Social Media

In a recent interview, Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, clarified his stance on the contentious issue of transgender women accessing female-only spaces. Amid growing confusion and debate within his party and the broader public, Starmer asserted that transgender women, even those who have legally transitioned, do not have the right to enter areas designated for biological women. He emphasized the need to protect these spaces, a statement that suggests a firming of Labour's position on this sensitive issue. The controversy arose after two of Labour's frontbenchers struggled to articulate a clear stance on whether transgender women with penises should be allowed to use women’s lavatories. Starmer’s comments came in response to a direct query from author J.K. Rowling, a vocal critic of some aspects of transgender rights. Rowling asked on social media whether biological males with gender recognition certificates should be allowed in women-only spaces. Starmer unequivocally responded, “No. They don’t have that right. They shouldn’t. That’s why I’ve always said biological women’s spaces need to be protected.” This position marks a notable moment in Labour's ongoing discourse on transgender rights, particularly following a series of ambiguous responses from other party members. For instance, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow paymaster general, deflected a direct question about whether a trans woman with a penis should use male or female lavatories by stating, “I’m not a toilet monitor.” Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, similarly avoided giving a definitive answer on the subject during a previous interview. The debate around transgender rights and single-sex spaces has become a significant political battleground, with the Conservative Party accusing Labour of intending to dilute women’s rights through the introduction of self-identification (self-ID) policies. Currently, obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) requires approval from a panel of doctors and lawyers, along with evidence of living in the new gender for two years. Labour has proposed simplifying this process, which they describe as “degrading and torturous” for trans individuals, by reducing the requirements to a single clinician's sign-off and a two-year reflection period. Starmer’s remarks come at a time when the Labour Party is striving to present a clear and unified stance on transgender rights while also addressing the concerns of women who fear the implications of self-ID policies. The party's proposed changes do not require individuals to have undergone or plan to undergo gender reassignment surgery to legally change their gender. In addition to the gender debate, Starmer discussed Labour's broader goals if elected. He pledged that by the end of Labour’s first term, people would feel “better off” both materially and in terms of public services. He emphasized his commitment to transforming the country from its current state and ensuring significant improvements in public services, education, and overall quality of life. This vision, according to Starmer, is supported by a strategic plan detailed in Labour’s manifesto. The issue of transgender rights, particularly in relation to single-sex spaces, remains a complex and divisive topic within British politics. Starmer’s definitive stance aims to address the concerns of various groups while maintaining Labour’s commitment to equality and protection for all individuals. As the debate continues, the party’s policies and public statements will likely play a crucial role in shaping public perception and policy outcomes on this sensitive issue. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-03 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made a passionate plea to voters, suggesting that a hung parliament could be achieved if only 130,000 people switched their votes to the Conservative Party. This shift, he argued, would deny Labour the majority they are predicted to secure. His appeal came in response to a YouGov survey indicating that such a small shift in voter support could significantly alter the outcome of the upcoming election. On Tuesday, Sunak is set to emphasize that the election results are not set in stone, saying, “The outcome of this election is not a foregone conclusion. If just 130,000 people switch their vote and lend us their support, we can deny Starmer that supermajority. Just think about that: you have the power to use your vote to prevent an unchecked Labour government.” This figure is drawn from an analysis of a YouGov Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification (MRP) poll, which suggested that Labour would lose their projected majority if 130,000 voters turned away from the party. The Times reported last month that Labour, predicted to win 425 seats compared to the Conservatives' 108, would lose its 200-strong majority entirely if 132,000 voters in tightly contested constituencies voted for the second-place party instead. Sunak will further assert, “A huge number of seats in this election will be decided by only hundreds of votes. So, every vote we move will have an impact and make it more likely that your Conservative candidate is returned to Parliament so that they can be your voice, represent your values, and stand up for you.” Conservative figures are also urging voters not to support Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, which has seen a surge in popularity. On Monday, Sunak reiterated that a vote for Reform UK would inadvertently aid Sir Keir Starmer in becoming Prime Minister. Despite these efforts, polls have consistently shown Labour maintaining a strong double-digit lead over the Conservatives. Some surveys predict a significant defeat for the Conservatives, with a recent MRP for The Telegraph suggesting that about three-quarters of the Cabinet could lose their seats. In light of these challenges, allies of a potential Tory leadership contender have stressed that any post-election leadership battle should not be prolonged. They argue that delaying the contest would leave Sir Keir without effective opposition until January. There is also opposition to any move that would deny party members a vote in the leadership election, with one source calling such a suggestion “insane.” Meanwhile, Sunak has indicated his commitment to the Conservative Party regardless of the election outcome. He told the BBC, “I love this party dearly and of course I’ll always put myself at the service of it and the service of my country.” As the election draws nearer, Sunak’s message is clear: a small but significant shift in voter support could prevent a Labour supermajority and ensure a more balanced representation in Parliament. Whether his appeal will resonate with voters remains to be seen, but the stakes are undeniably high for both major parties. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-03 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

On Sunday near Nuremberg, Germany, a 34-year-old Iranian man who attacked three police officers with a knife was shot dead by police near a train station in the town of Lauf an der Pegnitz. Despite immediate first aid efforts, the man succumbed to his injuries at the scene, according to a police spokesman. The motive behind the attack and the exact sequence of events remain unclear, prompting a thorough investigation. "We are still at the very beginning of the investigation," stated Heike Klotzbücher from the public prosecutor's office in nearby Nuremberg. Klotzbücher also mentioned that they could not immediately ascertain the man's residence or if he had any prior run-ins with law enforcement. "We can't say any more about what happened either," she added. Initial investigations revealed that the man first targeted a police patrol car and then tried to attack the three officers with a knife when they exited their vehicle. In response, a female federal police officer shot the man at a bus stop outside a commuter rail station in Lauf an der Pegnitz. The police reported that the officers were uninjured but did not disclose how many shots were fired. A mobile phone video posted online shows three police officers surrounding a man lying on the ground, with a female officer pointing her gun at him. Following the shooting, the officers administered first aid and were soon joined by an emergency doctor, but their efforts to save the man were unsuccessful. The incident occurred during the Old Town Festival in Lauf an der Pegnitz, which attracted numerous visitors. However, the police assured that there was no danger to the public. The train station was temporarily out of service following the shooting, but it has since resumed normal operations. Credit: Yahoo News 2024-07-03 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The disturbing background of a 14-year-old boy accused of stabbing a student outside the University of Sydney has come to light. Less than a year ago, the teenager was accused of planning a mass shooting, according to recent revelations. The charges were dropped on mental health grounds, as reported by the Daily Telegraph. On Tuesday, the boy, dressed in camouflage gear, allegedly attacked a 22-year-old man with a kitchen knife at the university entrance. After the alleged stabbing, he fled the scene by bus, covered in blood. A concerned member of the public helped him reach the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, where he is being treated for cuts to his hand and undergoing a mental health assessment. The victim, an Australian national, did not suffer serious injuries and is expected to recover fully. Police are investigating the teen's potential links to extremism, including white supremacy, though no specific ideology has been identified. The boy's past includes alleged plans for a "Christchurch-style" terrorist attack. Sources close to the case, who are not authorized to speak publicly, confirmed these allegations. The teen allegedly threatened his classmates at an inner-west Sydney school and spoke about Brenton Tarrant, the terrorist behind the 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre. He was charged in 2023 with using a carriage service to menace, harass, or offend, and with stalking or intimidating with intent to cause fear of physical harm. These charges were later dropped on mental health grounds, and he was placed under the care of medical professionals. Assistant Commissioner Walton highlighted the growing concern of young people self-radicalizing online. "The internet is toxic," he said. "It's very easy for young people to self-radicalize. Parents should have an appreciation of what their kids are looking at online." The teenager, known to police and other government agencies, had no evidence linking him to a network or connection to the army or cadets. While counter-terrorism police have taken over the investigation, they have not declared the incident a terrorist attack due to the lack of a specific identified ideology. The attack is not linked to last week’s failed alleged terror plot in Newcastle. Assistant Commissioner Walton expressed relief over the victim's relatively minor injuries, noting the potential for tragedy in a neck stabbing. Following the incident, multiple buildings at the University of Sydney were locked down. The university vice-chancellor, Mark Scott, confirmed the victim was a student and reassured the community that there is no ongoing threat. "I am shocked and saddened to inform you that a student in our community was attacked on our Camperdown campus this morning in what police believe is an isolated incident," Scott said in an email to staff and students. The university was less busy than usual on Tuesday, as most students are on a break between semesters. As a precaution, there may be increased security and police presence on campus while investigations continue. The Australian Federal Police is working with the NSW Police on the incident, and the knife allegedly used in the attack has been seized. There is no ongoing risk to the public. Credit: News AU 2024-07-03 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable. The Supreme Court today ruled that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts, then contended that pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government was an “official act,” then said that talking to advisers or making public statements are “official acts” as well, and then determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are “unofficial.” The ruling from the Supreme Court was 6-3, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, on a straight party-line vote, with all the Republican-appointed justices joining to give the president the power of a king. While some parts of the federal indictment against Trump will be remanded back down to the district-court trial judge to determine whether any of Trump’s actions were “unofficial” (“unofficial” acts, the court says are not entitled to immunity), Trump’s victory in front of the Supreme Court is total. Essentially, all he has to do is claim that everything he did to plot a coup was part of his “official” duties, and the Supreme Court provided no clear method or evidentiary standard that can be used to challenge that presumption. Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here: The immunity is absolute There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities. Those officials are granted “qualified” immunity from civil penalties. Because the immunity is “qualified” it can be taken away (“pierced” is the legal jargon for taking away an official’s qualified immunity). People can bring evidence against officials and argue that they shouldn’t be given immunity because of the gravity or depravity of their acts. Not so with Trump. Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear. Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges. Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder, even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity. And there is essentially nothing we can do to change it. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but it can be undone by state or federal legislatures if they pass a law removing that protection. Not so with absolute presidential immunity. The court here says that absolute immunity is required by the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot take it away. Congress, according to the Supreme Court, does not have the power to pass legislation saying “the president can be prosecuted for crimes.” Impeachment, and only impeachment, is the only way to punish presidents, and, somewhat obviously, impeachment does nothing to a president who is already no longer in office. Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree, steal all the money and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under guise of presumptive “official” behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office. That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires. There will be Republicans and legal academics and whatever the hell job Jonathan Turley has who will go into overdrive arguing that the decision isn’t as bad as all that. These bad-faith actors will be quoted or even published in The Washington Post and The New York Times. They will argue that presidents can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts,” and so they will say that everything is fine. But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says “unofficial” acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting “unofficially.” And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were “unofficial.” If trying to overthrow the government is “official,” then what isn’t? And if we can’t use the evidence of what the president says or does, because communications with their advisers, other government officials, and the public is “official,” then how can we ever show that an act was taken “unofficially”? Credit: The Nation 2024-07-03 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant development, Jen Psaki, the former press secretary for President Joe Biden, has agreed to participate in an interview with the House Foreign Affairs Committee. This comes as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into the U.S. military's chaotic exit from Afghanistan. The agreement was confirmed through a letter from Psaki's lawyer to the panel, obtained by Axios, indicating that Psaki will appear for a transcribed interview on July 26, accompanied by her personal counsel and representatives from the White House counsel's office. The investigation, led by Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas and chair of the committee, is expected to culminate in a comprehensive report on the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, set to be released before the November 5 election. This report is anticipated to contain politically sensitive information, especially concerning the tragic deaths of 13 U.S. soldiers during a bombing at Kabul airport. The committee's probe has already revealed notable inconsistencies between the Biden administration's public statements and the realities on the ground during the withdrawal. The decision for Psaki to testify follows a protracted negotiation process that began last fall. McCaul had initially contacted Psaki's team in September 2023, but the dialogue stalled until Axios highlighted discrepancies in Psaki's recent memoir regarding the withdrawal. This renewed McCaul’s determination, leading to the White House counsel's office eventually granting authorization for Psaki’s participation. The office stated that the request “raises serious separation-of-powers and Executive Branch confidentiality issues” but agreed to the interview as an “extraordinary accommodation.” The committee plans to scrutinize any potential differences between what the White House knew privately and what it communicated publicly. The investigation has already uncovered significant infighting and contradictions among top Biden officials during the withdrawal. U.S. generals have publicly criticized the State Department's handling of the exit, with former Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Mark Milley stating, “The fundamental mistake, the fundamental flaw was the timing of the State Department. That was too slow and too late.” This criticism directly challenges the administration's narrative at the time. Additionally, the inquiry has called into question President Biden's assertions about the advice he received during the withdrawal. Under repeated questioning in 2021, Biden told ABC News that “no one” had suggested he should keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. However, Gen. Milley testified before the committee that he had indeed advised the president to maintain that number of troops, highlighting a significant discrepancy in the administration’s account. As Psaki prepares to provide her testimony, the committee's findings could shed further light on the internal conflicts and decision-making processes during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. This could have substantial implications for the political landscape as the nation approaches the upcoming election. The investigation aims to provide a clearer understanding of the events that led to the chaotic exit and ensure accountability for the decisions made during this critical period. Credit: AXIOS 2024-07-03 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

President Joe Biden has voiced strong disapproval of a Supreme Court ruling that grants former President Donald Trump partial immunity from criminal prosecution. Biden described the decision as a "dangerous precedent" and stated that it undermines the "rule of law," characterizing it as a "terrible disservice" to Americans. Earlier, Trump celebrated the court's decision, calling it a "big win" for democracy. The ruling, delivered by the justices on Monday, concluded that a president has immunity for "official acts" but not for "unofficial acts." The case has now been referred back to a trial judge to determine which of Trump's actions were carried out in his capacity as president. This process could take months, making it unlikely that any trial would commence before the November presidential election. In a televised statement, Biden emphasized the foundational American principle that no one, including the president, is above the law. He expressed concern that the Supreme Court's decision effectively removes constraints on presidential actions. "This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America. Each of us is equal before the law. No one, no one is above the law. Not even the president of the United States," Biden stated. He warned that the decision could delay justice regarding the events of January 6, 2021, when a mob stormed the US Capitol. Biden's remarks reflect the contentious nature of the ruling, which grants all former presidents partial immunity from criminal prosecution. This immunity applies to acts conducted as part of the president's official duties but excludes actions taken in a private capacity. The Supreme Court's majority opinion ruled that interactions Trump had with the Department of Justice (DoJ) regarding investigations into voter fraud were immune from prosecution. The decision was not unanimous, with the three liberal justices on the Supreme Court strongly dissenting. Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced her dissent, stating, "The president is now a king above the law." Democratic Congresswoman Judy Chu also criticized the ruling, suggesting it could have far-reaching implications by potentially shielding improper and criminal actions conducted in an official capacity. The ruling will significantly delay any trial related to Trump's alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election results. This delay extends to other criminal prosecutions Trump faces, including cases involving top-secret documents found at his Florida home and accusations of conspiring to overturn his election defeat in Georgia. In addition, Trump's legal team is attempting to overturn his conviction in New York, where he was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to concealing an alleged sexual encounter with former adult-film star Stormy Daniels. Citing the Supreme Court's recent opinion, Trump's lawyers have sent a letter to the judge in this case, although the details of the letter have not yet been made public. This ruling represents a significant legal development, impacting not only the immediate cases against Trump but also setting a precedent for future presidential conduct and accountability. As the judicial process unfolds, the implications of the Supreme Court's decision will continue to be a point of intense legal and political debate. Credit: BBC 2024-07-03 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The senior team managing President Joe Biden has become increasingly protective over time, limiting his exposure to media and outside advice to manage public perceptions of the oldest president ever. However, the debate meltdown last week highlighted Biden's growing limitations, which were apparent to his team well before the debate. Inside the White House, senior officials have curated information during briefings to avoid provoking a negative reaction from Biden. This management style has led to an increasingly isolated president who relies heavily on a small group of top aides. The debate performance was dismal enough that it shattered the party's belief in Biden's ability to run again. For over three years, Biden's advisers have effectively kept him away from intense public scrutiny. Following the debate, Biden's family and top aides, such as senior adviser Anita Dunn and former chief of staff Ron Klain, have faced criticism. Democratic megadonor John Morgan described the planning and preparation as "political malpractice," blaming Biden's closest aides for his struggles. Biden's tight-knit circle, including longtime aides like Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, Bruce Reed, Ted Kaufman, and Ron Klain, has not changed for decades. Critics argue that this insularity has led to the president trailing Trump in polls for months. The number of people with access to Biden has decreased, leading to less openness to outside advice and growing isolation. The White House disputes claims of Biden's isolation, asserting that he frequently seeks input from various staff and that briefings include multiple people. Senior deputy press secretary Andrew Bates denied that briefing materials are curated to avoid upsetting Biden, calling the suggestion "false." After the debate, a growing number of Democratic lawmakers, fundraisers, operatives, and activists blame Biden's inner circle for their predicament. Even some White House staffers, who were unaware of the debate plan, have criticized the insular nature of Biden's team. The pervasive view within the party is that Biden's inner circle is an impenetrable group of enablers. Democrats' strong 2022 showing temporarily validated Biden's reelection bid, shutting down credible primary challenges and reshuffling the early state calendar to his benefit. However, now that the race is about Biden and his age, the inner circle is facing scrutiny for not challenging his candidacy earlier. No one has done more to keep Biden isolated than his wife, Jill Biden, and sister, Valerie Biden Owens. Biden's preference for spending weekends in Wilmington, away from aides, reflects his desire for familiarity and privacy. Aides who have worked with Biden for a long time share his resentment towards an elite political and media class that they feel has never given him his due. They view the debate meltdown as another instance of being counted out, convinced that Biden will survive this as he did in 2020 and 2022. Despite efforts to rally around Biden, some Democrats on Capitol Hill fear losing because of him. Suggestions for change are often quickly dismissed by top aides like Anita Dunn, shutting off options and leading to groupthink. White House aides argue that every administration features a small group of top decision-makers and that Biden's is no different. While Biden's campaign has reassured donors and activists, there has been little outreach to Capitol Hill Democrats. The defensiveness over Biden's age is now muscle memory, with the White House aggressively attacking stories focused on the subject. Adjustments to protocol, such as using lower stairs on Air Force One and wearing thick-soled sneakers, reflect efforts to avoid additional stumbles. Aides have kept Biden in a protective bubble since the early months of his term, influenced by senior staff and family. This has led to fewer face-to-face interactions with aides and less exposure to potential gaffes. Biden's schedule is carefully managed, with fewer early morning events and more downtime on foreign trips. The first lady is deeply protective of Biden's schedule, and complaints about overlong events have led to fewer press conferences and interviews. The White House has spurned requests from most TV networks, preferring friendly interviews with podcasters and social media stars. Biden's recent energetic appearance at a rally in North Carolina came with the aid of a teleprompter, which he now uses more frequently. Donors remain concerned about his growing reliance on the prompter, but top surrogates argue for more public appearances to reassure supporters. Democratic Governor Wes Moore emphasized the need to keep Biden visible, believing that continued public engagement will help him win. Credit: Politico 2024-07-03 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Victims of Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel have initiated a lawsuit against Iran, Syria, and North Korea, claiming that these countries supplied Hamas with the necessary financial, military, and tactical support to carry out the devastating assault. Filed in federal court in New York, the lawsuit seeks a minimum of $4 billion in damages for what it describes as a coordinated effort of extrajudicial killings, hostage-takings, and related atrocities. This case, the largest of its kind against foreign countries in connection with the attack, is backed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Nahar Neta, one of the plaintiffs whose American-born mother Adrienne Neta was killed on October 7, expressed the plaintiffs' hope for justice, stating, “While nothing will ever undo the unbearable pain Hamas caused our family or the brutal losses we’ve suffered, we hope this case will bring some sense of justice.” The lawsuit alleges that Iran, Syria, and North Korea provided Hamas with the resources necessary to execute the attack, contributing to the large-scale violence that precipitated Israel's ongoing war in Gaza. The ADL, in a press release, emphasized the importance of holding these nations accountable. ADL Chief Executive Jonathan Greenblatt remarked, “Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of antisemitism and terror – along with Syria and North Korea, they must be held responsible for their roles in the largest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust.” Iran’s mission to the United Nations declined to comment, and Syria and North Korea did not respond to the allegations. The United States has designated Iran, Syria, and North Korea as state sponsors of terrorism and has labeled Hamas as a “specially designated global terrorist.” Due to the frequent non-compliance of such countries with US court rulings, plaintiffs may seek compensation from a fund created by Congress in 2015, which provides payouts to American victims of terrorism from seized assets, fines, or other penalties levied against those who do business with state sponsors of terrorism. The lawsuit builds on previous court findings, reports from US and other government agencies, and statements by officials from Hamas, Iran, and Syria regarding their connections. It also notes that Hamas fighters used North Korean weapons during the October 7 attack, although the suit does not provide specific evidence that Tehran, Damascus, or Pyongyang had prior knowledge of the assault. Iran has denied prior knowledge, though officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have praised the attack. The Wall Street Journal reported that 500 Palestinian terrorists received “specialized combat training” in Iran weeks before the attack. Israel also released a video in January of a captured member of the Hamas-allied Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group, who claimed to have been trained in Iran, arriving there via Syria. The lawsuit highlights the use of North Korean F-7 rocket-propelled grenades in the attack, with analysis by South Korean officials, North Korean arms experts, and the Associated Press supporting the claim that Hamas used these weapons. Attorney James Pasch of the ADL stated, “Through this case, we will be able to prove what occurred, who the victims were, who the perpetrators were — and it will not just create a record in real time, but for all of history.” The attack on October 7 resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and the abduction of 251 individuals. Israel responded with a military offensive in Gaza aimed at destroying Hamas and freeing the hostages. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of over 125 plaintiffs, including the estates and relatives of those killed, as well as individuals who were physically or emotionally injured, all related to or themselves US citizens. US law permits foreign governments to be held liable for deaths or injuries caused by acts of terrorism or by providing material support for such acts. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, cited in the lawsuit, has been used in previous cases, such as the 2018 ruling ordering North Korea to pay $500 million in a wrongful death suit filed by Otto Warmbier's parents. The lawsuit joins a series of Israel-Hamas war-related cases in US courts. Recently, a suit was filed against the United Nations agency UNRWA for allegedly aiding Hamas by allowing its facilities to be used for weapon storage and other terrorist activities. This suit, filed by Chicago-based law firm MM-Law LLC and New York firm Amini LLC, seeks $1 billion in damages and accuses UNRWA of turning a blind eye to Hamas's activities. Israel has also accused UNRWA, the largest employer in the Palestinian territories, of aiding terror groups. This ongoing legal battle aims to hold accountable those who support terrorism, ensuring that justice is sought for the victims of such heinous acts. Credit: CNN | TOI 2024-07-03 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Hunter Biden has initiated a lawsuit against Fox News, alleging that the network unlawfully published explicit images of him as part of their streaming series "The Trial of Hunter Biden." The series, which debuted on Fox Nation in 2022, featured a mock trial of Biden on charges he has not faced, and included images of him in compromising situations, such as nude and engaged in sexual acts. The lawsuit, filed in state court in Manhattan, contends that the dissemination of these intimate images without Biden's consent violated New York's revenge porn law. It accuses Fox News of using these images to humiliate, harass, annoy, and alarm Biden, thereby tarnishing his reputation. According to the lawsuit, "Fox published and disseminated these Intimate Images to its vast audience of millions as part of an entertainment program in order to humiliate, harass, annoy and alarm Mr. Biden and to tarnish his reputation." In response, a Fox News spokesperson described the lawsuit as "entirely politically motivated" and "devoid of merit." The statement acknowledged that Fox News received a letter from Biden's attorneys in April 2024 demanding the removal of the program from streaming platforms. The spokesperson noted that the program was removed within days of the letter "in an abundance of caution," but defended the network's coverage of Biden, emphasizing his status as a public figure who has been involved in multiple investigations and is now a convicted felon. The statement also highlighted the network's commitment to the First Amendment and expressed confidence in vindicating its rights in court. Hunter Biden was convicted last month on three felony charges related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018. Prosecutors argued that Biden lied on a mandatory gun-purchase form by stating he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs. The mock trial in the Fox Nation series involved allegations of bribery and improper financial dealings with foreign governments, charges that have not been officially brought against him. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an order directing Fox to remove any copies of the explicit images. It also claims that promotional materials for the series have not been entirely removed by Fox and that the program remains available on some third-party streaming platforms. This legal action underscores the ongoing controversy surrounding Hunter Biden, who has been a focal point in political and media narratives due to his personal and professional activities. The lawsuit raises significant questions about the boundaries of media coverage, the protection of personal privacy, and the implications of New York's revenge porn law in cases involving public figures. Credit: NYT 2024-07-03 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A Florida judge has ordered the release of graphic transcripts from the 2006 prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious financier and convicted pedophile. The documents, spanning nearly 200 pages, detail Epstein's heinous crimes, including firsthand accounts from victims and specifics about the payoffs made to underage victims. This case, which concluded with Epstein receiving a highly criticized lenient sentence, has been a source of public outrage and has raised serious questions about the criminal justice system. Epstein managed to strike a deal in 2008 to avoid severe charges of sex trafficking and rape. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, resulting in a mere 13-month prison sentence, a decision that has since been widely condemned. The leniency shown towards Epstein has been a point of significant anger and frustration among the public, who view it as a miscarriage of justice. On Monday, Circuit Judge Luis Delgado ordered the release of these 16-year-old documents, stating, "details in the record will be outrageous to decent people." He emphasized the severity of the crimes described in the transcripts, noting that the grand jury testimony included descriptions of activities ranging from grossly inappropriate behavior to rape, all of which are "sexually deviant, disgusting, and criminal." Judge Delgado referred to Epstein as "the most infamous pedophile in American history" and criticized the state's leniency in handling his case. He noted that this leniency has "been the subject of much anger and has at times diminished the public's perception of the criminal justice system." He also acknowledged Epstein's notorious reputation and the widespread reports of him flaunting his wealth while mingling with powerful figures, including politicians, billionaires, and even British royalty. The judge underscored the public's intense curiosity about Epstein's prosecution, fueled by media reports of his "special treatment." The release of these files coincided with the enactment of a new Florida law permitting the release of grand jury documents from 2006, which are typically kept confidential. Epstein, who was convicted in 2008 for soliciting prostitution from a minor, was known for his high-profile connections in the business and political spheres, including relationships with former presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, as well as celebrities and Prince Andrew. Renewed scrutiny of Epstein's actions began in 2018 following a Miami Herald investigation that included interviews with his victims, some of whom were pursuing civil charges against him. This renewed interest led to new criminal charges being filed against Epstein. Tragically, Epstein took his own life in a Manhattan jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. His accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, was later convicted for her role in aiding Epstein's sex trafficking crimes and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence. The release of these transcripts sheds new light on the extent of Epstein's crimes and the controversial handling of his case. It also serves as a stark reminder of the need for accountability and justice in cases involving such severe criminal conduct. The public's reaction to these revelations will likely continue to shape the discourse around Epstein's legacy and the broader implications for the criminal justice system. Credit: BBC 2024-07-03 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Video from a Youtuber in Egypt has been removed. Please remain on topic which is: Latest developments and discussion of recent events in the Ukraine War

Steve Bannon Begins Four-Month Sentence for Defying Congressional Subpoena Steve Bannon, former White House strategist for Donald Trump, has commenced a four-month prison sentence for defying a congressional subpoena. On Monday, Bannon reported to a federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut, joining Peter Navarro, another former Trump aide, who is also serving a similar sentence for contempt of Congress. Bannon arrived at the prison shortly after 12 p.m. ET, driven in a black van. Before entering the facility, he addressed the media, expressing a sense of pride about his incarceration. "It's time for me to surrender up in Danbury," he stated. The charges against Bannon and Navarro stem from their refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. Last Friday, the Supreme Court rejected Bannon's attempt to delay his sentence while he appealed his conviction. Bannon has consistently argued that his non-compliance was based on legal advice to await the resolution of Trump's executive privilege claims. However, the courts did not permit him to present this defense during his trial. Throughout the lead-up to his prison term, Bannon maintained a defiant and active public presence. He continued to host his far-right podcast, pushing his narrative of political martyrdom and vowing retribution against his perceived enemies. "I'm going to be more powerful in prison than I am now," Bannon declared last week. Publicly, Bannon projected an image of indifference to his imprisonment, telling CNN, "I'm not going to be sitting there going, 'Oh, woe is me.'" However, sources close to him described fluctuating emotions, from denial about his impending sentence to anxiety about prison life. Danbury federal prison, where Bannon will serve his sentence, is known for its relatively small population of less than 1,200 inmates, including white-collar criminals and some violent and sex offenders. Despite its low-security designation, Bannon's communication with the outside world will be significantly restricted. Inmates at Danbury lack internet access, and emails are monitored and delayed. Phone calls are limited to a specific number of minutes per month. Despite these constraints, Bannon expressed confidence that his "War Room" media platform would continue to thrive. "We're a populist movement. This is all about the audience," he said. "Whether I never come back ever to the 'War Room' won't make a difference." He also claimed he would remain deeply involved in Trump's 2024 campaign, even from behind bars. "I will have a much bigger impact on the campaign when I’m in prison than I have now," he asserted. Bannon's prison intake process will include a metal detector screening, a strip search, and a mental health evaluation before being assigned to a housing unit. Despite his bravado, he emphasized the importance of focusing on broader goals rather than personal correspondence. "You must focus 100% of your time on winning," he said, discouraging supporters from sending letters, as he would not read them. As Bannon adjusts to life in federal prison, his ongoing influence on the political landscape remains to be seen. His sentence marks a significant chapter in the aftermath of the January 6 investigations and highlights the continuing legal and political battles facing former Trump aides. Credit: CNN 2024-07-02 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A space rocket developed by the Chinese private company Beijing Tianbing, also known as Space Pioneer, crashed and exploded into flames near the city of Gongyi on Sunday. The accident occurred after the rocket, named Tianlong-3, was accidentally launched during a test. According to an official statement on Space Pioneer's WeChat account, the mishap was caused by a structural failure at the connection point between the rocket and its test stand. This failure led to the first stage of the Tianlong-3 rocket leaving its launch pad. The rocket ultimately landed in a hilly area near Gongyi in central China. Video footage from the incident, published by the Chinese digital media outlet The Paper, showed the rocket initially soaring straight up into the air. However, it soon lost power, turned horizontally, and fell back to earth, exploding into flames upon impact in the forested hills. Despite the dramatic visuals, an initial investigation revealed no reports of casualties. Parts of the rocket stage scattered within a designated "safe area," causing a local fire that was subsequently extinguished by the Gongyi emergency management bureau. The Tianlong-3, or "Sky Dragon 3," is a two-stage rocket under development by Space Pioneer. This rocket is designed to be partly reusable, marking a significant step for the company, which is among a small group of rapidly growing private-sector rocket makers in China. The accidental launch and subsequent crash of a rocket under development are rare, although falling rocket debris is not unheard of in China. Space Pioneer explained that the first stage of the Tianlong-3 ignited normally during a hot test but detached from the test bench due to the structural failure. Typically, a rocket consists of several stages. The first stage ignites to propel the rocket upwards, and once its fuel is exhausted, it falls off to allow the second stage to ignite and continue propulsion. The Tianlong-3’s performance is said to be comparable to SpaceX's Falcon 9, another two-stage rocket. In April 2023, Space Pioneer successfully launched the Tianlong-2, a kerosene-oxygen rocket, becoming the first private Chinese firm to send a liquid-propellant rocket into space. Since 2014, when private investment in the space industry was permitted by the Chinese government, numerous commercial space companies have emerged. While many focused on satellite production, companies like Space Pioneer have concentrated on developing reusable rockets to significantly reduce mission costs. For safety reasons, test sites for these companies are often located along China's coastal areas or deep within the country’s interior. Space Pioneer’s test center in Gongyi, a city with a population of 800,000 in Henan province, exemplifies such an interior site. Credit: The Guardian 2024-07-02 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a recent CBS News poll, over 70 percent of voters expressed doubts about President Joe Biden's mental fitness to serve a second term. This figure marks a significant increase from previous surveys, notably following Biden's lackluster performance in a recent debate with former President Donald Trump. The poll, released on Sunday, revealed that 72 percent of respondents questioned Biden's health and capability to serve as president, while only 27 percent felt confident in his fitness for office. This is a notable rise from last month's poll, where 65 percent expressed concerns about Biden's health, compared to 35 percent who believed he was fit for the presidency. Biden's debate performance raised concerns among some Democrats and his supporters. During the debate, the president struggled to articulate his thoughts clearly and appeared fatigued. This has led to a growing number of Democratic voters, including some unnamed lawmakers, urging Biden to step aside in favor of another candidate for the party's nomination. The poll also showed a decline in support for Biden running for a second term. Only 28 percent of voters believe he should seek reelection, down from 37 percent in February. Among Democrats, support for Biden's reelection bid has dropped from 64 percent in February to 54 percent. A significant 86 percent of those who believe Biden should not run again cited his age as the primary concern. Overall, 45 percent of Democrats think Biden should step aside and not accept the party's nomination, while 55 percent believe he should continue his reelection campaign. Reflecting on the debate, only 21 percent of respondents felt Biden presented his ideas clearly, and 18 percent believed he inspired confidence. In contrast, Trump scored much higher in these areas, with 47 percent saying he presented his ideas clearly and 44 percent saying he inspired confidence. Despite Biden's poor showing in terms of clarity and confidence, more respondents believed he was telling the truth during the debate (40 percent) compared to Trump (32 percent). The CBS News/YouGov poll surveyed approximately 1,100 registered voters from June 28 to 29, with a margin of error of about 4.2 percent. Credit: The Hill 2024-07-02 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

When eight-year-old Kevin McAllister was left behind by his parents in the iconic Christmas movie "Home Alone," it set the stage for a heartwarming comedy. However, if the McAllisters had actually lived in their hometown of Chicago, they would have been breaking the law. Illinois has one of the strictest regulations in the United States, mandating that children must be at least 14 years old before they can be legally left unattended at home. A detailed analysis reveals that while most states provide guidelines on the appropriate age for leaving children home alone, over a dozen states have enacted statutory legislation setting a minimum age. Kansas is notably permissive, allowing children as young as six to be left alone. In contrast, Illinois requires children to be 14 years old. Colorado, Connecticut, and Mississippi allow 12-year-olds to stay home unsupervised. Meanwhile, Maryland recommends that children aged eight and older can be left alone for brief periods, and those aged 12 and older for longer durations. In total, 36 states have provided guidance without enacting strict legislation, differing from the 14 states with explicit age requirements. The specific legal framework varies by region, emphasizing the importance of parents understanding and observing local laws. Despite legal allowances, experts stress that the decision to leave a child home alone should be made rationally, considering the child’s maturity and readiness. Some child welfare advocates have voiced concerns about the leniency of laws in states like Kansas, arguing that a six-year-old is not mentally or emotionally prepared to handle the responsibility of being home alone, regardless of their individual talents. Children develop at different rates, and while some may meet legal age requirements, they may not be ready for the challenges of staying alone. Child development experts generally suggest that children between the ages of 12 and 14 may be ready to start staying home alone for short periods. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) emphasized to Newsweek that children depend on adults for protection and support. Public child welfare agencies aim to strengthen families to ensure that children have safe and loving homes and to prevent abuse or neglect. In essence, while legal guidelines provide a framework, the readiness of a child to stay home alone depends on various factors, including maturity, individual capabilities, and the home environment. Parents are encouraged to carefully assess their child's ability to handle being alone and ensure they are adequately prepared for any emergencies or unexpected situations. Credit: Newsweek 2024-07-02 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The transition from high office to Prime Minister is an unparalleled challenge, a reality Sir Keir Starmer might soon face. Despite feeling ready, the abrupt shift to the top job is often a shock, demanding immediate acclimatization. The UK’s rapid political transition, devoid of the transitional weeks seen in other countries, adds to the complexity. Tony Blair once remarked to Alastair Campbell: "Imagine preparing for a new job by working flat out traveling the country for six weeks and then go a few nights without sleep." This grueling pace underscores the demands faced by an incoming Prime Minister. Among many other demands - they are taken aside to be briefed about their role in a nuclear war. If the upcoming general election follows typical patterns, either Prime Minister Keir Starmer or Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will assume their role by lunchtime the day after the vote. Both will likely be sleep-deprived, having awaited their constituencies' declarations into the small hours and managed the subsequent fallout. Sunak, if grounded in reality, would be stunned by victory, given widespread expectations of his defeat. Reelection should bring no surprises beyond avoiding the traps he set for his successor. For Starmer, the challenge is monumental, stepping into a role only 56 people have ever experienced, and even rarer when it involves a shift in governing party. Holding a senior ministerial position is insufficient preparation for Number 10. Gordon Brown, despite his decade-long tenure as a powerful Chancellor of the Exchequer and considering himself a co-prime minister, found the transition overwhelming. A senior Brownite admitted, "We thought it was going to be like the Treasury only bigger. It isn't. That was handling just one thing. As prime minister, everything comes at you from all directions." Brown’s early tenure involved handling terror attacks in London and Glasgow and unexpected summer flooding across England. Unlike Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Sunak, Starmer has never served in government as a minister. This lack of experience is shared with David Cameron and Blair, who had been in parliament for 14 years before becoming prime minister and a shadow minister for 10. Cameron had been an MP for nine years when elected, akin to Starmer, who became an MP in 2015. Cameron knew his way around government from his work as an aide in Conservative headquarters and for senior ministers. Starmer believes his legal career, particularly running the Crown Prosecution Service, is good preparation for the premiership. He also mentions his adaptability, having transitioned from a defense barrister to Director of Public Prosecutions. A Prime Minister must swiftly transition from campaigning to managing a party, government, and country. This shift is abrupt, except for Cameron, whose hung parliament allowed five days of coalition negotiations. New prime ministers start with a clean slate of policies and numerous jobs to distribute. Blair admitted, "The disadvantage of a new government is lack of experience in governing," but also claimed it as an advantage, allowing them to "think the unthinkable" and "do the undoable." His early actions included shifting PMQs to one half-hour session a week and granting independence to the Bank of England. The significant national leaders of recent years, Thatcher, Blair, and Cameron, won reelection rather than taking over by internal party machinations. Sunak cannot join this group, but Starmer has a chance, albeit constrained by the state of the economy and promises made under Tory campaigning pressure. Incoming prime ministers rely heavily on their staff, who must prepare for government even while the leader fights an election campaign. Blair’s successful transition is often credited to his team, including Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell, advisor David Miliband, Peter Mandelson, and Alastair Campbell. Mistakes can occur in job assignments, with names mixed up or post-it notes dropped. Starmer's key decision was hiring Sue Gray, a respected senior civil servant, as his chief of staff. Gray is expected to oversee Olly Robbins replacing Simon Case as cabinet secretary and will significantly influence appointing advisors and ministers. Sunak delayed allowing access talks until early this year and has now called a snap election, leaving Labour with barely six months to prepare. Some involved in preparing MPs for government worry they are not as ready as they should be. Starmer has shown ruthlessness, suggesting there may be surprises for some assuming they will be ministers. Blair's "real" reshuffle took place after a year in office. The new prime minister will face unavoidable duties, including representing the UK at NATO’s 75th anniversary summit and hosting the European Political Community. Prime ministers often make unforced errors, such as Truss's mini-budget, Cameron's Brexit referendum, and Blair's Iraq invasion. They must also cope with unforeseen events like the COVID-19 pandemic. The initial shocks of becoming prime minister are likely to be overshadowed by future challenges, testing their strengths and weaknesses regardless of preparation. The journey from the campaign trail to Number 10 Downing Street is daunting. The demands of the premiership require a unique blend of preparation, adaptability, and resilience. Starmer's potential transition to Prime Minister will undoubtedly be a defining moment in his political career, testing his mettle in ways few can anticipate or truly prepare for. The real test will come not in the immediate aftermath of election victory but in the years of governance that follow, where every decision and crisis will shape his legacy. Credit: Sky News 2024-07-02 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a strong cautionary statement regarding the potential risks to Britain's national security if Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer assumes power. Now serving as the foreign secretary, Cameron labeled Starmer as "hopelessly naive" about the increasingly perilous state of the world and criticized Labour’s approach to defense spending. Cameron was unequivocal in his concerns: “Keir Starmer is in danger of weakening Britain’s position and weakening Britain’s defenses. All in a way that’s completely unnecessary.” He pointed to threats posed by an "axis of malign states," including Russia, China, and Iran, which he claims are "threatening us domestically." Cameron’s return to government, after a seven-year hiatus since his time as Prime Minister, has reinforced his belief that "the world is getting more dangerous." Cameron took aim at Labour’s perceived lack of a firm commitment to defense spending. In April, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pledged to raise defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, a move Cameron supported and expected Labour to match. However, Starmer has expressed a desire to reach the same spending level without setting a specific timetable. Cameron found this approach "really shocking," especially given that the current government had identified the necessary funds for this commitment. Cameron criticized Starmer’s lack of clarity on how Labour would finance its proposed changes, accusing him of asking the public to "write a blank cheque to Labour." He warned that such unchecked spending could threaten personal finances through "huge tax increases" and unchecked power. Reflecting on his own detailed plans when running for office in 2010 and 2015, Cameron expressed frustration that Starmer had not provided similar specifics. Starmer responded to these criticisms by asserting that Labour is a trusted party on national security, highlighting its foundational role in NATO and the high-level sensitive briefings he has received. He dismissed Cameron’s claims as "ridiculous" and indicative of desperation ahead of the election. Cameron also addressed the broader geopolitical challenges facing Britain, including cyberattacks from China, Iranian attempts to target journalists in the UK, and Russian attacks on London-based facilities. He stressed the need for stronger alliances, increased defense spending, and enhanced security measures to counter these threats. Cameron highlighted the importance of investing in diplomacy, aid, development, military hardware, and espionage to navigate the current dangerous global landscape. Reflecting on his past decisions as Prime Minister, Cameron defended his administration’s engagement with China, noting the positive economic impacts at the time. However, he acknowledged the need for a changed approach in response to China’s more aggressive stance. Cameron also took the opportunity to support current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, commending his efforts to revitalize the economy and manage inflation. Cameron urged Sunak to continue focusing on growth and stability, drawing parallels with his own experiences in office. Despite his concerns about Labour’s approach, Cameron remains hopeful about the UK’s future under Conservative leadership. He emphasized the importance of resilience and determination in the face of electoral challenges, advocating for a steadfast commitment to core beliefs and policies. Privately, Cameron has reportedly been critical of some decisions made by Sunak, but he publicly praised Sunak’s leadership, stating, “He’s a prime minister I greatly admire” and is “buzzing with energy and ideas for the future of the country.” He highlighted Sunak’s success in achieving economic stability with 2% inflation and 4% unemployment, comparing it favorably to the situation he inherited in 2010. Cameron also reflected on his government’s approach to China, admitting the need for a revised strategy given China’s recent aggressiveness. He noted, “Positive investment took place in Britain by China and we opened up Chinese markets for British companies in a way that strengthened British jobs and growth.” But he acknowledged, “What we do need to do now is recognize what has changed with China, which is they are more aggressive. Their approach has changed, and so we have to change with that.” Cameron’s recent meeting with former US President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago also highlighted his concerns about Trump’s "America first" isolationist tendencies. He emphasized his preference for an America that actively supports global peace and security, adding that the meeting with Trump was "very interesting because he is such an engaging person to talk to." The only time Cameron appeared uncertain was when discussing trans rights, critiquing Labour’s support for "people who just claim to be women but aren’t" as "amazing." Cameron's return to the political arena has been marked by his vocal criticism of Labour’s defense policies and his staunch support for increased defense spending. As the election approaches, his warnings and perspectives add a critical dimension to the ongoing debate about the UK’s national security and future direction. Credit: The Times 2024-07-02 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In the shadowy world of espionage, the retirement of Sergei Beseda was a subdued end to a career that once commanded great influence within Russia's intelligence apparatus. As the head of the FSB's Fifth Service, responsible for operations within the former Soviet Union, Beseda's tenure concluded in disgrace, receiving much of the blame for the failure to adequately prepare for the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This episode led some in the West to prematurely conclude that Russian intelligence was a paper tiger, resting on the laurels of its Soviet and Tsarist predecessors. However, the subsequent two years have demonstrated that such assumptions were gravely mistaken. Russia's security services have not only regrouped but have also responded with renewed confidence and cooperation. The FSB, GRU, and SVR, which were once plagued by infighting, are now collaborating more closely than at any time since the Second World War. Analysts suggest that this newfound unity has empowered a younger generation of ambitious spymasters, filling the void left by figures like Beseda. The scale and scope of Russia's covert operations abroad have reached levels not seen since the Cold War, marked by daylight assassinations and attempted coups. Nearly every week, a new operation bearing Russian fingerprints is uncovered. "And those are just the ones we know about," says Oleksandr Danylyuk, a former special adviser to the head of Ukraine's foreign intelligence service. "Those operations that come to light are just a tiny fraction of the total number. It's not necessarily that they are operating in a different way, but the scale has grown hugely." Recruitment within the security services has surged, with a particular focus on students both at home and abroad in countries sympathetic to Russia, such as Serbia. The GRU, Russia's military intelligence service, has notably expanded its special operations branch, Unit 29155. This unit, known for its involvement in state-sponsored murder and political destabilization, has grown from about 500 officers in 2022 to as many as 2,000 today. Unit 29155 officers have been implicated in some of Russia's most audacious overseas operations of the past decade, including the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury and an attempted pro-Serbian coup in Montenegro. Indicative of the unit's significance is the recent promotion of its former leader, Andrei Averyanov, to deputy head of the GRU, responsible for coordinating all unconventional warfare operations across Europe. Russia's history of covert operations is deeply rooted in its foreign policy, dating back to the nascent Bolshevik government, which quickly embarked on a campaign of political agitation across Europe to export the revolution. This legacy continues as Russian leaders maintain a doctrinal belief that unconventional warfare is essential for advancing the country's global standing. However, the task has become increasingly difficult since the expulsion of up to 600 Russian intelligence officers operating under diplomatic cover in European capitals. To rebuild these networks rapidly, Moscow has increasingly relied on foreign nationals, particularly those within the criminal underworld. Bulgarians and Serbians have proven to be some of the most willing conspirators, according to Andrei Soldatov, an expert on Russian intelligence services. "Russia has a natural advantage across eastern Europe when it comes to recruitment of foreigners because of their longstanding ties with those countries," he says. "But they are recruiting on an unprecedented level in Bulgaria and Serbia, both because of the fact that there are strong organized crime groups in those countries and due to a high level of political support for Russia there." The Kremlin's campaign to sow chaos along NATO's eastern flank has included a series of mysterious fires in buildings across Poland, an attempted hammer attack on exiled Russian opposition activist Leonid Volkov in Lithuania, and numerous acts of sabotage against transport infrastructure. Russia's "active measures" against central and northern Europe over the past few months have been so broad in scope that it is sometimes difficult to discern an underlying strategy. These actions include the removal of buoys marking the Russian-Estonian border, hundreds of attempted acts of sabotage, and disruptions to GPS signals across the southern Baltic. "There does appear to be this spike in what is going on and what is being planned after what may have been a period when Russia was fully absorbed with Ukraine," says Keir Giles, an author and Russia scholar at Chatham House. The use of local proxies to carry out these disruptions has allowed Moscow to pursue its aims on an industrial scale without exposing its own spies to the risk of detection. "That means in effect there’s no downside," Giles explains. "There’s no reason for them not to do this because they’re not going to suffer any reputational damage over what they already have and they don’t care if their proxies get rounded up in prison because it’s no skin off their nose." Many incidents have a military dimension, whether involving prying around bases or testing security around railways used to transport NATO troops and equipment. Giles argues that Russia is probing the resilience of European logistics, particularly in Germany and Poland, to identify vulnerabilities that could be exploited in a future war. Despite numerous incidents in Germany, including a suspected arson attack on a factory in Berlin and cyberattacks on the two largest political parties, Poland remains a primary target due to its strategic importance as a conduit for Western military aid to Ukraine. Moscow's intelligence agencies appear to have recruited dozens of individuals in Poland to conduct acts of sabotage. Last month, at least nine individuals, including Polish, Ukrainian, and Belarusian citizens, were charged with conducting acts of sabotage for Russia. A few weeks earlier, another Pole was arrested on suspicion of gathering intelligence for a possible assassination attempt against President Zelensky as he passed through Rzeszow-Jasionka airport. France has also been a significant target of Russian covert operations. A recent incident involved three men placing five wooden coffins beneath the Eiffel Tower, a stunt aimed at stirring alarm over President Macron's suggestion that NATO troops could be deployed in Ukraine. This was part of a broader campaign to destabilize France, which includes cyberattacks, disinformation, and support for the Kremlin-friendly National Rally of Marine Le Pen. In February, France's security services warned that Moscow was staging mass cyber assaults and deluging the country with fake news to amplify dissent and internal divisions. David Colon, a propaganda expert at Paris Sciences Po University, describes the situation as a "total war" waged by Putin against democracies. "We are facing the most serious threat that has ever confronted our country," he says. In Brussels, the Russian Permanent Mission to the European Union is said to be one of Russia's main spy centers. Despite the expulsion of 600 Russian diplomats in 2022, the mission's chargé d’affaires, Kirill Logvinov, a senior SVR intelligence officer, remains active. Belgium's State Security Service has identified Logvinov as a spy, but the expulsion of such diplomats is hindered by the EU's reluctance to escalate diplomatic tensions with Russia. This reluctance extends to imposing travel restrictions on Russian diplomats, despite warnings from NATO and several EU countries that such measures are necessary to counteract Russian espionage and sabotage activities. Russia's espionage activities have also extended to the seabed of Europe's seas. Fishing boats and oceanographic research vessels have been tasked with mapping and possibly placing explosives on vital networks of cables and pipelines. NATO officials suspect that Russia has already mined critical undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from companies that manage these assets. "Today espionage is more difficult to detect," says Thomas De Spiegelaere of Belgium's Maritime Security Unit. "Where in the past research vessels or military ships were mainly used, we now see non-military ships more often." In Italy, Russian spies have demonstrated their audacity with operations like the escape of Artem Uss, who was under house arrest on a US extradition warrant. Russian spies in Italy have used the country as a transit point and have spread disinformation to exploit Italy's historical suspicion of NATO and the strength of the Communist Party. "Italians are seeing fake quotes online telling them not to support the war," says Mattia Caniglia of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. Moscow's disinformation campaign in Europe, known as Doppleganger, has reached millions of people in France, Germany, and Italy. The assassination of Maxim Kuzminov in Spain, a defector from the Russian military, further illustrates the reach and brutality of Russian covert operations. Despite the importance of these activities, the Spanish government has maintained a low profile to avoid conflicts with political partners, particularly Catalan separatists who have allegedly received support from Moscow. King Felipe VI's recent visit to the Baltic states was intended to reassure the region of Spain's support, but the failure to send a minister with him overshadowed the mission. An ongoing investigation into Moscow's links with Catalan separatists highlights the complex interplay of domestic and international politics influenced by Russian interference. Credit: The Times 2024-07-02 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Since the onset of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, the militant group has committed numerous atrocities against its own people in Gaza. This trend is not new, as even before the war, Hamas had effectively taken the Gaza Strip and its inhabitants hostage, routinely terrorizing them. Despite this, the crimes of Hamas are seldom reported by either Arabic or Western media, nor by global human rights organizations. These entities often portray Hamas as a legitimate resistance group aiming to "liberate" the Palestinians. The lack of media coverage of Hamas's crimes against Palestinians is not due to a shortage of evidence. Many Gazans have voiced their concerns about the brutality of Hamas, which they have witnessed firsthand. Numerous videos have surfaced on social media platforms showing Gazans criticizing Hamas and blaming the group for the current disastrous situation in Gaza. There is no doubt that many civilians have been killed by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) airstrikes, and these incidents frequently make headlines across various media channels. However, the media establishment tends to turn a blind eye to the crimes committed by Hamas against innocent Israelis and Palestinians alike, presenting a misleading, black-and-white narrative about the conflict. This raises a critical question: Why is there a lack of outrage over the violence inflicted by Hamas on Gazans? If there is genuine concern for Gaza, why is there no uproar over all the violence Gazans face, including that perpetrated by Hamas? The unfortunate reality is that when Israelis are not involved, there is less interest in advocating for the Palestinian rights that many claim to care about deeply. Gazans have attempted multiple times to oust Hamas from power. In 2019 and 2023, the people of Gaza organized peaceful marches against Hamas, only to be brutally assaulted by Hamas militants. During these protests, over 1,300 protestors were imprisoned by Hamas each time. I was among those imprisoned. I was tortured twice by Hamas because I participated in these protests. Despite our efforts, there was no media attention. No human rights organizations demanded the release of those held for months in Hamas prisons, nor did they speak out about those tortured or killed by Hamas, such as Issam Al-Saaffein, who died under torture in Hamas's jails. This pattern has persisted during the current war. Since October 7, hundreds of Gazans have been killed by Hamas' failing rockets. Hamas has confiscated food, fuel, and medicine sent to Gaza, and this is not where their actions end. Thirteen-year-old Ahmad Breka was shot in the head by Hamas in Rafah while trying to collect humanitarian aid. Others were shot in the legs while attempting to grab humanitarian goods that Hamas had stolen and kept in their facilities. These inhumane acts, along with the suffering Gazans have endured since October, led many to protest once again during this war. Demonstrations took place in Khan-Younis in front of Yahya Sinwar's house and in the north, demanding that Hamas release captives and cease the war. These protesters received the same response from Hamas as before: they were fired upon. Once again, the global media largely ignored these crimes. Simply trying to take some food in the midst of a war or protesting against Hamas is enough to incur severe punishment. Attempting to deliver aid to those in need or even considering playing a role in the future of Gaza can result in death. This was the fate of the Abu-Amro tribe leader and two members of his tribe, who were killed by Hamas militants. A few months ago, Hamas beheaded the head of a clan leader in northern Gaza and publicly stated, "We murdered him, and we will do so to anyone who stands against us and cooperates with Israel." Others who criticized Hamas publicly during the war were reported missing. Many Fatah members were placed under house arrest by Hamas "for security reasons," and anyone who left their home was kidnapped, as happened with Gazan Yossef Shahein. Yet the global and Arab media remained silent about these crimes. Al Jazeera, which has hundreds of journalists in Gaza and several offices there, never reports on these murders. The systematic terrorism perpetrated by Hamas against major tribes in Gaza and against dissidents is intended to undermine plans for Gaza's future. These plans necessarily involve empowering civil society to manage civil affairs in Gaza after the war. Hamas aims to replicate the Taliban model, going underground and fighting from the shadows to maintain power and continue terrorizing both Israelis and Palestinians. This biased journalism has severe repercussions. It has allowed Hamas to silence opposition in Gaza and has inflamed global mobs who consume Hamas' propaganda and rally in support of the terrorist group. This creates a deceptive image that all Gazans are Hamas members who wish to continue living under its authoritarian rule. The tragic reality is that the suffering of Gaza's innocent civilians only seems to matter when it can be blamed on Israelis. This abandonment of Gazan civilians by the global media and human rights organizations is a horrific oversight. Their suffering deserves attention, regardless of the perpetrator. Hamza Howidy, a Palestinian from Gaza City, is an accountant and peace advocate. He has experienced firsthand the brutal actions of Hamas and continues to call for justice and genuine concern for the people of Gaza. Credit: Newsweek 2024-07-02 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A lawyer representing the families of victims from two fatal Boeing 737 Max crashes has accused the US government of preparing to offer the plane maker a "sweetheart plea deal." Paul Cassell, who claims to have received the information directly from the Justice Department, stated that the proposed deal includes a small fine, three years of probation, and independent safety audits for Boeing. When approached by the BBC, Boeing did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and the Justice Department (DoJ) declined to provide a statement. This accusation comes at a time when Boeing announced an agreement to purchase the aerospace supplier Spirit AeroSystems, a move the company claims will enhance quality and safety. Spirit AeroSystems was responsible for manufacturing the fuselage that experienced a mid-flight blowout on an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 jet in January, causing widespread concerns about Boeing's standards. Paul Cassell expressed strong disapproval of the proposed plea deal, asserting that "the memory of 346 innocents killed by Boeing demands more justice than this" and adding that "families will strenuously object to this plea deal." The plane crashes, which involved Boeing's 737 Max aircraft, occurred within six months of each other. The first crash, involving Indonesia's Lion Air, happened in October 2018, followed by an Ethiopian Airlines flight in March 2019. Both crashes were linked to faulty flight control systems and resulted in the deaths of 346 people. In response to these tragedies, US prosecutors last month recommended that the DoJ bring criminal charges against Boeing. This recommendation came after the DoJ announced that Boeing had violated a 2021 settlement related to the crashes. Under the 2021 deal, Boeing acknowledged that it had misled air-safety regulators about aspects of the 737 Max and agreed to create a new compliance system to detect and prevent further fraud. As part of this agreement, Boeing agreed to a $2.5 billion settlement, and prosecutors committed to asking the court to drop a criminal charge after three years if the company adhered to specific conditions set out in the deferred prosecution agreement. However, in May, the DoJ stated that Boeing had breached this agreement, claiming that the company had failed to "design, implement, and enforce a compliance and ethics program to prevent and detect violations of the US fraud laws throughout its operations." The Justice Department has until July 7 to decide whether to revive the criminal fraud charge brought against Boeing in 2021. This charge has been dormant since the company entered the settlement agreement, which required it to implement measures to prevent further fraud. A letter sent by Paul Cassell to the DoJ last month revealed that the families of the victims had been seeking prosecutions of Boeing's top executives at the time of the crashes and a fine of $24.8 billion, which they argue is appropriate for "the deadliest corporate crime in US history." The families' demand for justice underscores the gravity of the crashes and their belief that Boeing's actions warrant severe penalties and accountability for those at the highest levels of the company. The controversy surrounding Boeing and the proposed plea deal highlights ongoing concerns about corporate accountability and the enforcement of regulations designed to protect public safety. As the Justice Department considers its next steps, the families of the victims and their legal representatives continue to push for more stringent measures and greater transparency in addressing the failures that led to the tragic crashes of the 737 Max aircraft. Credit: BBC 2024-07-02 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that former President Donald Trump has limited immunity for his official acts while in office. The ruling, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, underscores the necessity of immunity for presidents to perform their duties without fear of criminal prosecution. However, the decision also makes clear that this immunity is not all-encompassing. Chief Justice Roberts articulated the court’s reasoning: “We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.” This statement affirms the need to protect the executive branch's independence, ensuring that a president can execute their duties effectively without constant legal threats. However, Roberts emphasized that not all presidential actions are protected. “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.” This distinction is crucial, as it maintains the principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law. The ruling has immediate implications for the ongoing legal proceedings against Trump, particularly in relation to the events of January 6. CNN's chief legal correspondent Paula Reid noted that the decision opens the door for further litigation, potentially delaying the case until after the upcoming presidential election. “The fact that the Supreme Court has opened the door for further proceedings for further litigation makes it unlikely that this will go before November. And the reason why that is significant is because if Trump is reelected, he can make this case and the classified documents case go away,” Reid explained. The Supreme Court’s decision requires lower courts to determine which of Trump’s actions qualify as official and which do not. As Chief Justice Roberts stated, “We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance — with the benefit of briefing we lack — whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.” Roberts criticized the previous lower court opinions for their lack of “factual analysis,” underscoring the need for a detailed examination of Trump’s actions. In response to the ruling, Trump celebrated it as a significant victory. He took to Truth Social, proclaiming, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” This reaction reflects Trump’s interpretation of the ruling as a validation of his actions while in office and a reinforcement of the constitutional protections afforded to presidents. Conversely, the Biden campaign quickly issued a statement downplaying the significance of the ruling in terms of Trump’s overall conduct. “Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election,” a senior campaign adviser said. “Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.” The ruling also embraced one of Trump’s key arguments regarding the potential impact of such prosecutions on the presidency. Chief Justice Roberts expressed concern that prosecuting a former president for their official acts could deter future presidents from making decisions based on the public interest. “A president inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” Roberts wrote. He warned that such scrutiny could undermine “the independence of the executive branch.” This Supreme Court decision, while providing Trump with some legal relief, also sets a precedent for future considerations of presidential conduct and immunity. It reinforces the need for a balance between protecting the executive branch's independence and ensuring accountability for actions that fall outside the scope of official duties. As the lower courts now take on the task of examining the specifics of Trump’s conduct, the implications of this ruling will continue to unfold, potentially influencing the broader landscape of presidential accountability in the United States. Credit: CNN 2024-07-01 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Post removed for contravening our community standards. No personal attacks, please ensure you also provide links to any claims made if asked for them @NowNow "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." Topic is: US and Europe Issue Stern Warnings to Hezbollah Amid Rising Tensions with Israel Not numbers of those killed in Gaza, there are numerous other topics on that.

People gather at Republique plaza to protest the far-right National Rally, which came out strongly ahead in first-round legislative elections Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally (RN) party has taken a significant lead in the first round of France’s parliamentary elections, initial projections showed. This development marks a historic moment as the RN moves closer to gaining substantial power. With an unusually high voter turnout, the RN bloc garnered 34% of the vote, while the left-wing New Popular Front (NFP) coalition secured 28.1%. President Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble alliance fell to a distant third with just 20.3%, according to initial estimates by Ipsos. Despite leading the vote count, the RN may fall short of the 289 seats needed for an absolute majority, suggesting a potential hung parliament and increased political uncertainty. Projections indicate that after the second round of voting, the RN could secure between 230 and 280 seats in the 577-seat National Assembly, a remarkable increase from its previous count of 88 seats. The NFP is expected to win between 125 and 165 seats, while Ensemble could end up with between 70 and 100 seats. Macron had called the snap election after his party’s defeat by the RN in the European Parliament elections earlier in the month. This outcome could force Macron to navigate the remainder of his presidential term in an uneasy partnership with a prime minister from an opposition party. In Henin Beaumont, the RN's election party erupted in celebration as the results were announced. However, Marine Le Pen cautioned that the second round of voting would be crucial. “Democracy has spoken, and the French people have placed the National Rally and its allies in first place – and has practically erased the Macronist bloc,” she told a jubilant crowd, adding that “nothing has been won – and the second round will be decisive.” Jordan Bardella, the RN’s 28-year-old leader and prime ministerial hopeful, echoed Le Pen’s sentiment, declaring the upcoming vote as one of the most decisive in the history of the Fifth Republic. Bardella had previously stated that he would refuse to govern a minority government, suggesting that if the RN does not secure an absolute majority, Macron might have to find a prime minister from the hard left or form a technocratic government. A period of political bargaining is now expected, as centrist and left-wing parties consider standing down in certain seats to block the RN from gaining a majority. This strategy, known as the “cordon sanitaire,” has been used in the past to prevent the far-right from taking office. Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the France Unbowed party and a key figure in the NFP, has instructed his supporters to prevent the RN from gaining more seats. Similarly, Marine Tondelier of the Green Party has appealed to Macron to withdraw from certain seats to stop the RN. Macron’s Ensemble allies have also urged their supporters to block the RN, though they have reservations about supporting Melenchon’s party. Gabriel Attal, Macron’s protégé and the outgoing prime minister, emphasized the need to prevent the RN from winning a majority but criticized Melenchon’s France Unbowed party for hindering a credible alternative to a far-right government. Despite these efforts, the RN has made inroads in unexpected areas, winning support in regions traditionally held by other parties. For instance, in the Nord department’s 20th constituency, an RN candidate defeated the leader of the Communist Party, marking the end of a long-standing Communist hold on the seat. Macron’s decision to call a snap election three years ahead of schedule, following his party’s defeat in the European Parliament elections, has brought the country into uncharted territory. The prospect of appointing a prime minister from an opposition party under a “cohabitation” arrangement looms large. This situation could lead to significant challenges in passing domestic laws and may even result in a constitutional crisis if disagreements arise between the president and the parliamentary majority. A far-right government led by the RN could also trigger a financial crisis. The RN’s spending pledges, including reversing Macron’s pension reforms and cutting taxes, come at a time when France might need to implement austerity measures to comply with European Commission fiscal rules. This has raised concerns among bond markets, with warnings of a potential financial crisis similar to that experienced in the UK under Liz Truss. In response to the first-round results, Macron called for a broad democratic and Republican rally in the second round to counter the RN. “Faced with the National Rally, the time has come for a broad, clearly democratic and Republican rally for the second round,” he stated, urging his supporters to rally together. The next few days will be critical as political parties maneuver to block the RN from gaining further power. The outcome of the second round will determine the future direction of French politics and the extent of Marine Le Pen's influence on the national stage. Credit: CNN 2024-07-01 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The strengthening defense ties between Russia and North Korea are causing significant concern for China, according to various analysts. Edward Howell, an Oxford University lecturer and a Korea Foundation fellow at Chatham House, conveyed to Newsweek that Beijing is likely anxious about the deepening relationship between Moscow and Pyongyang, especially regarding the potential supply of arms from Russia to North Korea. This concern stems from the fact that China has long viewed itself as North Korea's primary ally, with a mutual defense treaty dating back to 1961. During a recent visit to Pyongyang, Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, pledging military assistance to each other if attacked. This visit marked Putin's first trip to North Korea in 24 years. The defense pact has been condemned by the United States, Japan, and South Korea, which issued a joint statement labeling it a "grave concern to anyone with an interest in maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula." Howell suggests that China is taking a cautious approach. On one side, Beijing aims to disrupt the alliances between the U.S., Japan, and South Korea, and any increasing cooperation among them, which is likely to strengthen due to the closer ties between Moscow and Pyongyang. On the other hand, China is wary of Russia's relationship with North Korea becoming too close, as it does not want to be excluded from any significant foreign policy decisions made by North Korea. Howell emphasizes that China has a vested interest in the stability of the Korean Peninsula and may be worried that an influx of Russian military technology to North Korea could exacerbate tensions with South Korea, which are already at a peak. He further warns that a potential influx of millions of North Korean refugees into China is a scenario that Beijing fears the most. There are suspicions from Washington and Seoul that Russia might be providing North Korea with technology and expertise to enhance its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs, which are sanctioned by the United Nations. This exchange is believed to be in return for the munitions that North Korea has sent to Russia for use in the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Sari Arho Havrén, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, offers a different perspective. She expressed surprise at the widespread commentary suggesting that the deepening ties between Russia and North Korea would alarm Beijing. According to her, it is likely that Putin received Xi Jinping’s approval for his state trip to North Korea during his recent visit to China. Arho Havrén argues that while North Korea can be unpredictable, the strengthened ties between Putin and Kim also benefit Beijing. Xi Jinping does not wish to see Russia defeated in Ukraine, and by supporting the Moscow-Pyongyang relationship, he can maintain the appearance of limiting direct military support for Russia himself. The U.S. and the European Union have criticized China for the export of dual-use technologies and components by Chinese companies to Russia, such as drone parts that bolster Russia’s military-industrial base. The Biden administration has already sanctioned several firms in China and Hong Kong believed to be facilitating this trade, leading major Chinese banks to cease processing yuan-denominated transactions with Russia. Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in the U.S., told Newsweek that he was unaware of the details of the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between Russia and North Korea, or of the arms shipments from North Korea to Russia. He added, "But as two sovereign states, Russia and the DPRK have the right to conduct normal exchanges and cooperation." The evolving dynamics of the Russia-North Korea relationship and its implications for regional stability and international alliances underscore the complexities of geopolitical strategies and the shifting balance of power in East Asia. While China navigates its position cautiously, it remains to be seen how these developments will influence its relations with both North Korea and the broader international community. Credit: Newsweek 2024-07-01 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe