Social Media

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), recently shared details of a conversation he had with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an independent presidential candidate known for his controversial views on vaccines. This discussion was highlighted during Fauci's appearance on "The Axe Files with David Axelrod" podcast. Fauci recounted a meeting with Kennedy Jr., where Kennedy claimed he would lead a commission on vaccines under Trump's administration. During the meeting, Kennedy presented a slide claiming vaccines were responsible for numerous diseases, including autism. Fauci immediately challenged Kennedy, stating, "Excuse me, Bobby, but I don't really mean to interrupt you but there isn't a bit of evidence at all of anything that's on this slide." Fauci and his colleagues concluded the meeting by telling Kennedy Jr., "Bobby I'm sorry, but we don't really agree with you." Afterward, Fauci approached Kennedy Jr. and expressed his concern, "Bobby, I believe you care about children and you care that you don't want to hurt them but you got to realize from a scientific standpoint, what you're saying does make no sense." Fauci added his personal observation, "I don't know what's going on in his head but it's not good." Kennedy Jr., a prominent critic of vaccines even before the COVID-19 pandemic, reiterated his stance during a 2023 appearance on "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast. He spoke about friends whose children had adverse reactions to vaccines, asserting that healthy children lost their abilities after vaccination. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected two appeals cases related to the COVID-19 vaccine brought by the Children's Health Defense, a nonprofit founded by Kennedy Jr. Despite these legal setbacks, Kennedy Jr. remains an active independent candidate in the 2024 election. He has expressed openness to discussions with Democrats about potentially replacing President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee, stating in an interview with NewsNation's Chris Cuomo that he would consider such talks to avoid efforts by the Democratic National Committee to remove him from the ballot. Credit: Newsweek 2024-07-04 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a revealing new poll, a significant majority of voters who supported President Joe Biden in the 2020 election believe that his son, Hunter Biden, should serve prison time following his recent conviction on gun charges. Conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies, the survey of 2,500 registered voters found that 60 percent believe Hunter Biden deserves a custodial sentence. Among those who voted for Biden, 57 percent echoed this sentiment. Hunter Biden’s legal troubles stem from his conviction by a Delaware jury in June for illegally purchasing a firearm while using drugs, specifically crack cocaine, and lying about his drug use on a government form in May 2018. Despite Hunter’s denials and claims of not being an active drug user at the time, he faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison, with his sentencing scheduled no later than October 9. However, some legal experts argue that Hunter Biden might not receive a lengthy prison sentence. David Bredin of the Bredin Law Firm in New York suggested to Newsweek that Hunter might spend around a year in prison, factoring in good behavior and his lack of prior criminal history. "Factoring in good behavior, he will be released early as he has no criminal history, and other guidelines are taken into account," Bredin noted. In addition to the gun charge, Hunter Biden is also set to stand trial in California in September over allegations that he failed to pay $1.4 million in taxes between 2016 and 2019. This series of legal battles comes amid increased scrutiny and accusations from former President Donald Trump, who has claimed that President Biden has “weaponized” the Department of Justice against him to hinder his chances in the upcoming election. Interestingly, the Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll also highlighted broader voter concerns about the justice system. A majority of 58 percent of respondents believe the U.S. justice system is currently being "abused" for political purposes, a view shared by 53 percent of Biden voters. This sentiment reflects the ongoing political tensions surrounding Trump’s legal challenges. Trump, who became the first U.S. president in history to be convicted of a crime after a New York jury found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records on May 30, has consistently denied any wrongdoing. He has labeled the investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office as a politically motivated "witch hunt" aimed at preventing his 2024 election bid. The poll results indicate mixed voter reactions to Trump's legal issues. About 34 percent of Americans say Trump's hush money conviction makes them more likely to vote for him in November, compared to 29 percent who say it makes them less likely to do so. Furthermore, 31 percent believe Trump's conviction increases his chances of winning the 2024 election, while 29 percent think it diminishes his chances. These findings come amid heightened political drama and legal battles involving both President Biden’s family and Trump. The Supreme Court's recent landmark ruling that Trump is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution in the federal 2020 election if his actions can be found to be considered "official acts" carried out in office adds another layer to this complex legal and political landscape. Hunter Biden’s situation also continues to evolve, with his legal team maintaining his innocence and disputing the charges. His case has drawn significant public attention not only because of his high-profile father but also due to the broader implications it has for discussions about justice and political bias in the U.S. The Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll, conducted between June 26-28 with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.96 percentage points, provides a snapshot of current voter sentiment amid these ongoing issues. The findings suggest that while there is a considerable appetite for holding Hunter Biden accountable among Biden voters, there is also a pervasive sense of disillusionment with the justice system’s perceived politicization. Credit: Newsweek 2024-07-04 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Martina Navratilova, the legendary tennis champion with 18 major singles titles, has voiced strong opposition to a controversial new campaign by lingerie company Bluebella. The campaign, which features members of Team GB's Olympic rugby sevens squad posing in lingerie, aims to convey that women can be both muscular and feminine. However, it has sparked significant backlash from prominent figures in women's sports, including Navratilova. Bluebella’s #StrongIsBeautiful campaign features Ellie Boatman, Jasmine Joyce, and Celia Quansah, though Quansah did not make the final cut for the Paris Olympics. The company’s intention was to challenge stereotypes and show that strong female athletes can also embrace their femininity. Despite these intentions, the campaign has been widely criticized as regressive and sexist. Navratilova expressed her dismay, stating, "The campaign feels really regressive and sexist to me." Her sentiments were echoed by Sharron Davies, a former swimmer, and Mara Yamauchi, a former British distance runner. Davies took to social media platform X to express her outrage, calling the campaign "an utterly shameful campaign" and questioning the decision to feature professional female athletes in what she described as "porn underwear." She criticized the campaign for perpetuating stereotypes and not addressing the real issues faced by young girls in sports. Yamauchi also criticized the campaign, labeling it "exploitative, demeaning, sexist, regressive rubbish." She argued that the primary audience for such a campaign is men, and portraying women as sex objects does nothing to encourage teenage girls to participate in sports. The criticism comes in the context of concerning statistics from Women In Sport, which reveal that 64 percent of secondary schoolgirls drop out of sports due to insecurities about their bodies during puberty. Critics like Davies and Yamauchi argue that campaigns like this do not help to tackle these issues and may even exacerbate them. The #StrongIsBeautiful campaign has been running for the past eight years and has previously included female athletes for the Rio and Tokyo Olympics. Despite its longevity, this latest iteration has clearly struck a nerve. Ellie Boatman, one of the athletes featured in the campaign, spoke about her experiences in an article for the Evening Standard. She recounted instances where boys were encouraged to target her on the field because she was perceived as the weak link simply because she was a girl. Boatman also highlighted the disparity in treatment and resources between boys’ and girls’ sports, noting that she often had to wear boys' kits that did not fit her properly. While Bluebella’s campaign intended to send a positive message about strength and femininity, the backlash from respected figures in women’s sports indicates a need for a more nuanced approach to addressing body image and participation in sports among young girls. The debate sparked by this campaign underscores the ongoing struggle to balance empowering messages with sensitivity to the issues faced by female athletes. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-04 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A network of Russia-based websites, disguised as local American newspapers, has been disseminating fake stories in a sophisticated, AI-powered disinformation campaign targeting the US election. This BBC investigation reveals a key figure behind this operation is a former Florida police officer who moved to Moscow. A notable example of these fabricated stories involves Olena Zelenska, the first lady of Ukraine. The false report claimed she bought a rare Bugatti Tourbillon sports car for €4.5 million ($4.8 million) in Paris using American military aid money. The story, appearing on an obscure French website, was quickly debunked. Experts noted anomalies in the posted invoice, and Bugatti issued a denial, calling it "fake news." However, the falsehood had already gone viral, with pro-Russia, pro-Trump activist Jackson Hinkle spreading it to over 6.5 million people on X (formerly Twitter). In total, at least 12 million X users saw the story, demonstrating the operation's effectiveness in spreading disinformation. This network, which BBC Verify first exposed last year, initially aimed to undermine Ukraine's government. Now, it focuses on influencing US voters and sowing distrust ahead of November's election. The investigation, conducted over six months and examining hundreds of articles across dozens of websites, shows that some fake stories have been shared by influencers and US Congress members. One significant fake story alleged that the FBI illegally wiretapped Donald Trump’s Florida resort, published on a website called The Houston Post, one of many sites with American-sounding names but run from Moscow. This falsehood played into Trump’s narrative of a biased legal system and a conspiracy against his campaign. Trump himself has accused the FBI of eavesdropping on his conversations. According to experts, this operation is part of a larger effort led from Moscow to spread disinformation during the US election campaign. While no hard evidence links these particular fake news websites directly to the Russian state, researchers note the operation's scale and sophistication resemble previous Kremlin-backed disinformation efforts. Chris Krebs, former director of the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, commented, “Russia will be involved in the US 2024 election, as will others,” highlighting the ongoing threat of foreign interference. The BBC contacted the Russian Foreign Ministry and Russia’s US and UK embassies but received no response. They also attempted to contact Hinkle for comment. Since disinformation campaigns gained attention during the 2016 US election, operators have become more creative in spreading their content and making it appear credible. This operation uses AI to generate thousands of news articles for dozens of sites with American-sounding names like Houston Post, Chicago Crier, Boston Times, and DC Weekly. Many stories on these sites are not outright fakes but are based on real news, rewritten by AI to fit a conservative stance. These stories are attributed to fake journalists with made-up names and profile pictures taken from the internet, such as a photo of best-selling writer Judy Batalion used for multiple stories under the name "Jessica Devlin." The operation's automation is evident in the sheer volume of content and its repetition across different websites, creating the illusion of legitimate news sources. Interspersed within this content are fake stories increasingly targeting American audiences. These stories often mix American and Ukrainian political issues, aiming to manipulate public perception. Clement Briens, senior threat intelligence analyst at Recorded Future, noted the operation’s scale, with 120 websites registered over three days in May. Newsguard, a company tracking misinformation sites, counted at least 170 sites connected to the operation. McKenzie Sadeghi, Newsguard’s AI and foreign influence editor, observed the operation's significant growth in size and reach, with Russia regularly amplifying these narratives via state TV, officials, and influencers. To make the fake stories more credible, operatives create YouTube videos featuring supposed “whistleblowers” or “independent journalists,” often using actors or AI-generated voices. These videos are cited in text stories on the fake newspaper websites and shared on social media, reaching both Russian influencers and Western audiences. For example, a story from DC Weekly about Ukrainian officials buying yachts with US military aid was repeated by US politicians, including Senator J.D. Vance and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. John Mark Dougan, a former US Marine and police officer, is a key figure in this operation. After fleeing to Moscow in 2016 following an FBI raid, Dougan has been involved in spreading disinformation. Despite denying involvement with the websites, digital evidence links him to the operation. Dougan's activities seem partly motivated by revenge against American authorities. The operation, initially focused on the war in Ukraine, has shifted to American and British politics, with false stories about US politics gaining prominence. Microsoft’s Clint Watts warned of the potential impact of this sophisticated disinformation campaign on the upcoming election, emphasizing the need to address this evolving threat. Nina Jankowicz, head of the American Sunlight Project, noted the shift towards “information laundering,” where fake stories are recycled into the mainstream to obscure their source. With increasing efforts to spread stories about UK politics and the Paris Olympics, the operation shows no signs of slowing down. Dougan, hinting at bigger plans, stated, “Don’t worry, the game is being upped,” indicating the ongoing evolution of this disinformation campaign. Credit: BBC 2024-07-04 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The debate surrounding transgender issues and radical gender ideology has significantly transformed the political landscape in Britain. Keir Starmer, the Labour Party leader and potential next Prime Minister, finds himself navigating questions on whether a woman can have a penis—a topic that would have seemed outlandish in 2010. This shift in discourse is largely attributed to high-profile interventions, such as those by JK Rowling, which have thrust transgender issues into the public eye and forced political parties to take clear stances. Over the past decade, the Conservative government has allowed radical gender ideology to permeate various sectors, from education to healthcare. The mandatory Relationship and Sex Education curriculum in schools, for instance, has been leveraged by activist groups to promote their views on gender identity, leading to confusion among teachers and parents. Research in 2022 highlighted that only a fraction of schools would inform parents if their child considered transitioning, and many taught that children could be "born in the wrong body." The Public Sector Equality Duty, often criticized for fostering identity politics, has entrenched radical gender ideology across numerous government departments and public bodies. This has resulted in controversial outcomes, such as male-born athletes competing in female sports and male-born prisoners being housed in women's prisons. The next government will face pressing questions on issues like the use of puberty blockers for children, protection of single-sex spaces, and the regulation of sports and educational materials. Public opinion on transgender issues has shifted notably. Support for allowing transgender people to change the sex on their birth certificate has decreased from 59% in 2016 to 26% today. Concurrently, nearly half of the population believes that attempts to ensure equal opportunities for transgender people have gone too far. Reflecting this sentiment, Starmer has stated that "women have a vagina and men have a penis" and expressed opposition to teaching gender ideology in schools, aligning with public discomfort over these issues. Starmer's challenge, if he becomes Prime Minister, will be translating his centrist rhetoric into effective governance. Labour's commitment to implementing the Cass Review's recommendations on transgender healthcare and a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices illustrates the party's internal conflicts and the complexity of balancing competing priorities. A critical step for Starmer would be to address the activism within the public sector. Many controversial policies have been introduced by public bodies and external agencies, often without ministerial approval. Starmer's track record of marginalizing the Corbynite Left within the Labour Party suggests he understands the importance of organizational cohesion. The real test will be whether he can similarly restore impartiality in the public sector and curtail the influence of activist-driven policies. Ultimately, Starmer's ability to manage this issue will significantly impact his leadership and the direction of the Labour Party, as well as the broader political discourse in Britain. Starmer knows that radical gender ideology is not popular; otherwise, he would not have said the things that he has. The proportion of people who agree that “a transgender person should be able to change the sex on their birth certificate” has dropped from a high of 59 percent in 2016 to 26 percent today. Simultaneously, 47 percent believe “attempts to give equal opportunities to transgender people have gone too far,” compared to only 22 percent who think they have not gone far enough. It is perhaps for this reason that he has recently clarified that he thinks “women have a vagina and men have a penis,” and moved quickly to suggest he believes that gender ideology should not be taught in schools, after his Shadow Education Secretary repeatedly refused to endorse the Government’s draft guidance. In Government, though, actions as well as words are needed. Labour’s recent tack to the centre puts it sharply at odds with many of its activists – and no small number of the parliamentary party – for whom “trans rights” are a sacred value. Difficult choices will have to be made. How, for example, could they simultaneously “implement the expert recommendations of the Cass Review” and introduce a “full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices” – both commitments in their manifesto? If Starmer wants to control the narrative on this agenda, one of the most important steps he could take is end the tide of activism within the public sector. Many of the more egregious policies of recent years were never commanded by ministers – but rather were introduced by stealth by public bodies, with staff networks and external training agencies advocating for the erasure of women’s rights and promoting ‘Stonewall law’ as fact. More than one Minister has found themselves in hot water as a result. Starmer has shown himself to be ruthless at clearing out the Corbynite Left from within the Labour Party. He understands that no organization can function well when certain factions push their own agenda and refuse to accept the authority of the leader. If he becomes Prime Minister, is he willing to be similarly ruthless in restoring impartiality to the public sector? Radical gender ideology is deeply embedded, and the next Government will have a number of questions to address. Will they defend the ban on giving puberty blockers to children, currently being challenged in the courts? Will they protect single-sex intimate care in the NHS and protect women’s spaces in prisons and in refuge centers? Will they continue funding sporting bodies that allow biological males to compete in the female category? Will they endorse the two critical pieces of schools guidance currently out to consultation? These would, among other things, guarantee parents’ right to see teaching materials and ensure they are informed if their child questioned their gender, and clarify that schools should not teach the contested concept of gender identity. Starmer's ability to manage this issue will significantly impact his leadership and the direction of the Labour Party, as well as the broader political discourse in Britain. This shift in discourse is largely attributed to high-profile interventions, such as those by JK Rowling, which have thrust transgender issues into the public eye and forced political parties to take clear stances. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-04 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a shocking incident that has left the community reeling, a lesbian couple celebrating a birthday in downtown Halifax, Canada, was brutally beaten by a group of men after being subjected to homophobic slurs. The terrifying scene, captured on video, shows the couple surrounded by nearly a dozen men, with one woman lying on the ground while the other struggles to break free from one of the attackers. The assault occurred on June 22, when Emma MacLean and her girlfriend Tori Hogan were out celebrating Emma's birthday. The couple encountered a group of men who allegedly made rude comments about their sexuality. MacLean described the men as "Middle Eastern" and said they are "believed to be from Syria." Tori, upset by the slur, confronted the men, saying, "Hey, watch your mouth, that's my girlfriend." However, her attempt to stand up for Emma quickly escalated into violence. Around 1:30 a.m., the group of approximately ten men began beating Tori. Emma recounted the horrifying events to CTV News, describing how Tori was pushed onto cement stairs and then surrounded and attacked. "I see Tori being pushed on the stairs right in front of the BMO Centre, and they are cement stairs, and she's on her back—that's when all the men started punching and kicking them," Emma said. Despite Emma's attempts to intervene by yelling at the men to stop, they continued their assault on Tori. Emma described how she eventually tried to protect her girlfriend by physically restraining one of the attackers. "All at once they all just swarmed her and started punching and kicking her in the ribs. Then I kind of got into my fight or flight," Emma told Saltwire. She explained that she "basically jumped on one of their backs and put them in a chokehold—trying to restrain them." Witnesses captured videos showing some of the men kicking at one of the women on the ground while the other struggled to break free. By the time police were alerted and arrived on the scene, the fight had already ended. Officers spoke with one of the men involved, who blamed the fight on the two women. While he provided his ID, the other men refused to cooperate or identify themselves, according to Emma. Halifax Regional Police are still investigating the incident, and no charges have been brought against the attackers. Emma and Tori believe the assailants are between 18 and 24 years old. Emma said police are hoping to obtain CCTV footage, but existing videos taken by witnesses clearly show the men "beating up two girls." The assault left both women with injuries. Tori suffered bruises on her arm and under her eye, while Emma was left with a chipped tooth, a broken nose, and bruises. Recounting the incident, Emma said, "I felt punches and kicks and then I felt it on my nose and there was blood." Despite her training in mixed martial arts, Emma opted to try and restrain one of the attackers rather than throw punches. "I put them in a chokehold," she said, recalling how both she and the man fell to the ground before she let go after "being manhandled." The attack has left Emma and Tori shaken and terrified to return to downtown Halifax. Emma expressed her heartbreak over the incident, especially during Pride Month. "Now people will be terrified to hold their partner's hand walking down the street. It’s just a major setback," she told Saltwire. She believes they were targeted due to their sexuality, noting that one of the men told Tori, "You wish you had a dick." Emma added, "Clearly, they picked her out—she's a more masculine-presenting lady than I am, so I think they thought they had the go ahead—she was fair game for them." Emma shared photos of the men from the night of the attack and pleaded for anyone with information or video footage to come forward. Halifax Regional Police issued a statement emphasizing their commitment to taking incidents "motivated by hate toward a specific group very seriously." They encouraged anyone exposed to offensive, threatening, or intimidating behavior to report it, stating, "Even if the investigation does not find criminal wrongdoing in that specific incident, it is important to have it on record as part of the collective effort to identify trends and prevent violence." Credit: LBC | Daily Mail 2024-07-04 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant development, German and Swedish authorities announced on Wednesday the arrest of eight men suspected of committing crimes against humanity during Syria's civil war. These coordinated arrests highlight the ongoing efforts by European nations to hold perpetrators accountable for atrocities committed in the conflict. The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office in Germany stated that four stateless Syrian Palestinians and a Syrian national were "strongly suspected of killing and attempting to kill civilians, qualified as crimes against humanity and war crimes." Meanwhile, Swedish authorities confirmed the arrest of three individuals for alleged crimes against humanity. German authorities detailed the arrests, identifying the suspects as Jihad A., Mazhar J., and Sameer S., who were apprehended in Berlin, Mahmoud A. in Frankenthal, Rhineland-Palatinate, and Wael S. near Boizenburg in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania. These men are accused of participating in severe abuses and killings during the Syrian civil war. According to the German Prosecutor's Office, Mazhar J. was a member of the Syrian Military Intelligence Service's Branch 235, and he is accused of abusing at least one person in a Syrian prison. The other suspects—Jihad A., Mahmoud A., Sameer S., and Wael S.—were allegedly affiliated with the Free Palestine Movement (FPM), which controlled the Al Yarmouk district in Damascus on behalf of Bashar Assad's regime around the spring of 2011. The FPM reportedly worked closely with the Syrian Military Intelligence Service, including Branches 227 and 235, also known as the Palestine branch. These branches have been accused of committing numerous atrocities throughout the war, including mass killings, torture, and other severe abuses. Prosecutors allege that all suspects arrested in Germany took part in a violent crackdown in Al Yarmouk in July 2012, where civilian protesters were specifically targeted and shot, resulting in the deaths of six people. Additionally, four of the suspects are accused of physically abusing civilians at checkpoints in Al Yarmouk severely and repeatedly. Furthermore, German authorities claimed that three civilian victims of a massacre on April 16, 2013, in which 41 people were killed, had been arrested at one of these checkpoints and handed over to Branch 227 by Mahmoud A. In Sweden, three alleged FPM members suspected of participating in the Al Yarmouk crackdown were arrested. Swedish prosecutor Ulrika Bentelius Egelrud, overseeing the investigation, attributed the arrests to "good cooperation with Germany, Eurojust, and Europol." Germany has been a significant destination for Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war, which has raged since 2011. The country has previously taken steps to bring Syrian war criminals to justice. In 2022, a German court in the western city of Koblenz convicted a Syrian ex-colonel of crimes against humanity, setting a precedent for such cases. These recent arrests underscore the commitment of European nations to pursue justice for victims of the Syrian conflict. By targeting individuals responsible for heinous crimes, authorities aim to provide a measure of accountability and hope for those who have suffered immensely during the war. Credit: DW 2024-07-04 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Video from an Egyptian Youtuber has been removed, this is not an approved source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit has proven to be a significant success, defying the dire predictions made by Remain supporters. They warned that leaving the European Union would cause our trade to plummet. However, the current figures tell a different story, and Labour's claims that reducing frictions with the single market would spur growth are questionable, given our existing comprehensive free trade deal. Government statistics reveal a substantial increase in our service exports, which continue to thrive globally. Following Brexit, the UK has ascended to become the second largest global exporter of services, trailing only the United States. This impressive achievement has gone largely uncelebrated by those who were convinced that we would lose export orders. Between 2016 and 2023, British exports surged by 50%, according to official data. While the COVID-19 lockdowns caused a temporary dip in international sales, overall performance has been robust, outstripping inflation. The services sector, in particular, has been a powerhouse, consistently accounting for more than half of our total exports. Our trade with the rest of the world grew faster than our trade with the EU even while we were still a member. This trend has persisted post-Brexit, with non-EU countries now representing 59% of our exports. We are actively signing trade agreements with non-EU nations, which include provisions for freer trade in services—often absent from EU deals. Despite maintaining substantial imports from the EU, we continue to run a significant trade deficit with them. The EU accounts for 52% of our imports, a situation exacerbated by the UK's net zero policies. These policies have priced us out of fossil fuel-dependent industries, increasing our reliance on EU energy and industrial products. Our domestic oil and gas production has been scaled down in favor of more CO2-intensive LNG imports. The UK has also climbed the ranks in attracting foreign investment, particularly in new activities and greenfield sites. In 2021 and 2022, the UK was the second most successful destination for foreign direct investment, trailing only the US and surpassing China. We attracted three times as much investment as Germany and more than four times as much as France. Contrary to the notion that Brexit would diminish our global standing, the latest Brand Finance Soft Power survey places the UK second only to the US, ahead of China, Japan, Germany, and France. Post-Brexit, the UK has reclaimed its independent seat and vote at the World Trade Organisation, reduced tariffs, formed the AUKUS alliance with the US and Australia, and emerged as a NATO leader alongside the US. It is time for commentators and lobby groups to abandon their pessimistic outlook on our trade. Their forecasts, based on outdated models that favored trade with nearby neighbors, failed to account for the robust trade relationships that nations like China have with Europe and America. Our membership in the Trans-Pacific Partnership underscores our shift toward trading more with non-European nations. This move connects us to a rapidly growing and vital part of the world. British services are in high demand globally, fostering deeper international relationships and showcasing our skills. Post-Brexit Britain is held in higher regard, wields more influence, and enjoys more robust trade than during our EU membership. We are also avoiding a share of the EU's mounting debts and saving on significant annual contributions, which is particularly beneficial given our domestic budgetary pressures. John Redwood Opinion Credit: Daily Telegraph 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 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

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

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

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

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

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