Zero Hedge

Europe Regularly Supplies Ukraine With Outdated & Defective Weapons

Europe Regularly Supplies Ukraine With Outdated & Defective Weapons

Authored by Jakub Wrona via AntiWar.com,

Reports have increased in recent months that European states send obsolete weapons to Ukraine, including those that are known to be unreliable and ineffective in combat. These facts raise certain concerns about the quality and effectiveness of the assistance provided by the West to Ukraine. Let’s look at some examples that have become known through open sources and reports from the battlefield.

One example is Spain, which sent a batch of CETME L submachine guns that were withdrawn from service more than 20 years ago and known for their reliability issues. Experts question their effectiveness in modern warfare despite being upgraded before shipment.

Another example is France, which sent artillery pieces that have failed in battle, raising questions about their ability to provide effective support. The French CAESAR self-propelled howitzers, which were hailed as high-tech weapons, have proven to be far from perfect. According to Ukrainian military sources, these systems are prone to frequent breakdowns and suffer from insufficient shooting accuracy, which is especially critical considering the significant role artillery plays in the current conflict.

Moreover, about a thousand mortar shells supplied by Bulgaria and Romania have been found to be defective. Some Ukrainian military reports say, some of these shells fail to explode and others misfire, which not only reduces the effectiveness of combat operations, but also creates additional risks for military personnel.

Such cases are not exceptions, but rather the norm. Western countries are actively disposing of outdated and withdrawn weapons by sending them to Ukraine. However, Kyiv has little choice but to accept what the allies offer, despite the fact that the quality and effectiveness of these weapons leave much to be desired.

Why is this so significant? Firstly, due to obsolete and defective weapons, the combat readiness of the Ukrainian military and its efficiency on the battlefield have significantly decreased. In light of a conflict with Russia, which possesses advanced weaponry, this is a crucial factor.

Secondly, faulty weapons and ammunition increase the risk of accidents and injuries among personnel. At the same time such assistance erodes Ukraine’s confidence in its Western allies and may lead to a reevaluation of its cooperation strategy, including the exploitation of natural resources from Ukraine’s territory after the conflict concludes, which the United States currently monitors closely.

In spite of the immense efforts and assistance from the West, Ukraine faces increasing challenges in its confrontation with Russia. Obsolete and ineffective weapons only exacerbate the situation.

If we look at the situation objectively, it would be beneficial for the West to dispose of decommissioned weapons. This issue is not only political, but also economic. For Western companies and defense contractors, these supplies can be a convenient way to save money on disposing of old weapons, while creating the illusion of support for Ukraine.

However, these actions are not enough for the Ukrainian side to make a significant difference in the war. Maybe it’s time to have a serious discussion about a peaceful resolution. War can’t last forever, and sooner or later, the two sides will need to sit down and negotiate. The current situation with arms supplies could be an opportunity to start peace talks. The question remains: are the parties ready for compromises, or will the conflict continue until resources are completely depleted? Only time will show.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/09/2025 - 07:00

What Happens To The Middle East If Russia & The US Stop Being Enemies?

What Happens To The Middle East If Russia & The US Stop Being Enemies?

Via Middle East Eye

Some call it the end of the post-war order. Others, a grand realignment. Regardless of how it's defined, the Middle East faces a new paradigm: what happens when the US stops viewing Russia as a foe and instead as a potential partner, or at the very least, a neutral actor? American diplomats and analysts are still struggling to come to grips with this potentially historic shift.

When asked about a report that Israel was lobbying the Trump administration to let Russia keep its military bases in Syria, one career US diplomat in the region replied, “Well, that would be against our national interests?” They responded with silence when asked what would happen if the US president didn’t see it that way. Trump has said he wants to partner with Russia for “incredible opportunities”.

On Friday, Trump doubled down, saying he found it easier to deal with Russia than Ukraine, a country the US had been supplying arms and intelligence to until recently. Asked about Russia’s widespread attacks on Ukraine’s energy grid, Trump said Putin was "doing what anybody else would do”.

Via AFP

Trump, Nixon and the China analogy 

The US view of Russia as a foe working against its interests has defined the Middle East since the end of WWII, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt courted Saudi Arabia for Gulf oil. In the following decades, the US worked to counter the Soviet Union across the region.

The US’s support for Israel in the 1973 War led to an eventual peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. In the process, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat evicted Soviet military advisors who had been welcomed by Gamal Abdel Nasser. Until December 2024, the United States viewed the toppled Syrian Assad dynasty as a vehicle for nefarious Russian power projection.

Trump’s allies looking to explain his outreach to Putin have said he is trying to break up a bloc of states, mainly Russia, Iran and China, from coordinating against the US. They add that Trump’s overtures echo the strategic diplomacy of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger opening up to China in the 1970s.

Chas Freeman, a former US diplomat, whose career spanned almost three decades, told Middle East Eye it was a “false comparison”.

“A better analogy to Trump’s opening to Putin is Sadat going to Jerusalem.” Freeman is reliable on the subject considering he was the interpreter for Nixon’s trip.

In the Middle East, Trump’s bid to work with Putin may reflect his priorities and a geopolitical world view. Some of Trump’s confidants have raised the alarm about Turkey’s expanding influence.

Steve Bannon & Mike Flynn's worldview

Steve Bannon, a former Trump advisor whose podcast War Room has become required listening to those seeking to discern Trump’s world view, said recently that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was “one of the most dangerous leaders” in the world and wants to "re-establish the Ottoman Empire”.

Trump himself said that the collapse of the Assad government in Syria was merely an “unfriendly takeover” by Turkey. Trump wants to withdraw US troops from northeastern Syria. According to Reuters, Israel has told the Trump administration one way to reduce Turkey’s influence in the country would be via Russia.

“Donald Trump wants to be out of Syria. I can imagine that Russia and Israel cooperate to limit Turkish influence there and Trump just says, ‘I don’t care. You guys deal with Turkey',” Robert Ford, the US’s former ambassador to Syria, told MEE.

Trump has selected traditional Republicans who have been hostile to Russia, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and national security advisor Mike Waltz. But career US diplomats and defence officials say their influence is limited. For example, Rubio sat silent as Vice President JD Vance challenged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House last month. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s unconfirmed Middle East envoy, was the one tapped to meet Putin - speaking for roughly three hours -in Russia.

The gatekeepers to Trump’s selection of appointees are not diehard Russia hawks but those who believe the US should engage Moscow.

Officials looking to get into the White House have courted Mike Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor who was ousted from his first administration over his discussions with the Russians. Trump said he offered Flynn "about ten jobs" in his new administration.

Can Russia broker a US-Iran deal?

Trump hasn’t revived ties with Russia for the Middle East - he wants a ceasefire in Ukraine - but there are areas in the region where Russia is trying to entice the White House.

On Wednesday, the Kremlin said that future talks between Russia and the US would include discussions on Iran's nuclear programme. Spokesman Dmitry Peskoa appeared to acknowledge a report that Russia offered to mediate between the Islamic Republic and the Trump administration.

Trump says he wants a diplomatic deal with Iran over its nuclear programme. On Friday, he said he sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, asking for talks. The Obama administration, which tried its own so-called reset with Russia, leaned on the Kremlin during the 2015 nuclear talks.

“Obama gave Russia a lot of concessions for its mediation in the 2015 nuclear deal,” Anna Borshchevskaya, a Russia expert at the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, told MEE. “In practice, Russia acted as Iran’s lawyer, watering down US concerns about Iranian nuclear proliferation.”

In fact, Russia played a key role for the US after the deal was signed, with Iran shipping excess uranium to Russia to ensure it couldn’t be used as a bomb. In return, Russia, which shares the Caspian Sea with Iran, reaped economic benefits, sealing a deal to construct a nuclear power plant.

Ford, however, cautioned that Russia’s utility to the US on nuclear talks might be limited. The Obama administration itself bypassed Russia and its European powers to negotiate directly with Iran during the talks.

Kerry was meeting Zarif directly and then back-briefing the Europeans. I can’t imagine the US or Iranians would rely on the Russians. This is such a life and death matter for Tehran,” Ford said, referring to former Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif, who negotiated the 2015 deal.

Freeman said he is skeptical a grand Russian-US rapprochement will materialize. "Things are rearranging themselves in very unpredictable ways. It's like a kaleidoscope. You bang two sides together, and no one knows what new pattern will be formed,” but he said that in the Middle East, what's likely is not “active cooperation, but American silence”.

Chasing Gulf money

If the war in Ukraine ends and Trump lifts sanctions on Russia, he could dent some of the Gulf states' economic activity.

The United Arab Emirates and Russia were deepening ties before the Biden administration slapped sanctions on Russia. But after that, the UAE became a hub for re-exporting sanctioned goods. Russia could stop paying Emirati middlemen and buy directly from the United States if Trump ends the sanctions.

Borshchevskaya said that Russia could also look to make up lost ground in its weapons sales to the Gulf states if Trump lifts sanctions. Even during the war, the Arab Gulf talked to Russia about arms sales. Russian arms manufacturers displayed their goods alongside the US at the UAE’s arms expos in recent years.

US officials who spoke with MEE said they believe the US’s advantage over Russia in the oil-rich Gulf makes it a tough competition. Countries like Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia are deeply wired into US air defence systems, such as the Patriots and THAADS.

Meanwhile, the UAE is deepening its cooperation with the US in high-tech sectors like AI, where Russia struggles to compete.

Even as Trump riles Europe, he is courting the Gulf region. On Friday he announced that Saudi Arabia would be his first trip abroad as president after Riyadh agreed to invest $1 trillion in American companies over a four-year period. “They’ve agreed to do that, so I’m going to be going there… probably over the next month and a half.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 23:20

Chinese Warships Sail Near Australian Base Hosting US Submarine 

Chinese Warships Sail Near Australian Base Hosting US Submarine 

Three Chinese PLA Navy warships have been sailing for weeks near Australia and New Zealand, in a situation both governments are closely monitoring. The Australian Navy has been monitoring the PLA movements by deploying their own vessels to at times shadow.

The movement is being widely described in regional media as an unprecedented circumnavigation of Australia by the PLA Navy.

Image source: CCTV/SCMP

As of Thursday, Australia's military had monitored the flotilla's movement some 630 nautical miles (1,166km) northwest of Perth, and soon the warships are expected to transit the Sunda Strait, to reenter the South China Sea.

Led by the PLA's Type 055 destroyer Zunyi, the group also includes the Type 054A frigate named Hengyang and a Type 903 replenishment vessel, Weishanhu.

The South China Morning Post suggests this is a message aimed at Washington as well, given the Chinese warships are sailing in the vicinity of a base which is currently hosting a US submarine. The report indicates:

The warships’ passage near Perth comes amid continued cooperation between Australia and the US under the Aukus defence pact. The US Navy’s attack submarine USS Minnesota has been docked at HMAS Stirling naval base since last month, likely for nuclear submarine training and operational coordination between the two allies.

Aukus, a trilateral security alliance between Australia, Britain and the US, was established in September 2021 and will equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. The pact is framed as a measure to strengthen deterrence and promote a “free and open Indo-Pacific”.

SCMP continues, "The Chinese deployment marks one of the most significant PLA Navy operations near Australian waters, with the warships sailing closer to the country’s shores than before."

Last month the flotilla came just 150 nautical miles east of Sydney. The Australian navy has responded by sending its own warships to shadow and monitor the Chinese PLA Navy ships. They include three ships total: a Chinese frigate, a cruiser and a supply tanker.

"We are keeping a close watch on them, and we will make sure we are watching every move," Australia’s Defense Minister Richard Marles recently said.

"It’s not unprecedented. But it is an unusual event," Marles said, but still stipulated that the vessels are "not a threat" at this point as they are "engaging in accordance with international law."

"And just as they have a right to be in international waters, which is what they are doing, we have a right to be prudent and to make sure that we are surveilling them, which is what we are doing," he added.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 22:45

New Study Reveals How DEI Training Increases Hostility

New Study Reveals How DEI Training Increases Hostility

Authored by Josh Stevenson via the Brownstone Institute,

President Trump has recently taken decisive action against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government by signing executive orders that dismantle these initiatives. His actions include revoking an order by Lyndon B. Johnson on affirmative action for federal contractors and placing all federal DEI staff on paid administrative leave with plans for their eventual layoff. These moves have sparked significant controversy, with critics arguing that they undo decades of progress toward racial and gender equity in federal employment, while supporters believe they restore merit-based governance.

This fulfills Trump’s campaign promise to eliminate what he describes as “radical and wasteful” DEI programs, aligning with his commitment to a colorblind, merit-based society. The controversy reflects a broader debate on the role of government in promoting diversity versus ensuring equal opportunity based solely on merit. But what does the evidence show?

The Rise of Woke Indoctrination

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become increasingly prevalent in workplaces, educational institutions, and other organizations across the United States. These programs’ stated goals are to foster more inclusive environments, reduce bias, and promote equity for all individuals. A key component of many DEI programs is diversity pedagogy, which often includes lectures, trainings, and educational resources designed to educate participants about their own biases and the ‘systemic nature of oppression.’

A growing body of research suggests that DEI programs, particularly those emphasizing “anti-oppressive” frameworks, have consequences that are completely opposite of their stated goals. While many might give DEI practitioners the benefit of the doubt and see these trainings as well-intentioned, that is up for debate. This study, conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University, investigates the potential for these programs to increase intergroup hostility and even contribute to the rise of authoritarian tendencies.

Putting DEI to the Test

The study employed an experimental design to examine the impact of different types of educational materials on participants’ attitudes and beliefs. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups:

  • Control Group: Exposed to neutral control materials, such as an essay on corn production.

  • Intervention Group: Exposed to DEI materials emphasizing systemic oppression, anti-racism, and narratives of victimization. These materials included excerpts from works by prominent DEI scholars like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, as well as materials used in caste sensitivity training.

Participants then evaluated scenarios designed to assess their perceptions of bias, willingness to punish perceived oppressors, support for punitive measures, and overall attitudes toward different groups.

Results

The study found that exposure to “anti-oppressive” DEI materials had several significant effects:

  • Increased Perception of Bias: Participants exposed to these materials were more likely to perceive prejudice and discrimination where none existed, even in neutral scenarios. For example, in a scenario involving a college admissions decision, participants exposed to DEI materials were more likely to perceive the admissions officer as racially biased against the applicant, despite the absence of any evidence of discrimination.

  • Promoted Punitive Attitudes: Participants exposed to these materials showed increased support for punitive measures against perceived oppressors. They were more likely to endorse measures such as suspension, public apologies, and mandatory DEI training, even when there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

  • Heightened Authoritarian Tendencies: The study found a correlation between exposure to these materials and increased authoritarian tendencies. Participants exposed to “anti-oppressive” DEI materials were more likely to endorse demonizing statements about perceived “oppressor” groups, reflecting a shift towards a more punitive and intolerant mindset.

Key Charts

Discussion

These findings raise significant concerns about the consequences of DEI programs. By emphasizing ‘systemic oppression’ and focusing on narratives of victimization, these programs:

  • Increase intergroup hostility: The heightened perception of bias and the promotion of punitive attitudes can contribute to increased mistrust and hostility between different groups.

  • Foster a climate of fear and suspicion: A constant focus on systemic oppression and the perception of pervasive bias can create a climate of fear and suspicion, where individuals are constantly on the lookout for signs of prejudice.

  • Contribute to the rise of authoritarian tendencies: The emphasis on punitive measures and the demonization of perceived “oppressors” may contribute to the rise of authoritarian tendencies, such as the suppression of dissenting views and the erosion of civil liberties.

Conclusion

This study offers valuable insights into the consequences of DEI programs. While these initiatives may be well-intentioned, they can sometimes backfire, inadvertently increasing intergroup hostility and fostering a climate of fear and suspicion. At the very least, these findings underscore the urgent need for careful consideration and rigorous evaluation of DEI efforts. More concerning, however, is the extent to which DEI culture has become toxic and counterproductive—so much so that it exacerbates the very problems it claims to resolve.

Reference

https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/Instructing-Animosity_11.13.24.pdf

Originally published on the author’s Substack

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 22:10

"Putting American Citizens First Again": SBA Closing Satellite Offices In Six Sanctuary Cities

"Putting American Citizens First Again": SBA Closing Satellite Offices In Six Sanctuary Cities

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) will relocate six regional offices, including Seattle, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, and New York City, from "sanctuary cities" that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, according to MyNorthwest.

Administrator Kelly Loeffler said in a news release Thursday: “Over the last four years, the record invasion of illegal aliens has jeopardized both the lives of American citizens and the livelihoods of American small business owners, who have each become victims of Joe Biden’s migrant crime spree.”

“Under President Trump, the SBA is committed to putting American citizens first again – starting by ensuring that zero taxpayer dollars go to fund illegal aliens.”

The MyNorthwest article says that the SBA will also implement a new policy requiring citizenship verification on loan applications to ensure applicants are legally eligible.

The release continues: “Today, I am pleased to announce that this agency will cut off access to loans for illegal aliens and relocate our regional offices out of sanctuary cities that reward criminal behavior.”

“We will return our focus to empowering legal, eligible business owners across the United States – in partnership with the municipalities who share this administration’s commitment to secure borders and safe communities.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 21:35

The COVID-Era Smearing - And Resurrection - Of Trump NIH Appointee Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

The COVID-Era Smearing - And Resurrection - Of Trump NIH Appointee Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

Authored by Paul D. Thacker via RealClearInvestigations,

Jay Bhattacharya was in pretty terrible shape five years ago. He was losing sleep and weight, not because of the COVID-19 virus but in response to the efforts of his colleagues at Stanford University and the larger medical community to shut down his research, which questioned much of the government’s response to the pandemic. 

Some of his Stanford colleagues leaked false and damaging information to reporters. The university’s head of medicine ordered him to stop speaking to the press. Top leaders at the National Institutes of Health, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, dialed up the attacks, dismissing him and his colleagues as what Collins termed “fringe epidemiologists” while their acolytes threw mud from a slew of publications, including the Washington Post, The Nation, and the prestigious medical journal BMJ.

In the years since, many of Bhattacharya’s scientific concerns about the efficacy of lockdowns and mask mandates have been corroborated. Fauci, meanwhile, accepted a pardon from President Biden, protecting him from COVID-related offenses dating back to 2014, the year he started funding research at a Wuhan, China, lab that U.S. intelligence agencies now believe probably started the pandemic. And this week, Bhattacharya looks set to achieve surprising vindication as the Senate holds a hearing on his nomination to head the NIH, in a Department of Health and Human Services run by science nonconformist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Bhattacharya’s path from health policy scholar to NIH director nominee is pockmarked with craters from missiles launched to destroy his scientific credibility by NIH leaders and their minions in academia. Even as he seeks to advance medical research, Bhattacharya’s personal experience will likely inform his pledge to clean up the NIH and clear the agency of some career civil servants who silenced dissenting scientific voices during the pandemic and created national policies that were not always supported by the public. 

Free speech is fundamental for science to function properly,” he notes simply.    

Bhattacharya first caught the attention of the nation’s scientific bureaucracy in April 2020 when he reported that the COVID virus was not as dangerous but more widespread than many of his colleagues and government officials were maintaining. This suggested a policy focusing on the most vulnerable populations with fewer restrictions on younger, healthier Americans. The study was discussed at the highest levels of the government and was passed around by Fauci and others in the White House, according to emails made public by a Freedom of Information Act request.

For anyone with an open mind, the study’s results implied that the lockdown-focused strategy of March 2020 had failed to suppress the spread of the disease,” Bhattacharya wrote in a 2023 essay. But the paper’s other obvious conclusion put Bhattacharya in the crosshairs of Stanford faculty: It suggested that fear-mongering about the fatality rate of the virus was irresponsible. 

Bhattacharya’s contrary conclusions generated complaints that the research was unsound, and Stanford put together an ad hoc group to investigate. It directed him to change the study protocols, which would have shut down the research. “They also demanded to review and approve any manuscripts we would write,” Bhattacharya said. But he eventually ignored them and kept publishing.

In April 2020, a series of damaging articles by Buzzfeed reporter Stephanie M. Lee carried allegations that Bhattacharya and his colleagues failed to disclose funding for their study, even though they had actually already disclosed it to Stanford. Buzzfeed is the now-defunct news site that first published the now much-maligned Steele dossier.

Bhattacharya was confused by the articles when they appeared. He later concluded from the intimate details that Stanford faculty were leaking the information to the reporter to harm him, including a false allegation that a “whistleblower” had come forward. 

Responding to the Buzzfeed flurry of reports, Stanford announced a fact-finding investigation of Bhattacharya’s research, which he began calling an “inquisition.” The administration later informed him there was no “whistleblower” as Buzzfeed had falsely reported, and they sent a confidential report that found him and his colleagues at no fault.

“I got a letter which basically says we did nothing wrong. But also a condition that I’m not allowed to release the letter,” Bhattacharya explained in a 2023 interview. “This was a low period in my life. I was getting death threats, racist attacks, because the press was attacking me.” 

Bhattacharya also suspects that some of the attacks at the time were being generated by Stanford’s major funders in the federal government – the NIH’s Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci. Collins and Fauci orchestrated a campaign against Bhattacharya in earnest in October 2020. Collins resigned from his NIH position last Friday and did not respond to questions sent to him through the NIH communications office nor sent to his NIH contact. Fauci did not respond to questions sent to him through his attorney.

That month, Bhattacharya and professors Martin Kulldorff, then at Harvard, and Sunetra Gupta of Oxford released the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which called for rejecting harmful COVID lockdowns in favor of “focused protection” for society’s most vulnerable, such as the elderly. With the declaration building support, Collins, four days later, on Oct. 8, 2020, sent Fauci an email with the subject line “Great Barrington Declaration.”

This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the [Health] Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention – and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford,” Collins wrote. “There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises. I don’t see anything like that on line yet – is it underway?”

Some hours later, Fauci forwarded Collins a “refutation” of the Great Barrington Declaration written for The Nation by his friend and advocate Gregg Gonsalves, an AIDS activist who is now a professor at Yale. Fauci rose to prominence in the 1980s as an HIV/AIDS researcher. “Indeed, and well said,” replied Collins. The Gonsalves essay referenced no actual science but denigrated Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff for ignoring what he called “progressive principles of justice and equality” in favor of “survival of the fittest.”

Fauci has praised Gonsalves several times over the years and, in his recent memoir, singles out Gonsalves and a handful of other activists “for their unflinching support over the past few years.”

Four days after Fauci forwarded Collins the Gonsalves essay in The Nation, Collins dismissed the Declaration in public comments as “fringe” politics. “This is not mainstream science,” Collins argued in a public statement. Gonsalves contacted Collins later that same day, emailing him another essay he had written, again vilifying the Great Barrington Declaration, this time in the Washington Post. 

Saw your comments on the ludicrous Great Barrington Declaration and wanted to thank you for speaking out and doing it ‘undiplomatically,’” Gonsalves emailed Collins. “After we saw what you had said about ‘fringe’ epidemiology, we wondered why we were so nice in our op-ed.”

Collins then forwarded Gonsalves’ email to Fauci, who responded with a smiley face emoji.

Several months later, Gonsalves was among those who hosted a surprise birthday greeting for Fauci. “We did it!” tweeted HIV activist Peter Staley. “A small gang of Tony Fauci’s HIV/AIDS comrades managed to surprise him yesterday with an 80th birthday Zoom.” A screenshot of the Zoom shows Gregg Gonsalves beaming into his camera.

Fauci and Collins’ effort to create a “quick and devastating” takedown of the Great Barrington Declaration remained secret until the emails between them and Gonsalves became public in late December 2021. In response, Gonsalves dashed off a Christmas note to Collins and Fauci thanking them for their service and alerting them to their now-public emails “that some on the right have been circulating as ‘proof’ of a conspiracy against the Great Barrington Declaration.”

“It’s interesting that an effort to call out genuinely dangerous recommendations from the GBD is called a conspiracy,” Collins emailed back to Gonsalves. “Truth itself seems to have become a conspiracy in many minds.”

“It’s been a privilege to have you as our leader at the NIH!” Gonsalves replied.

Gonsalves remained a dogged Fauci supporter throughout the pandemic, even attacking former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield when he went public in 2023 that he believed Fauci’s funding for gain-of-function virus research in the Wuhan lab may have led to the pandemic. “Robert Redfield, Trump’s CDC Director, has been trashing former NIAID director, Anthony Fauci,” Gonsalves tweeted in March 2023. “Anyone who knows Bob Redfield knows what an unsavory character he is.”

Working in concert with Gonsalves, two other academics were especially active in criticizing Bhattacharya’s COVID work: David Gorski, a Professor of Medicine at Wayne State University, and Gavin Yamey, Director of the Center for Policy Impact in Global Health at Duke University. 

“They specifically targeted the scientific community to undermine Jay,” said a Trump transition team member, who is not allowed to speak to the press while shuffling Bhattacharya around the Senate. “There’s a market for hot pieces to attack Bhattacharya, and these academics coordinate on social media, repeating and amplifying the same narrative to dirty him up.”

Gorski is a self-described “misinformation debunker” and runs a website called Science Based Medicine. It doesn’t always get its facts straight. After the European Medicines Agency concluded in April 2021, for example, that unusual blood clots should be listed as a very rare side effect for AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine, Gorski decried the decision on his X account claiming, “Reported blood clots appear to be no higher than background and very likely unrelated to the vaccine.” The UK government eventually stopped offering AstraZeneca’s jab, and the company finally admitted that its COVID vaccine causes harm in what The Telegraph reported could result in millions of dollars in legal claims.

Gorski is damaging to science,” said Bhattacharya. “He creates an environment where researchers can’t speak their mind if they cross the biopharmaceutical industry.” Bhattacharya described Yamey and Gorski as part of a network that carried out Collins’ devastating takedown. “I’ll never publish in a big mainstream journal,” he said a couple of years ago in an interview.

“Those of us in academic medicine, all we have is our reputation,” former CDC Director Robert Redfield told RealClearInvestigations. “These attacks, it impacts you substantially. You can’t function. You don’t get invited to talks, and groups won’t have anything to do with you."

In late 2021, Gorski partnered with Yamey on a piece for the BMJ falsely charging that Bhattacharya and other Great Barrington Declaration signers were supported by billionaires “aligned with industry.” Bhattacharya and the other signatories met at a conference hosted by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), which, Yamey and Gorski argued, “has also received funding from the Charles Koch Foundation, which was founded and is chaired by the right-wing billionaire industrialist known for promoting climate change denial and opposing regulations on business.” 

While Gorski and Yamey provided no evidence that Koch money funded the GBD signatories, the BMJ still published their piece. Association with a nonprofit that has distant links to Koch money was apparently enough to carry the whiff of dark money corruption, a charge that still circulates on social media to this day. 

The BMJ article is full of errors that ought to have never found their way into any publication,” wrote Martin Kulldorff in The Spectator. “While the AIER has received only a single $68K (£50,000) Koch donation a few years ago, many universities have received multiple, much larger Koch donations, including million dollar gifts to Duke, Harvard, Johns Hopkins and Stanford.”

Contacted by RealClearInvestigations, Gorski did not respond when asked why he had not corrected his allegations against Bhattacharya.

It was later revealed that Bhattacharya’s attackers had even more conflicts. In March 2022, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) released a trove of documents revealing Yamey’s ties to EcoHealth Alliance, a Fauci-funded organization run by Peter Daszak, which subcontracted with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. USAID scientist Dennis Carroll ran a pandemic preparedness program called PREDICT and worked with several researchers, including Daszak and Yamey, documents show, to redirect federal funds from the PREDICT program to set up a nonprofit called the Global Virome Project.

After directing federal funds to create the Global Virome Project, Carroll retired from federal service and became head of the organization, along with Daszak as a board member.

“It would appear that Dennis Carroll violated federal law that prohibits the use of official resources for private gain or for that of persons or organizations with which he is associated personally,” Craig Holman of Public Citizen said when shown emails from the document trove.

In March 2023, CBS News broke a story that EcoHealth Alliance may have double-billed the federal government for research in Wuhan, and the USAID Inspector General launched a criminal probe of the group’s finances. Some days before Trump was sworn into office, HHS excluded EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak from working with the agency in response to congressional investigations that uncovered wrongdoing, including using taxpayer money to fund gain-of-function virus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 “But the defamatory damage was already done,” Bhattacharya wrote in Newsweek, calling out Yamey and Gorski for their BMJ errors, “and many scientists stayed silent as schools closed and children were harmed, even though they knew better. They did not want to be similarly smeared.”

“Yamey is a narrative enforcer for the pandemic preparedness industry that likely funded the research that caused the pandemic,” Bhattacharya said.

And the smears continue. Referencing the false “dark money” charges by Yamey and Gorski, Lucky Tran, director of communications for Columbia University Irving Medical Center, posted a denunciation of Bhattacharya on the social media platform Bluesky after Trump nominated him. “Bhattacharya has spread disinformation on COVID, fought against lifesaving measures including vaccines, masks, and social distancing, and is backed by dark money groups pushing corporate interests.”

RealClearInvestigations contacted Columbia’s vice president of communications, Vanita Gowda, to ask if Lucky Tran’s post was Columbia’s official position on Trump’s NIH choice. Gowda was also asked whether the university could provide any evidence that Bhattacharya was funded by “dark money.” Gowda did not respond to multiple requests to explain these charges.

USAID’s criminal investigation began with subpoenas sent to several concerned parties. Duke University’s Yamey did not respond to repeated inquires on whether he had received a subpoeana. .

“I am honored and humbled by President @realDonaldTrump’s nomination of me to be the next @NIH director,” Bhattacharya posted on X. “We will reform American scientific institutions so that they are worthy of trust again and will deploy the fruits of excellent science to make America healthy again!”

Redfield said that Collins, Fauci, and other critics should apologize to Bhattacharya for the years of harassment and actions that were both wrong and unprofessional. “If you survive these attacks, and you have a resurrection, you do very well,” Redfield said. “You now have a reputation for substance and standing up for what you believe is true. Not everyone has that. I’m pretty confident he’ll do well, move forward, and do the right thing.”

Editor's note: In 2023, Dr. Bhattacharya was named the first recipient of the Samizdat Prize, an annual award sponsored by the RealClear Media Fund to recognize standout foes of censorship.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 21:00

Trump Says Washington Mayor Must Clean Up Homeless Encampments

Trump Says Washington Mayor Must Clean Up Homeless Encampments

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump said on March 5 that his administration had informed Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser that she must clean up homeless encampments in the city.

Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser takes a question from a reporter at the National Press Club in Washington on Feb. 21, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

“We have notified the Mayor of Washington, D.C., that she must clean up all of the unsightly homeless encampments in the City, specifically including the ones outside of the State Department, and near the White House,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

If she is not capable of doing so, we will be forced to do it for her! Washington, D.C. must become CLEAN and SAFE! We want to be proud of our Great Capital again.

Last month, Trump criticized the high rate of crime, graffiti, and homelessness plaguing the nation’s capital city and suggested the federal government should take over running Washington, which has had a limited form of self-governance under the control of Congress since 1973.

“[Officials are] not doing the job—too much crime, too much graffiti, too many tents on the lawns, there’s magnificent lawns and there’s tents,“ he told reporters on Air Force One on Feb. 19. ”It’s a sad thing. Homeless people all over the place. We’ve got to take care of the homeless, but I can’t have that in Washington, D.C. I think we should take over Washington ... I think that we should run it strong, run it with law and order, make it flawlessly beautiful.”

Bowser rejected the idea and said she believed the current system of governance is best.

On March 4, the mayor announced that Washington is removing the Black Lives Matter mural from near the White House.

The 50-foot-tall painting on a two-block section of 16th Street North West close to the White House is part of Black Lives Matter Plaza. The plaza was created in 2020 amid nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis. It was made permanent in 2021.

Bowser said in a March 4 statement on social media platform X, “The mural inspired millions of people and helped our city through a very painful period, but now we can’t afford to be distracted by meaningless congressional interference.”

The mayor added: “The devastating impacts of the federal job cuts must be our number one concern. Our focus is on economic growth, public safety, and supporting our residents affected by these cuts.”

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has terminated tens of thousands of federal workers across several agencies, including employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health.

Bowser’s comments came a day after Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) introduced legislation that would withhold federal transportation funds from Washington unless it changed the plaza’s name to “Liberty Plaza.”

In a March 3 statement, Clyde backed Trump’s efforts to clean up Washington’s streets and said he believed that removing Black Lives Matter Plaza “must be part of this critical effort.”

“It’s past time for Congress to exercise its constitutional authority over Washington’s affairs to remove BLM Plaza and rename the street to Liberty Plaza,” Clyde said. “Our capital city must serve as a beacon of freedom, patriotism, and safety—not wokeness, divisiveness, and lawlessness.”

In February 2023, National Park Service employees cleared a large homeless encampment near the White House, tearing down dozens of tents and warning that those who resisted could be arrested.

Workers in white jumpsuits used rakes, shovels, and pitchforks to clear McPherson Square, tossing the remnants of the encampment into garbage trucks.

The Epoch Times contacted Bowser’s office for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 20:25

It's Time To 'Spring Forward' - What To Know About The Debate Around Daylight Savings

It's Time To 'Spring Forward' - What To Know About The Debate Around Daylight Savings

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

Americans will again change their clocks on March 9, setting them one hour ahead to observe Daylight Saving Time in a yearly cyclical pattern that experts say leads to more car accidents, heart attacks, and strokes.

Efforts are underway to stop this process. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) is touting a bipartisan effort known as the “Sunshine Protection Act,” which would make Daylight Saving Time the national year-round standard.

In 2023, Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) and then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) launched similar legislation under the same name. Rubio’s bill passed through the Senate, but Buchanan’s version stalled in the House.

Those efforts, or some version of them, may now come to fruition under the new administration.

President Donald Trump said in December 2024 that the Republican Party “will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time ... [which] is inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation.”

That move, unlike Congress’ efforts, would make Standard Time permanent, which is what Americans experience from November through March after setting their clocks back one hour.

While that would retain the exceedingly early winter evenings that many criticize, it would still mean an end to the time changes, which experts cite as the primary health and safety risk.

Elon Musk, who Trump tapped to helm his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), polled users on the social platform X, asking Americans if the time changes are canceled, would they prefer clocks to be set “an hour earlier,” retaining Standard Time, or “an hour later,” which would keep Daylight Saving Time year-round.

Of more than one million users polled, 58.1 percent said they’d prefer clocks to stay one hour ahead, versus 41.9 percent who said one hour behind.

While most of the nation participates in Daylight Saving Time, Hawaii and parts of Arizona opt out, according to the Transportation Department.

The U.S. territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands also do not participate.

America’s Second Attempt at Ending DST

If the Trump administration succeeds in ending the time switch, it won’t be the first time for the United States.

Daylight Saving Time began more than a century ago and was used throughout both world wars as a cost-saving measure, where adding additional daylight hours helped conserve energy.

In 1973, Congress voted to make Daylight Saving Time permanent for two years after a brief stint of permanent DST during World War II.

However, many criticized the change for the unusually late darkness in winter mornings, which is a common complaint among supporters of Standard Time.

That early-morning darkness proved fatal: Eight children in Florida were killed in traffic accidents in the weeks following the change, causing Florida Gov. Reubin Askew to ask Congress for a repeal.

Other metrics painted a more complicated picture. Pre-sunrise fatalities had increased to 20 from 18 the year prior, according to the National Safety Council.

Roger Sant, who was the assistant administrator-designate for the Federal Energy Administration, wrote a letter detailing a 1 percent energy savings after America went to Daylight Saving Time year-round, which totaled more than 20,000 tons of coal not being burned daily.

He also said afternoon accidents had decreased.

Congress eventually passed legislation repealing the experiment, returning the nation to twice-yearly clock changes.

Pros and Cons of Standard Versus Daylight Saving Time

While supporters of year-round Standard Time cite the late darkness in winter mornings as a reason to reject a full transition to Daylight Saving Time, those who wish to go back to the early 1970s experiment argue Standard Time leads to shorter days and earlier sunsets.

The transition to Daylight Saving Time each spring leads to an increase in heart attacks and strokes in the days afterward, according to a March 2024 report from the American Heart Association.

That clock switch also increases the risk of fatal traffic accidents by 6 percent, particularly in the first few days after the change, according to a 2020 study by Current Biology.

Researchers at the Sleep Foundation say twice-yearly clock changes interfere with one’s sleep-wake cycle and may disrupt the feeling of alertness in the morning and sleepiness at night, as they change the hours we are exposed to natural light.

This can lead to sleep loss and sleep debt, which is the cumulative result of getting insufficient sleep over days or weeks.

However, unlike Scott’s bipartisan effort in Congress, the researchers support year-round Standard Time, arguing that it better suits circadian rhythms and public health and safety.

Industries Split on Time Changes

The view among businesses is mixed.

The golf industry is a long proponent of Daylight Saving Time after lobbyists in the 1980s estimated that businesses in the sector could earn an additional $200 million in golf club sales and green fees each year if the United States had an extra month of Daylight Saving Time.

The additional hour allows golfers to play into dusk, providing more revenue for courses and clubs.

Michael Downing, the author of “Spring Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time,” said in 2007 that lobbyists for candy companies had pushed to get the autumn clock change moved into November so children would have an extra hour of daylight during Halloween to collect more candy.

In 2005, Congress passed legislation extending Daylight Saving Time, so it would end on the first Sunday in November and start on the second Sunday of March.

The Air Transport Association opposed that extension, arguing that it would cost the airline industry $147 million.

Although some believe Daylight Saving Time was invented to give farmers another hour of light to work on their fields, many farmers opposed it due to having one less hour of daylight in the morning and little time to get goods to market.

Downing also suggested that more people go out when there’s additional daylight during Daylight Saving Time, leading to more driving and gasoline consumption.

“Daylight Saving increases gasoline consumption, something the petroleum industry has known since 1930,” he said.

With Trump calling for an end to the clock change, and Musk’s poll showing a lean towards a permanent adoption of Daylight Saving Time, it’s not yet clear what path the administration will take if Republicans finally decide to stop the twice-yearly transition.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 19:50

What Is This Recession Talk?

What Is This Recession Talk?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Just like clockwork, there is talk of recession in the air. The announcement will come soon and be confirmed by summer. The Atlanta Fed just revised its output forecast for the first quarter to expect a contraction at-2.8 percent. This is very sudden. Only a week earlier, the same tools (GDPNow) had forecast a 2 percent increase in output in the first quarter.

At this point, many people are probably dismissing all these forecasts and big numbers emanating from experts on the public payroll. They have been wrong about so much for so very long. And yet, Wall Street is moved by such data reports, even when the problems with them are so obvious. As they say, the numbers might be fake but they are all we have.

The basis on which this forecast is being made concerns construction spending, and it is truly hard to justify based on industry numbers showing no such thing.

My own thinking: this is a game of catch-up and blame placing. Analytics commissioned by Brownstone Institute—but which can also be intuited by any living adult over the last four years—documents a technical recession since 2022 based on a clearer reading of the best data. Even then, there was never a clear recovery from March 2020 when the global economy was deliberately plunged into a forced depression.

Since those days, not much has made sense in macroeconomic data as conventionally collected and distributed.

There are many problems. Conventional output data counts government spending, even when it is based on debt finance that is ultimately financed by money printing, as positively contributing to GDP. These very years have seen the largest increase in government spending, by any measure, that we have on record in the history of recorded time.

Obviously, this has distorted GDP numbers for years.

There is another problem: much of the “growth” over four years has consisted in gradual and iterative repair of the damage done by lockdowns and supply-chain freezes. Breaking things and fixing them does not count as overall progress but in the way that GDP is collected, it necessarily does.

That factor skewed output data for years.

All GDP data has to be adjusted for inflation if it is to have any meaning. That much is commonly known. Less commonly known is that the same has to happen to retail spending, factory orders, and durable goods purchases. It makes no sense at all to count higher prices as meaningful increases in spending.

It matters which inflation measure you use against which the GDP is adjusted to generate real GDP. For years now, the CPI has been dramatically underestimated on whole classes of goods and the entire index as well. At this point, it is beyond dispute. How much it has been underestimated is a matter of debate. Conventional data show a 22 percent decline in purchasing power over four years but it could be closer to 30 percent or more, at points reaching much higher levels.

Even using a conservative measure of underestimating and mixing it with unadjusted GDP generates a macroeconomic environment in the red for three years—a technical recession.

When we published our study, I expected tremendous blowback from industry economists and others. What we saw instead was silence. This stunned me until I realized that most everyone knows that this is correct.

In other words, Trump has inherited an economic environment that has been called wonderful for years but in fact has been extremely weak and deeply damaged. It was a trap. Deny economic weakness for four years while it has been otherwise obvious, then once the new president comes to office, become transparent and truth-telling about how bad things are.

The trouble with U.S. culture is that there is a media overlay between economic conditions and whoever happens to be in office at the time. It is not at all a coincidence that the recession seems to be hitting exactly as Trump has taken power. It will be pinned on his policies: the tariffs, spending cuts, government disruptions, or just uncertainty in general.

This is akin to someone just noticing that the house is a mess once the cleaning crew arrives, and blaming the workers for all problems.

On the other hand, it is far too soon to declare that we are somehow out of the recessionary woods. There is a very long way to go, and Trump is right to urge patience and even suggest, as he did in his address to Congress, that there is going to be some pain along the way.

The soaring rhetoric about the dawn of a new Golden Age is thrilling but premature. The budget has to be fixed. The agencies have to be curbed and cut. The regulations must be repealed. The health agencies have to be defanged. All taxes need to be lowered or abolished.

On the tariffs, it is easy to follow the thinking here. Because it is cheaper to produce most things in most other countries than the United States, due mainly to the strength of the dollar, the deployment of tariffs is designed to even the score. It is an attempt to recreate the old-fashioned account settlement that we had before the end of the gold standard. The theory is that this proves some room for U.S. manufacturing to compete, possibly drawing in foreign capital for domestic investment.

This strikes me as a circuitous method of getting around a more fundamental problem that traces to a broken international monetary system. That said, there is no button to push to fix it, not one that I’ve seen, anyway. The most near-term effect of these tariffs, however, will simply be to increase costs for U.S. importers and U.S. consumers. They have many small businesses worried to the point of panic. In all, this is a risky gamble. I’m hardly alone in my concern that this hyper focus on tariffs long before we have reform in taxes and spending is strangely disproportionate, reflecting a personal idiosyncrasy of Trump rather than clear economic thinking.

The tariffs will also become a scapegoat. If a recession is suddenly announced, if the first quarter GDP really does come in as dramatically down, tariffs and therefore Trump will find itself targeted for blame. This should be a primary political concern for the Trump administration right now.

All that said, Trump is on the right track in pointing out that we have just lived through the worst inflation in 48 years and possibly in American history. He was fact-checked hard for that statement but it is entirely defensible. So too on all these economic indicators from inflation to the jobs market. The reality is far worse than the agencies have reported for many years now.

Just remember: there is strong reason to believe we’ve been in technical recession plus high inflation for years now. Admitting it now is simply a matter of political timing. The ticket surrounding economic data and messaging is getting ever more layered and complicated, and it requires real sophistication to see through it.

The hidden sufferings of the past four years have been largely untold and hence the suddenly announced tribulations of the present moment are likely exaggerated.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 18:40

FDIC Resists Transparency On Operation Chokepoint 2.0; Coinbase CLO Says

FDIC Resists Transparency On Operation Chokepoint 2.0; Coinbase CLO Says

Authored by Zoltan Vardai via CoinTelegraph.com,

Some US government agencies continue to deny transparency regarding their role in Operation Chokepoint 2.0, a period during the Biden administration when crypto and tech founders were allegedly denied banking services, according to Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal.

The collapse of crypto-friendly banks in early 2023 sparked the first allegations of Operation Chokepoint 2.0. Critics, including venture capitalist Nic Carter, described it as a government effort to pressure banks into cutting ties with cryptocurrency firms.

Despite recent regulatory shifts, agencies like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) continue to “resist basic transparency” efforts, Grewal wrote in a March 8 post on X.

“They haven’t gotten the message,” he wrote.

Source: Paul Grewal

Coinbase has requested that the FDIC provide details in court on how it conducted “due diligence” to ensure no documentation related to the event was destroyed. However, the agency “repeatedly refused to do so,” Grewal said.

His comments come a day after the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) eased its stance on how banks can engage with crypto just hours after US President Donald Trump vowed to end the prolonged crackdown restricting crypto firms’ access to banking services.

Trump’s remarks were made during the White House Crypto Summit, where he told industry leaders he was “ending Operation Chokepoint 2.0.”

Source: Elon Musk

At least 30 tech and crypto founders were “secretly debanked” in the US during Operation Chokepoint 2.0, Cointelegraph reported in November 2024.

FDIC only produced “snippets” of FOIA requests

Grewal claimed the FDIC has also not fully cooperated with Coinbase’s documentation requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA):

“[...] the agency has produced only snippets from a few documents that have little to nothing to do with the specific FOIA policies or practices that History Associates has challenged in its amended complaint. What exactly are they hiding?”

Moreover, Grewal said the FDIC has redacted a total of 53 pages, with many other pages containing “heavy redactions rendering the documents unintelligible.”

Grewal added that his team requested that the FDIC give a “sworn testimony” to the court.

On March 4, Coinbase also submitted a FOIA request to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to find out how many investigations and enforcement actions were brought against crypto firms between April 17, 2021, and Jan. 20, 2025.

Trump previously signed an executive order to end some banking challenges for Web3 companies and create clearer regulations for digital assets, Cointelegraph reported on Jan. 24.

The executive order excludes the US Federal Reserve and FDIC from cryptocurrency working groups, in a move that may put an end to the previous crypto industry debanking efforts, according to Caitlin Long, founder and CEO of Custodia Bank.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 16:20

Trump Not Considering Pardon For Officer Convicted In George Floyd's Death

Trump Not Considering Pardon For Officer Convicted In George Floyd's Death

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump said March 7 that he is not considering pardoning Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer serving a multi-decade sentence on a range of charges related to the 2020 death of George Floyd.

A reporter told Trump in the Oval Office that  “your allies are calling on you to pardon Derek Chauvin,” before asking whether he’s considering a presidential pardon.

“No, I haven’t even heard about it,” the president replied. “No. I haven’t heard that.”

Trump’s remarks come in the context of a petition launched this week by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who called for a presidential pardon for Chauvin, who is serving a 22½-year sentence for unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and manslaughter.

Floyd’s final moments were captured on video, as Chauvin restrained him with a knee to the neck or upper back area while attempting to arrest him for using a counterfeit $20 bill at a store.

“As you know, this was the inciting event for the [Black Lives Matter] riots that caused $2 billion in property damage in cities across the United States and set America’s race relations on their worst footing in recent memory,” Shapiro’s petition reads.

“Yet the evidence demonstrates that Derek Chauvin did not murder George Floyd.”

Two autopsies were conducted after George Floyd’s death. The official autopsy by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner concluded Floyd died from cardiopulmonary arrest due to law enforcement restraint and neck compression, classifying it as homicide. It noted contributing factors such as heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and methamphetamine use, but did not list them as the primary cause.

The report also found no life-threatening injuries to Floyd, including no evidence of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation, though experts have noted that neck compression can still be fatal without leaving clear physical marks.

An independent autopsy commissioned by Floyd’s family determined he died from asphyxiation due to sustained pressure on his neck and back. It also ruled the death a homicide but emphasized that police restraint was the sole cause, without highlighting preexisting conditions or drug use as significant factors.

Speaking on his radio show, Shapiro highlighted the fact that drugs were present in Floyd’s system and that he had heart disease, both of which have been confirmed by the official autopsy.

“George Floyd was high on fentanyl; he had a significant pre-existing heart condition,” Shapiro said

“George Floyd was saying he could not breathe before he was even out of the car. He was in the car saying he could not breathe.”

Shapiro argued that there was massive pressure on the jury to find Chauvin guilty—including from top government officials including former President Joe Biden—and that “there was no opportunity for blind justice to work” in the case.

Chauvin is serving concurrent sentences on state and federal charges, with a potential presidential pardon only applying to the federal case. He has appealed his conviction multiple times, in all instances unsuccessfully.

In November 2023, Chauvin was stabbed by a fellow inmate, a former gang leader and one-time FBI informant.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who prosecuted Chauvin, said after the stabbing that he was “sad to hear that Derek Chauvin was the target of violence.”

“He was duly convicted of his crimes and, like any incarcerated individual, he should be able to serve his sentence without fear of retaliation or violence,” Ellison said.

Following Shapiro’s call for Trump to pardon the former Minnesota police officer, Ellison told CNN that the convictions against Chauvin are “solid” and that a pardon would represent “blatant disrespect for the law.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 15:10

"NO DISSENT": Trump Asks "All Republicans" To "Give Us A Few Months" And Approve GOP Continuing Resolution

"NO DISSENT": Trump Asks "All Republicans" To "Give Us A Few Months" And Approve GOP Continuing Resolution

President Trump on Saturday implored 'All Republicans' to vote on a 99-page spending bill that would keep the government funded through September, as a March 14 deadline approaches for the latest government shutdown threat.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA)

The bill largely maintains current spending levels, while an additional $8 billion would be included for defense programs, and $6 billion for veterans' healthcare.

Non-defense spending would drop by approximately $13 billion.

Johnson is setting up the bill for a vote on Tuesday, despite a lack of buy-in from Democrats - essentially daring them to vote against it and risk a shutdown. He's also betting that Republicans will be able to quash inner divisions over spending and force it through.

Trump Asks GOP To Come Together

"The House and Senate have put together, under the circumstances, a very good funding Bill ("CR")!" Trump wrote on Truth Social, aking all Republicans to (Please!) vote yes on it next week.

"I am asking you to give us a few months to get us through to September so we can continue to put the Country's "financial house" in order," the post continues.

"Democrats will do anything they can to shut down our Government, and we can't let that happen. We have to remain UNITED -- NO DISSENT -- Fight for another day when the timing is right. VERY IMPORTANT. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN."

As Bloomberg notes, unlike previous shutdowns, this one would impact all discretionary spending since none of the 12 appropriations bills have been signed into law.

While key entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would continue making payments, administrative delays could affect new enrollments. With a razor-thin Republican majority in the House and the need for bipartisan cooperation in the Senate, negotiations remain fraught, as both parties clash over budgetary provisions that could make or break a last-minute deal.

The economic consequences of a prolonged shutdown, according to Bloomberg Intelligence, would be immediate yet largely reversible. A month-long halt in government operations could shave 0.4 percentage points off GDP growth in the first quarter, though a rebound is expected once normal spending resumes. While federal workers may face furloughs, unemployment figures would not be affected in March but could rise by 0.5 percentage points in April if the impasse drags on. Inflation would see a temporary uptick because furloughed federal workers’ output wouldn’t be counted, even though they will eventually be paid.

More:

  • Economic Data Collection: The shutdown will delay crucial economic reports like the consumer price index (CPI), unemployment rate, and retail sales data.
  • Federal Agencies: Around 850,000 workers could be furloughed.
  • Impact on the Fed: The Federal Reserve, which operates independently, will continue normal operations, including the scheduled March 18-19 FOMC meeting.

As Bloomberg concludes:

In normal times, avoiding a shutdown would be a big priority – but now, amid the flurry of dramatic steps early in Trump’s term, it’s just one of many competing priorities. It’s not clear if the two sides can find common ground. Only twice before has the government been shuttered when one party controlled the White House, House of Representatives and Senate – and both were during the first Trump administration. Whether a third such episode can be avoided will depend on how the two sides assess the tactical risks of bringing the normal operations of government to a halt.

Meanwhile, US Sovereign Risk suggests people are getting nervous...

* * *

Pick up a top-selling lighter / flashlight combo from the ZeroHedge Store!

Buy two for free shipping! (over $50)

Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 14:00

Iran Rejects New Nuclear Negotiations, Denies Receiving Letter From Trump

Iran Rejects New Nuclear Negotiations, Denies Receiving Letter From Trump

President Trump announced Friday that the day prior he sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, seeking the reopening of new nuclear negotiations, while floating the potential that longtime sanctions could be dropped.

Tehran has responded by saying it never received a letter, and also by dismissing the possibility of opening new talks, after the US already years ago abandoned the Obama-brokered JCPOA nuclear deal. Lost in the mail?...

Iran FM Abbas Araghchi

Trump recently told US media outlets, "Hopefully we can have a peace deal, I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness. I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal, than the other. But, the other, will solve the problem."

However, Iran's Permanent Representative to the UN Amir Saeid Iravani rejected the overture. "Trump says he has sent a letter to Iran. We have not received any such letter," the representative stated.

And Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told AFP on Friday, "If America wants to return to a new nuclear agreement with Iran, naturally it should observe the conditions of a fair and just negotiation, and we have proven that we will not answer the language of pressure and threat but will respond to the language of respect and dignity as we did in the past."

The Iranians also appear to be passing over in silence Trump's not so veiled military threats. For example the president said in a Friday interview with Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo: "I’ve written them a letter saying I hope you negotiate, because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing for them."

The other alternative is you have to do something because Iran can't have a nuclear weapon," he followed with, echoing his prior message warning that Tehran can either sign a deal or potentially get bombed.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has described that the Islamic Republic's current stockpile of 60% enriched uranium - if enriched to 90% - would be enough to produce six nuclear bombs.

Trump has recently brought back 'maximum pressure' on Iran, and has even this week advanced the possibility of cracking down on sanctions-busting Iranian oil exports on the high seas, using naval intervention. Clearly this is part of the big stick package of actions meant to push Tehran to the table.

An earlier Fox News interview in February marked the point at which Trump first laid out that Iran has two choices. "Everybody thinks Israel with our help or our approval will go in and bomb the hell out of them," Trump had said at the time while discussing potential Israeli military action against Tehran.

"I would prefer that not happen. I'd much rather see a deal with Iran where we can do a deal, supervise, check it, inspect it," the president continued.

That's when he made one of the more provocative and threatening comments: "There's two ways to stopping them: With bombs or a written piece of paper," he had previously said. But so far Tehran is viewing talks with the Trump admin as a dead end, and is clearly not moving toward the negotiating table.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 13:25

Federal Judge Denies Request To Block DOGE From Accessing Treasury Data

Federal Judge Denies Request To Block DOGE From Accessing Treasury Data

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Washington has refused to block staff from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing the Treasury Department’s systems that contain millions of Americans’ personal data.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly—who previously restricted DOGE’s work at the Treasury to two employees with read-only access—issued a decision on March 7 that rejects a request from the Alliance for Retired Americans and several employee unions to bar DOGE staff from the Treasury’s Fiscal Service system, which processes roughly 90 percent of federal payments.

In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly determined that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that allowing DOGE employees access to the system would result in irreparable harm.

“If Plaintiffs could show that Defendants imminently planned to make their private information public or to share that information with individuals outside the federal government with no obligation to maintain its confidentiality, the Court would not hesitate to find a likelihood of irreparable harm,” the judge wrote.

She found no indication of any plans to misuse or improperly disclose sensitive data, and noted that the plaintiffs are free to return to court to seek emergency remedy if these circumstances change.

The decision also lifts Kollar-Kotelly’s earlier access restrictions, which had permitted two DOGE-affiliated individuals to view the Fiscal Service system on a read-only basis.

The Epoch Times has contacted counsel for the plaintiffs with a request for comment on the ruling.

DOGE staff remain barred from the Fiscal Service under a separate order issued by U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas in New York.

Vargas, responding to a lawsuit from 19 Democratic attorneys general, partially granted their request to block DOGE personnel from the Treasury’s payment system, citing concerns over insufficient vetting and training.

“Indeed, taking the time to adequately mitigate potential security concerns and properly onboard members to engage in this work outweighs the defendants’ immediate need to access and redevelop [the] Treasury system,” Vargas stated in her 64-page order

“Without addressing these issues, the potential consequences of a cybersecurity breach could be catastrophic.”

Vargas left open the possibility of lifting or modifying her order if the administration certifies that DOGE staff have undergone proper training and obtained necessary security clearances.

She also denied the plaintiffs’ request to impose broader restrictions preventing DOGE from creating processes to stop payments within the Treasury’s systems. Vargas argued that such measures would “far exceed” the scope of the earlier temporary restraining order and that the plaintiffs had not justified the need for such extensive relief against DOGE.

Trump administration officials have defended DOGE’s presence at the Treasury, arguing that DOGE is carrying out measures that will ultimately improve the efficiency of government operations.

Critics say that DOGE’s involvement raises security and oversight issues, particularly given its relatively new and undefined role in federal financial management.

President Donald Trump created DOGE on his first day in office, directing it to explore ways to eliminate wasteful government spending and streamline federal operations.

DOGE staffers have moved quickly and aggressively to audit and pursue reforms across federal agencies, with the advisory body recently reporting $105 billion in savings through canceled grants, asset sales, workforce reductions, and terminated contracts and leases.

A number of lawsuits have been filed to halt DOGE’s operations, leading to a mix of rulings.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 12:50

Vandalism And Attacks On Tesla Accelerate As Musk Says ActBlue, Soros To Blame

Vandalism And Attacks On Tesla Accelerate As Musk Says ActBlue, Soros To Blame

The attacks on Tesla dealerships as protests against Elon Musk's recent foray into politics look to accelerating.

Over the last few weeks, there have been countless reports of protests at Tesla showrooms and vandalism to Tesla vehicles and SuperChargers. Just yesterday, another lefitst was caught on video smashing up a Tesla vehicle. 

Meanwhile in Oregon last week, a Tesla store in Tigard, Oregon, was shot up on March 6, marking the third violent attack on the company in the state, following the federal charging of a trans extremist for firebombing and shooting another Tesla location in Salem.

Despite leftist and Antifa calls for violence against Tesla and Elon Musk, Governor Tina Kotek has remained silent, though she previously supported Antifa rioters in 2020.

On X, Musk said Saturday morning that an investigation has linked five ActBlue-funded groups to Tesla protests, with ActBlue—backed by major donors like George Soros and Reid Hoffman—now under scrutiny for alleged illegal foreign donations, prompting the resignation of seven senior officials, including the associate general counsel.

Recall, late last week we pointed out that vehicle owners are being forced to alter the appearance of their cars to try and distance themselves from Musk and the Tesla name.

The Daily News wrote that some owners are using stickers and logos from other brands or displaying messages like “Anti-Elon Tesla Club” to distance themselves from Musk.

Social media posts show altered Teslas resembling Audis, Mazdas, or Hondas, while an EV website reports a surge in sales of Musk-related decals. 

Additionally, there have been a number of reports of vandalism of Tesla property and protests outside of Tesla stores worldwide. 

For example, a woman suspected of attempted arson and repeated vandalism at a Northern Colorado Tesla dealership was arrested last Monday—the fourth such incident in recent weeks. Lucy Grace Nelson was taken into custody after allegedly returning with more incendiary devices and vandalism materials.

Prior incidents occurred on Jan. 29, Feb. 2, and Feb. 7, though details on the materials remain unknown, according to NBC

Molotov cocktails were allegedly thrown at vehicles, and “Nazi cars” was spray-painted on a Tesla dealership. Similar vandalism has occurred elsewhere, including a Cybertruck in California and a Tesla charger in Utah, both defaced with “Nazi” graffiti and swastikas, Yahoo! News added.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 12:15

Los Angeles County Sues Southern California Utility Over January Fire

Los Angeles County Sues Southern California Utility Over January Fire

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit on March 5 against Southern California Edison (SCE) and its parent company, Edison International, alleging the utility’s equipment caused the deadly Eaton Fire that cost the county hundreds of millions of dollars in response efforts and cleanup.

Los Angeles County firefighters direct water onto a burning home as the Eaton Fire moves through the area in Altadena, Calif., on Jan. 8, 2025. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The fire began on Jan. 7 and became the second-most destructive and fifth-deadliest wildfire in California history, according to the lawsuit.

It burned more than 14,000 acres, claimed approximately 9,400 structures, and damaged hundreds more. It ravaged the unincorporated town of Altadena, and destroyed county parks, a nature center, trails, and other community infrastructure, according to Los Angeles County.

At least 17 people lost their lives, while several firefighters were injured. The fire also damaged childcare facilities, a senior center, assisted living facilities, schools, churches, a Jewish synagogue, and a mosque. Tens of thousands of residents were displaced.

The plaintiffs in the case are the county, the Los Angeles Flood Control District, and the Los Angeles Consolidated Fire Protection District, also known as the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

The complaint states that witnesses, photos, and videos suggest the fire ignited at an SCE transmission line in Eaton Canyon, near Mount Markham and San Gabriel Peak in the San Gabriel Mountains, within the Angeles National Forest, sparking a fire in the surrounding vegetation. It states that the utility company failed to de-energize its electrical circuits to reduce wildfire risk during a red flag warning.

“The Eaton Fire was not the result of an ‘act of God’ or other force majeure. The Eaton Fire was ignited by sparks from high-voltage transmission lines, distribution lines, appurtenances, and other electrical equipment within EDISON’s utility infrastructure that ignited surrounding vegetation,” the lawsuit states.

SCE notified the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) of a fault on its transmission line around the time the fire erupted, according to a March 5 statement from the Office of Los Angeles County Counsel. On Feb. 6, SCE sent a letter to the CPUC acknowledging photographic evidence showing possible arcing and damage to the grounding equipment on two of the three idle conductors at the terminus of the idle Mesa-Sylmar transmission line, according to the office.

EDISON had a duty to properly maintain and operate its electrical infrastructure, including any equipment that has been decommissioned, yet failed to do so,” the complaint reads. “Further, EDISON had a duty to ensure that flammable vegetation surrounding its infrastructure was maintained and had a duty to utilize public safety power shutoffs when weather conditions made it unsafe to keep its equipment energized and to otherwise ensure that its electrical equipment operated in a safe manner but failed to do so.”

County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison filed the case. Harrison said the costs and losses that are sought include compensation for destroyed infrastructure, recreational areas, parks, road damage, cleanup and recovery efforts, flood and mudslide prevention, and workers’ compensation claims.

We are committed to seeking justice for the Altadena community and the taxpayers of Los Angeles County,” she said in a statement.

The complaint states the county’s costs and damages from the Eaton Fire and its cleanup are still unclear, but it is estimated that the final total will amount to no less than hundreds of millions of dollars.

Brian Leventhal, a spokesperson for SCE, told The Epoch Times that the Eaton Fire remains under investigation and the company will continue with its longstanding commitment to transparency.

“Our hearts are with the communities affected by the wildfires in Southern California,” Leventhal said. “We are reviewing the lawsuit that was recently filed, and we’ll address it through the appropriate legal process. Our investigation is still in the early stages.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 11:40

'We Can't Stop Them' - Thousands Of Ukraine Troops Suddenly Face Encirclement In Russia's Kursk

'We Can't Stop Them' - Thousands Of Ukraine Troops Suddenly Face Encirclement In Russia's Kursk

The fuse has been burning slowly, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's risky August invasion of Russia's Kursk region is about to blow up in his face in spectacular fashion -- as thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are suddenly in imminent peril of being encircled, according to open source intelligence analysts. The crisis comes as Zelensky is under increasing US pressure to reach a negotiated end to the war -- and a loss of captured Russian territory promises to make his already-deteriorated bargaining position even weaker

The Ukrainian-held area of Kursk, shown in blue, is nearly cleaved into two (via DeepStateMAP.live)

According to DeepStateMAP.live, an interactive map of the war run by Ukrainian military bloggers, their country's forces in Kursk are nearly cleaved into two, with roughly three-quarters of Ukraine's forces in Russia almost entirely surrounded on Friday. Their last connection between the two forces was a kilometer long and under 500 meters wide at its thinnest section. 

Black Bird Group military analyst Pasi Paroinen summed up the state of affairs for Reuters

"The situation (for Ukraine in Kursk) is very bad. Now there is not much left until Ukrainian forces will either be encircled or forced to withdraw. And withdrawal would mean running a dangerous gauntlet, where the forces would be constantly threatened by Russian drones and artillery." 

Ukraine's Kursk gambit, which surprised the world, was intended to stall Russia's steady advances in eastern Ukraine, with hopes that Russia would be forced to engage in a major redeployment of forces to deal with the capture of Russian territory. Ukraine's hold on the territory was also seen as a bargaining chip for Zelensky as the war now seems destined for a negotiated end. Not only does that chip appear to be vanishing, Putin could end up with a some new chips of its own -- as Russia may soon have thousands more Ukrainian prisoners of war among its assets.  

In late February, Russia's defense ministry said its forces had regained control of 64% of Kursk territory initially seized by Ukraine. Kiev's cross-border offensive started in early August 2024 and has managed to control dozens of towns and villages and hundreds of square kilometers of territory. That accomplishment has reportedly been aided by thousands of North Korean soldiers, with reports that one to three thousand more were being sent in February. North Korea has denied its soldiers are fighting in the war.  

The New York Times reports that Russia is on the brink of a major victory in Kursk thanks to the coordinated work of North Korean troops and Russian drone units, advancing with the aid of intense Russian artillery and air bombardment. Ukrainian soldiers report an overwhelming concentration of new, fiber-optic drones that are controlled by an ultrathin cable rather than radio signals that are vulnerable to electronic jamming.

In addition to overtaking defensive positions, Russian drones are also being used to prey on the one road that serves to supply Ukrainian forces.

That road is positively littered with destroyed vehicles: 

Some of the bleakest assessments of Ukraine's Kursk position are coming from Ukraine's own officers. “It’s true; we can’t stop them,” a Ukrainian commander tells the Times. “They just sweep us away, advancing in groups of 50 North Koreans while we have only six men on our positions.”

While the situation is sadly desperate for conscripted Ukrainian soldiers ordered into Russia pursuant to Zelensky's gamble, some creative types can't resist lampooning Ukraine's desperate situation: 

All joking aside...Can we finally end this hopeless war, and stop sacrificing Ukrainians and Russians on NATO's altar? 

*  *  *

Grow your own food with HEIRLOOM SEEDS (39 varieties - 4,500 seeds) from ZH Store!  Free shipping in the USA.

Click pic... buy seeds... take food supply into your own hands... Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 11:05

Professors Denounce Trump Border Enforcement Policies As "Ethically Indefensible"

Professors Denounce Trump Border Enforcement Policies As "Ethically Indefensible"

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

For years, the mantra on the left was “reimagining” everything from policing to free speech to defense. 

Reimagining often was a synonym for defunding or limiting the subject matter. Now, Georgetown Law Professor Sherally Munshi and others are attacking border enforcement as “ethically indefensible.” Munshi calls it “defamiliarizing” the whole concept of borders, which she and others in higher education now find morally reprehensible.

Munshi’s talk, “Unsettling the Border,” is an example of how radical many law faculties have become. She is by no means a standout in such theories. While schools have purged their ranks of conservative, libertarian, and dissenting faculty, there is no limit to faculty writing on the far left.

Munshi insists that “there is nothing natural or inevitable about the United States’ contemporary borders.” 

She mocked the whole notion of “the so-called border crisis.” 

Millions of unvetted people just walking over the border is not a crisis… at least not for the country. It is failure in ourselves; “a crisis of imagination.”  

Accordingly, she is calling for reimagining or defamiliarizing borders:

“Our task, as I put it, is to unsettle the border, to defamiliarize, disenchant, and recontextualize it by critically evaluating the historical processes, the legal developments, the discursive formations that naturalize and legitimate the border.”

It is, of course, racist to want to have secure borders:

“Rather than redress the fact that the international border regime is practically unsustainable [and] ethically indefensible, majorities in the whitest and wealthiest nations are embracing an increasingly authoritarian form of nationalism and exclusion.”

Borders, according to Professor Munshi, are just a construct “within the American imaginary, the southern border divides white from indigenous, purity from heterogeneity, civilization from savagery, settler from Indian.”

Of course, this reimagining of borders will have to extend back a tad further than the American founders. The concept of the nation-state with sovereign borders was recognized in documents like the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It was credited with maintaining a Westphalian peace with nations able to maintain their own territory and governing systems. That, in turn, allowed nation-states to form international bodies and further stabilize global relations.

I have heard other faculty present papers along these same lines, dismissing the very concept of border enforcement as racist, privileged, or archaic. It is far more rare to hear conservatives on campuses arguing for border enforcement and deportations. It is even less common to find such advocates on both faculties.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculties replicate their own views and values.

The problem is not that there are radicals teaching at law schools, but that most faculties seem to run only from the left to the far left.

Perhaps it is time to . . . wait for it . . . reimagine or defamiliarize law school faculty appointments.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 10:30

Poland & Baltic Nations Welcome Macron's Words Of Nuclear Escalation Aimed At Russia

Poland & Baltic Nations Welcome Macron's Words Of Nuclear Escalation Aimed At Russia

Poland as well as Baltic nations have expressed approval of Wednesday's ultra-provocative words by French President Emmanuel Macron which floated the idea of using France's nuclear deterrent to protect the European continent from Russian threats.

Macron said he is opening a "strategic debate" on possibly extending France's nuclear umbrella to all of Europe - a role currently played by US nukes stationed in NATO countries. He claimed in the televised address that unless Putin is defeated in Ukraine, he will threaten other European countries with invasion. 

Throughout the more than three-year long Ukraine war the tiny Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been outsized in their hawkish anti-Moscow rhetoric.

France remains the only nuclear power in the European Union, and it possesses some 290 nuclear warheads - according to media estimates - which is why Russian leaders quickly slammed the Macron comments as "extremely confrontational"

Donald Tusk, NurPhoto/Getty Images

The Kremlin further interpreted the jingoistic words as expressing Macron's intent to continue the war, coming the same week that Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the first time dubbed the conflict a "proxy war"

Rather than urge caution or telling Macron to tone down the unnecessary nuclear rhetoric, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk, whose country holds the EU’s rotating presidency, declared that "we must seriously consider this proposal."

He did caution that "as always, the details matter, but France’s willingness in this regard is very significant" - but clearly this is a leader in a NATO 'eastern flank' country, right on Russia's doorstep, encouraging more nuclear expansion.

Lithuania too decided to take the opportunity to signal escalation. Lithuania’s President Gitanas Nausėda praised Macron's proposal as a "very interesting idea."

"We have high expectations because a nuclear umbrella would serve as really very serious deterrence towards Russia," Nausėda said.

Latvian Prime Minister Evika Siliņa chimed in too, characterize it as "an opportunity to discuss" such a major security measure among other European allies. Naturally, there was no mention of WW3 or nuclear Armaggedon.

This week has seen a number of European states come out against peace, fearing what they see as a 'bad' Trump deal in the works with Moscow. Danish PM Mette Frederiksen actually declared earlier this week, "Peace in Ukraine is more dangerous than the ongoing war."

The US President has meanwhile offered more words explaining why he thinks Putin is ready for peace...

But again, Macron and his European allies don't see it that way. The French leader went so far in his Wednesday speech to say"France has to recognize its special status - we have the most efficient, effective army in Europe," affirming that France has nuclear weapons to provide to the broader Western alliance if called upon.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 09:55

Italian Govt Slams Judiciary After Ruling Demands Compensation For Illegals

Italian Govt Slams Judiciary After Ruling Demands Compensation For Illegals

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix news,

The Italian government has been ordered to compensate a group of migrants who were prevented from disembarking from the Diciotti ship in August 2018, following the directive of then-Interior Minister Matteo Salvini.

The decision was handed down by the Court of Cassation on Friday, which ruled that the government is liable for damages caused by the deprivation of freedom suffered by the migrants. The court referred the case back to the lower court to determine the amount of compensation.

Salvini had been investigated by the Palermo Court for alleged kidnapping in connection with the prolonged detention of migrants aboard the Italian coast guard vessel. The case was transferred to Catania for territorial jurisdiction, where prosecutors dismissed the charges. However, the Court of Ministers overruled this decision and sought Senate authorization to prosecute Salvini, which was ultimately thrown out in December last year.

The judges in their ruling emphasized that the refusal to allow migrants to disembark for 10 days could not be considered a political act beyond judicial review. Instead, they classified it as an administrative action subject to legal scrutiny under both national and international law.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni criticized the ruling, arguing that it established a “highly questionable principle of compensation” by presuming damage without concrete proof. She expressed frustration that taxpayer money would be used to compensate individuals who had attempted to enter Italy illegally. Meloni stated that such decisions alienate citizens from institutions, particularly when government resources are already limited.

“As a result of this decision, the government will have to compensate — with the money of honest Italian citizens who pay taxes — people who have attempted to enter Italy illegally, that is, by violating the law of the Italian state,” Meloni said in a post on X.

“I don’t think these are the decisions that citizens bring together the institutions, and I confess that having to spend money for this, when we do not have enough resources to do everything that would be right to do, is very frustrating,” she added.

Deputy Prime Minister Antonio Tajani also opposed the ruling, stating that it undermines the government’s duty to defend national borders. He warned that if all irregular migrants sought similar compensation, it could significantly impact state finances.

Andrea Crippa, deputy secretary of Salvini’s co-governing Lega party, described the decision as “stunning” and insisted that Salvini had committed no crime. Crippa further suggested that left-wing judges should be held accountable instead of the general public.

The Diciotti ship was carrying 190 migrants rescued at sea. Under Salvini’s leadership in the Conte I government, the Italian interior ministry initially refused to grant immediate permission to disembark. However, 29 minors were ultimately allowed to land, followed by another 17 individuals for health reasons. Four women were also given permission but chose to remain on board.

The government eventually allowed the remaining migrants to disembark only after securing agreements for their redistribution across other European countries and Vatican-owned facilities. The decision aligned with the government’s hardline approach to curbing irregular migration and pressuring other EU nations to share the burden of the ongoing migrant crisis on Italy’s southern border.

The Italian judiciary and the current conservative government have long been at war over court rulings in relation to illegal immigration, with Salvini previously accusing certain judges of obstructing law enforcement.

Following his acquittal late last year, the Lega leader and deputy prime minister declared that Italy is “not a safe country anymore” due to what he referred to as “Communist judges” failing to implement the law.

“But we are not giving up!” he declared.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/08/2025 - 09:20

Pages