign war.”Her statements come amid mounting speculation over Zelensky’s political future. Journalist Seymour Hersh has reported that US officials are considering replacing him, possibly with former top general Valery Zaluzhny.

Senator Tommy Tuberville also called Zelensky a “dictator” last month, accusing him of trying to drag NATO into the conflict with Russia. Tuberville claimed that Zelensky refuses to hold elections because “he knew if he had an election, he’d get voted out.” Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in 2024, but he has refused to hold a new election, citing martial law, which has been extended every 90 days since 2022.US President Donald Trump has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, calling him “a dictator without elections” in February. Russian officials have repeatedly brought up the issue of Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that any agreements signed by him or his administration could be legally challenged by future leaders of Ukraine.

Read more …

“Western allies of Ukraine” still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin “as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.”

Zelensky’s End Goal Is In Sight, And So Is His End (Amar)

When the US picks clients, vassals, and proxies, it needs men or women ready to trade in the interests, even the welfare and lives of their compatriots. Vladimir Zelensky is such a man. A look at the elites of EU-NATO Europe shows he is not alone. But he is an especially extreme case. It is much less than a decade ago that the former media entrepreneur and comedian – often crude instead of witty – advanced from being a pet protégé of one of Ukraine’s most corrupt oligarchs to capturing the country’s presidency. As it turned out, never to let go of it: Zelensky has used the war, which was provoked by the West and escalated in February 2022, not only to make himself an indispensable if very expensive and often obstreperous American puppet but also as a pretext to evade elections.

And yet, now signs are multiplying that his days of being indispensable may be over. For one thing, Seymour Hersh, living legend of American investigative journalism, is reporting that Zelensky is very unpopular where it matters most, in US President Donald Trump’s White House. This is not surprising: Trump’s recent turn against Russia – whatever its real substance or marital reasons – does not mean a turn in favor of Ukraine and even less so in favor of Zelensky, as attentive observers have noted. According to the Financial Times, “Western allies of Ukraine” still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin “as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.”

Time to go

And according to “knowledgeable officials in Washington” who have talked to Hersh, the US leadership is ready to act on that problem by getting rid of Zelensky. And urgently: Some American officials consider removing the Ukrainian president “feet first” in case he refuses to go. Their reason, according to Hersh’s confidants: to make room for a deal with Russia. Hersh has to make do with publishing anonymous sources. It is even conceivable that the Trump administration is leaking this threat against Zelensky to pressure him. Yet even if so, that doesn’t mean the threat is empty. Judging by past US behavior, using and then discarding other countries’ leaders is always an option.

Another, also plausible, possibility is that Zelensky will be discarded to facilitate not ending, but continuing the war, so as to keep draining Russian resources. In this scenario, the US would prolong the war by handing it over to its loyally self-harming European vassals. After, that is, seeing to the installation of a new leader in Kiev, one it has under even better control than Zelensky. Just to make sure the Europeans and the Ukrainians do not start understanding each other too well and end up slipping from US control. The Ukrainian replacement candidate everyone whispers about, old Zelensky nemesis General Valery Zaluzhny – currently in de facto exile as ambassador to the UK – might well be available for both options, depending on his marching orders from Washington.

Meanwhile, as if on cue, Western mainstream media have started to notice the obvious: The Financial Times has found out that critics accuse Zelensky of an “authoritarian slide,” which is still putting it very mildly but closer to the truth than past daft hero worship. The Spectator – in fairness, a magazine with a tradition of being somewhat more realistic about Ukraine – has fired a broadside under the title “Ukraine has lost faith in Zelensky.” The Economist has detected an “outrage” in Zelensky’s moves and, more tellingly, used a picture of him making him look like a cross between a Bond villain and Saddam Hussein. Even Deutsche Welle, a German state propaganda outlet, is now reporting on massive human rights infringements under Zelensky, with the impaired systematically targeted for forced mobilization.

Read more …

Don’t do it out in the open, you fool!

Von der Leyen Warns Zelensky Over Risk To Ukraine’s EU Bid (RT)

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has requested explanations from Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky over the crackdown on the country’s anti-corruption agencies, which has sparked nationwide protests and international backlash. The agencies were seen as key conditions for Kiev’s EU membership bid and continued Western aid. Under the legislation, passed by the Ukrainian parliament on Tuesday and signed by Zelensky hours later, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) were placed under the direct control of the Prosecutor General, a political appointee. The controversial law followed security raids on NABU in light of claims by Zelensky that the agency was subject to Russian influence.

Von der Leyen was in contact with Zelensky, her spokesman Guillaume Mercier told reporters on Wednesday, saying she “conveyed her strong concerns about the consequences” of the new law and requested “explanations.” The legislation “risks weakening strongly the competences and powers of anti-corruption institutions of Ukraine,” Mercier said. The EC chief has urged “respect for the rule of law” and the “fight against corruption,” he stated, adding “There cannot be a compromise.” European Council President Antonio Costa reportedly also voiced concern to Zelensky and asked for explanations. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul wrote on X that the development “hampers Ukraine’s way towards the EU.”

The creation of NABU and SAP was one of the requirements set by the European Commission and International Monetary Fund more than a decade ago to fight high-level corruption in Ukraine. Since then, the two bodies have led far-reaching investigations, including into Zelensky’s circle. The organizations say they now have been stripped of the guarantees that allowed them to operate effectively. EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told the Financial Times that financial aid to Kiev is “conditional on transparency, judicial reforms [and] democratic governments.” Ukraine was ranked 105th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index.

Read more …

“All the DSA protects is European leaders from their own people.”

US State Dept Accuses EU of ‘Orwellian Censorship’ (RT)

The EU’s online content regulations are an affront to free speech, the US State Department has said in response to France’s praise for the Digital Services Act (DSA). The State Department echoed earlier criticism from US Vice President J.D. Vance, who accused EU member states of attempting to quash dissenting voices and stigmatize popular right-wing parties such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD). “In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticizing their own governments. This Orwellian message won’t fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom,” the State Department wrote on X on Tuesday. “All the DSA protects is European leaders from their own people.”

Earlier this month, France’s mission to the UN promoted the DSA on X, stating, “In Europe, one is free to speak, not free to spread illegal content.” Passed in 2022, the DSA mandates that online platforms remove “illegal and harmful” content and combat “the spread of disinformation,” according to the European Commission. Critics in both the US and Europe have likened the regulations to the creation of a ‘ministry of truth’. Earlier this year, prosecutors in Paris launched an investigation into Elon Musk’s platform X, on suspicion that it was being used to meddle in French politics and spread hateful messages. The company dismissed the probe as “politically motivated.”

In 2024, the French authorities detained Russian-born tech entrepreneur Pavel Durov on charges that he had allowed his Telegram messaging app to be used for criminal activities. Durov, who was later released on bail, denied any wrongdoing and accused France of waging “a crusade” against free speech. He also claimed that French intelligence officials attempted to pressure him into censoring content during Romania’s 2024 presidential election. France’s foreign intelligence agency, the DGSE, confirmed that it had “reminded” Durov of his responsibility to police content, but denied allegations of election interference.

Read more …

“A recent report has exposed the European commission guilty of bribing journalist to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for favourable coverage..”

The EU taxpayer pays to be deceived…

The Case For Media Transparency Within The EU Just Got Sexy (Jay)

A recent report has exposed the European commission guilty of bribing journalist to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for favourable coverage. How long can this go on? While we witness the continuation of the European Commission chief’s anti-democratic control over the project but also a host of values like freedom of speech, a Brussels Eurosceptic think tank has revealed that the project bribes journalists for favourable coverage. In a recent report, MCC claimed that the EU was secretly pumping at least 80m euros a year into both print and broadcast outlets often under the guise of fighting fake news. Yet the figure of 80m euros is wildly underestimated and in reality is likely to be three or four times this as the accountability and transparency of such payments are unsurprisingly buried in opaque accountancy practices with both the EU and media outlets themselves unwilling to be open to their readers/viewers.

Funding programmes are often presented using buzzwords like “fighting disinformation” or “promoting European integration” yet the reality is that it is a fund which is simply there to push propaganda for the project itself. The truth is that the European commission in particular is advancing with a strategy to bribe media giants more and more to promote the EU with its tainted narrative. Ironically, it is Ursula von der Leyen who often talks about “facts” being important. Her pretence that she believes in the truth and an independent press is in itself an illusion on a grand scale and perhaps the greatest example of what “fake news” itself is, on the EU circuit. Just recently, the irony of her being close to losing her job as commission president gave her the opportunity to give us all a good laugh.

“Facts matter, the truth matters”, she said recently in her speech to the EU Parliament, just before a vote of no confidence was held against her. She said – stop laughing – she was willing to engage in debate — provided it was based on “facts” and “arguments”. Yet there has never been an EU commission president who believes and benefits more in the dark art of bunging journalists and media more than Ursula. Indeed, the very media outlets who rushed to her defence when she was facing the jaws of defeat by a group of Eurosceptic MEPs recently are fake news outfits which have been receiving millions of euros of cash in brown envelopes for decades. “Von der Leyen successfully defends against no-confidence vote and attacks right-wing extremists”, thundered Der Spiegel, while Deutsche Welle (DW) reported a failure by the right: “Right-wing extremists fail with no-confidence motion against von der Leyen”.

“Right-wing extremists”? Really? Perhaps it’s worth noting that DW, to date, has received around 35m euros from the EU slush fund, according to the Hungarian think tank’s report which is compiled by Thomas Fazi, an Italian hack whose work is published on Unherd and who recently has published impressive investigations into the salami sliced power grab that the EU has been executing from member states. Ursula, of course, plays a pivotal role in that, as does corrupt media outlets like Deutsche Welle which is so spectacularly shite that its own German language service had to be shut down as no Germans would watch such gobbledygook garbage which champions the EU and Germany’s foreign policy ambitions.

This slush fund, aimed at boosting the EU’s status and relevance, has been around for quite a while but the report was revealing as it explains exactly how the European Commission goes about distributing the cash.mTraditionally, a big way the EU gets artificially positive coverage from Brussels events is via broadcasters. Outfits like DW, Euronews and most of the major state broadcasters across the EU benefit from a subsidy here, whereby the European Commission, European parliament and other institutions like the Council of Ministers provide filming, editing and studio facilities at their state of the art studios which, themselves, are a murky pit of corruption and embezzlement on a grand scale.

These “studios” provide everything for national broadcasters who have “correspondents” in Brussels. TV production, particularly on location is expensive. The EU pays for everything saving state broadcasters like DW millions in production costs which is of course paid back by coverage from the outlet not only with a positive EU spin but often simply replicating the EU narrative. It’s propaganda on a level which would make Goebbels proud as the genius of it is that the relationship which forms between the broadcasters and the EU grows each day until the point where both realise they need one another more than they have previously realised. The result is that so-called “news events” in Brussels which are so boring and would never normally see the light of day if the editors back in Berlin, Paris or Rome would have their say, get air time. And quite a bit of it.

What the report didn’t cover was the contracts themselves with the private companies which run the studios who employ scores of technical staff. Curiously perhaps, it is the same Belgian company which gets the contract every six years when the budget is completed despite EU rules making this impossible. All the Belgian firm does is simply change its name. Corruption of course has to be the heart of this. Someone in the EU commission is getting a huge commission for this of course.

Read more …

All AI data centers should generate their own electricity. But that will come only after a first batch of blackouts.

Biggest US Power Grid Sets Power Costs At Record High To Feed AI (ZH)

Very soon if you want AI (and even if you don’t), you won’t be able to afford AC. Just this morning we warned readers that America’s largest power grid, PJM Interconnect, which serves 65 million people across 13 states and Washington, DC, and more importantly feeds Deep State Central’s Loudoun County, Virginia, also known as ‘Data Center Alley’ and which is recognized as one of the world’s largest hubs for data centers… had recently issued multiple ‘Maximum Generation’ and ‘Load Management’ alerts this summer, as the heat pushes power demand to the brink with air conditioners running at full blast across the eastern half of the U.S. But as anyone who has not lived under a rock knows, the deeper issue is that there’s simply not enough baseload juice to feed the relentless, ravenous growth of power-hungry AI server racks at new data centers.

“There is simply no new capacity to meet new loads,” said Joe Bowring to Bloomberg, president of Monitoring Analytics, which is the independent watchdog for PJM Interconnection. “The solution is to make sure that people who want to build data centers are serious enough about it to bring their own generation.” Well, there is another solution: crank up prices to the stratosphere. And that’s precisely what happened. As Bloomberg reports, business and households supplied by the largest US grid will pay $16.1 billion to ensure there is enough electricity supply to meet soaring power demand, especially that from a massive buildout in AI data centers. The payouts to generators for the year starting June 2026 topped last year’s record $14.7 billion, according to PJM Interconnection LLC, which operates the grid stretching from the Midwest to the mid-Atlantic.

That puts the capacity price per megawatt each day at a record $329.17 from $269.92. In response to the blowout payout, shares of Constellation Energy and Talen Energy surged in late trading in New York on Tuesday.As millions of Americans will very soon learn the hard way, AI data centers are driving the biggest surge in US electric demand in decades, leading to higher residential utility bills. That’s a key reason why PJM’s auction, once only tracked by power traders and plant owners but now increasingly a topic for general consumption as electricity bills are about to hit an all time high, has also become closely watched by politicians and consumer advocates.

As Bloomberg notes, this is the first auction that included both a price floor and cap, setting the range at $177.24 to $329.17, which of course was the clearing price level reached in this auction. Why even bother pretending there is an auction: just set the price at the max and be done with it. Last year’s 600% jump in capacity prices set off a political firestorm, resulting in PJM reaching a settlement with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to essentially cap gains for two years and make auction prices more predictable after wild swings in recent years. Despite the increase in costs across the grid, the price cap trimmed costs for consumers who saw the biggest hikes in the last auction. Exelon’s Baltimore area utility reached a $466 last time, while Dominion Energy’s Virginia territory came in at about $444.

Payouts to generators stayed at high levels due to surging demand from big data centers coming online swiftly, said Jon Gordon, policy director of non-profit clean energy advocacy Advanced Energy United. New facilities are consuming as much power as towns or small cities, coinciding with a wave of older power plants shutting down and lagging investment in new supplies and grid upgrades, he said.The per-megawatt price exceeding the 2024 auction, and well closing at an all time high, is bullish for independent power producers including NRG, Talen, Constellation and Vistra, Barclays analyst Nick Campenella had forecast. These generators have spent more than $34 billion so far this year on deals to mainly buy up power plants fueled by natural gas to feed the AI boom especially in PJM.

Read more …

“The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” reportedly loses $40 million a year..”

“..the average age of Colbert’s viewers is 68..”

Jon Stewart revived late night comedy. He had no successors.

Whose Politics Canceled Stephen Colbert? (Daniel McCarthy)

Stephen Colbert is at the center of a conspiracy theory. It was born last week, when news broke of CBS canceling Colbert’s late-night talk show. The network’s move wasn’t hard to understand: “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” reportedly loses $40 million a year, and Colbert is already in the final year of his contract. Viewership for all the late-night gabfests is evaporating; there’s no recovery in sight. Colbert is No. 1 in his time slot, but his show costs $100 million a year to produce and doesn’t bring in nearly enough eyeballs to attract the ad revenue to cover that. So in what universe does CBS renew Colbert and keep losing tens of millions of dollars? The conspiracy theory instantly popular among Democrats and many in the media who ought to know better, however, says Colbert is really being taken off air to please President Donald Trump.

If the Federal Communications Commission allows it, Paramount Global, owner of CBS, will soon merge with Skydance, a company owned by David Ellison, whose father is a major Trump supporter. The president doesn’t like being lampooned by Colbert; he’s happy to see his show end. Trump benefits, so Trump must be to blame—right? For those who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, there are no coincidences. The truth is as clear as if Trump had been caught with his arms around the president of CBS Studios at a Coldplay concert. You see, if not for Trump’s FCC leverage over the network, CBS would have been content to keep losing millions on Colbert for years to come. That’s the crackpot view, and it’s politically convenient for Democrats, who’ve done their utmost to promote it.

Sen. Adam Schiff was a guest on the show the night Colbert announced its cancellation, and along with fellow Democrat Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, he took to X that evening to plant the seeds of conspiracy. “If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better,” Schiff wrote, feeling no need to offer evidence for the insinuation. “CBS canceled Colbert’s show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump—a deal that looks like bribery,” Warren posted, referring to CBS’ settlement of a lawsuit over “60 Minutes.” “Do I think this is a coincidence? NO,” Sanders chimed in. The party instantly had its line, with shouty caps to drive it home.

It worked—Bluesky and Facebook lit up with liberals saying free speech was under attack by Trump, while CNN’s Brian Stelter, even as he reported the dismal financial reality of the “unfortunately unprofitable” show, packed his story with the conspiracy narrative. Stelter devoted more than a third of his report titled “Inside CBS’ ‘agonizing decision’ to cancel Colbert’s top-rated late-night show” to speculation about how the pending sale to Skydance might have influenced CBS, with heavy emphasis on the Trump angle, which he brought elsewhere in his story, too. Stelter even added his own spin, attempting to patch up one of the conspiracy tale’s obvious holes by suggesting CBS could have kept Colbert on air by cutting costs since Colbert had produced a much cheaper show, “After Midnight With Taylor Tomlinson,” that CBS was willing to renew.

But that’s absurd—“After Midnight” is already canceled; CBS canned it when Tomlinson announced her departure to return to stand-up comedy, and while she might well love the live stage, it’s obvious that running a late-night show on the cheap means paying hosts less: too little to keep Tomlinson. How little would Colbert, currently raking in a reported $15-$20 million a year, settle for? Colbert loses viewers and advertisers even with a $100 million budget—how poorly would a Colbert show more than 40% cheaper do? Hollywood Reporter notes the average age of Colbert’s viewers is 68. According to CNBC, the average age of David Letterman’s viewers when he handed his time slot to Colbert in 2015 was 60.

All the data points in the same direction:“The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” was a long time dying. That’s true of late-night talk as a whole, too. “I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next,” Trump predicted on Truth Social. The president doesn’t have to pressure ABC to make that happen; the market will do that on its own, as it did with Colbert. Colbert had a hit when he played a parody conservative on Comedy Central. Once he stopped playing and presented his true face and politics to the country, he crashed. Donald Trump didn’t get Stephen Colbert canceled; everything Democrats like about him did. And the late-night host’s fate will also be theirs if they don’t heed this market lesson.

Read more …

The President sinks below 20%.

Odd math: “Macron’s approval rating has fallen to 19%, with Bayrou at just 18%, making a combined approval of 37% ..”

Macron’s Popularity Hits Record Low (RT)

French President Emmanuel Macron’s approval rating has dropped below 20% for the first time since taking office, as criticism mounts over rising defense spending and cuts to social programs. Prime Minister Francois Bayrou also performed poorly in the same poll, with the two forming the most unpopular executive pair of the Fifth Republic. Macron’s approval rating has fallen to 19%, with Bayrou at just 18%, making a combined approval of 37% – the lowest in modern France, according to a new IFOP survey published on Monday. Even during the Yellow Vest protests – a major anti-government movement that began in 2018 over fuel taxes and economic inequality – the French leader’s lowest rating was 23%.

Macron’s support has dropped sharply among his 2022 voters, with only 49% still backing him – down 12 points. His approval has also declined among business leaders and executives, falling by 18 and 8 points, respectively. Bayrou, who was appointed after Michel Barnier’s government collapsed in late 2024 following months of coalition infighting and public backlash over mishandled pension reforms, is now advancing a controversial austerity plan. Last week, he introduced new tax measures on high-income earners to help close a €43.8 billion ($48 billion) budget gap. The austerity package includes a freeze on pensions and social benefits, healthcare spending caps, and the scrapping of two national holidays to increase productivity and reduce government spending.

Left-wing leader Jean-Luc Melenchon has called for Bayrou’s resignation, calling the measures “intolerable injustices.” Despite cuts in social services, defense spending continues to rise. Macron has pledged €6.5 billion more for the military over two years, citing heightened threats to European security. This comes as France’s public debt reaches €3.3 trillion – around 114% of GDP. A new French defense review has warned of a potential “major war” in Europe by 2030, identifying Russia as a leading threat. The Kremlin has denied having any intention to attack the West, and has accused NATO countries of exploiting perceptions of Russia to justify their military build-up.

Read more …

Candace has sunk her teeth in this for quite a while. She doesn’t fool around.

“[I]..stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man.”

Macron Sues Candace Owens For Defamation For Claiming His Wife Is A Man (ZH)

French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron launched legal proceedings against conservative podcaster Candace Owens in a Delaware court, seeking damages for what they characterize as a sustained defamation campaign targeting the French president’s wife. The 218-page complaint, filed Wednesday in Delaware’s Superior Court where Owens’ company is incorporated, encompasses 22 counts including defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and defamation by implication. The lawsuit centers on Owens’ repeated claims across multiple platforms that Brigitte Macron was born male, claims the Macrons’ legal team describes as “outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions.” The conservative commentator has disseminated these allegations through social media posts and an eight-part YouTube series titled “Becoming Brigitte,” which the plaintiffs allege has generated significant online harassment.

Tom Clare, the Macrons’ high-profile attorney, said the case is a straightforward defamation in a statement accompanying the filing. “Relying on discredited falsehoods originally presented by a self-proclaimed spiritual medium and so-called investigative journalist, Ms. Owens both promoted and expanded on those falsehoods and invented new ones,” Clare said. The legal filing indicates the Macrons’ representatives made multiple requests for retractions before pursuing litigation. In a joint statement, the presidential couple said they concluded that “referring the matter to a court of law was the only remaining avenue for remedy” after Owens allegedly “systematically reaffirmed these falsehoods.” Owens has maintained her position despite calls for retractions, declaring in a 2024 social media post that she would “stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man.”

The French first couple has consistently disputed these claims, citing official birth records. The lawsuit alleges the false statements have resulted in “relentless bullying on a worldwide scale” and caused “tremendous damage” to their reputations. BCC Communications, the public relations firm representing Owens, told Mediaite that the podcaster would address the lawsuit during her program Wednesday. The U.S. lawsuit follows mixed results for the Macrons in French courts addressing similar allegations. On July 11, a Paris appeals court overturned lower court convictions against two French women who had made comparable claims about the first lady’s gender identity.

The appellate ruling reversed a September 2023 decision that had ordered defendants Amandine Roy, a self-proclaimed spiritual medium, and Natacha Rey, a self-described independent journalist, to pay €8,000 in damages to Brigitte Macron and €5,000 to her brother. The women had produced a four-hour YouTube video in December 2021 promoting theories that Brigitte Macron was previously known as Jean-Michel Trogneux. The appeals court determined the defendants had acted in “good faith” despite making false claims, including allegations of “grooming a minor.” The decision eliminated their financial liability.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

elon 2024

Starship

 

 

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