Exiled Moldovan opposition head decries police crackdown
RT | August 7, 2025
Moldova’s police action targeting alleged electoral corruption amounts to political persecution of the opponents of the government, according to exiled opposition politician Ilan Shor.
The authorities in Moldova said on Thursday they are conducting 78 search warrants across the country targeting individuals described as “members and sympathizers of a criminal organization.”
Ilan Shor, who leads the opposition Victory political bloc from abroad, claimed that the actions are directed at silencing his movement. The bloc is trying to overturn its ban from taking part in the upcoming parliamentary election against the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity.
“Law enforcement is turning offices and homes upside down solely under this demented suspicion of interference in the 2025 election, which hasn’t even taken place,” Shor said. “These searches are just more political repression and intimidation of anyone who refuses to support those scoundrels.”
Last week, President Maia Sandu, who Shor branded a “microdictator,” accused the Russian government of planning to covertly funnel more than €100 million ($115 million) to her political opponents ahead of Moldova’s parliamentary vote scheduled for September. The Kremlin rejected the claim, calling it another attempt by Chisinau to deflect attention from what it described as the government’s erosion of democratic norms.
Sandu has defended her administration’s crackdown on what she claims are pro-Russian criminal networks, saying these actions are critical to keeping Moldova on the path to EU membership.
Shor, who now resides in Russia, is the founder of the SOR party, which was outlawed by the Moldovan authorities in 2023 after its candidate, Evgenia Gutsul, won a regional election in the autonomous Gagauzia region.
Gutsul, now a leading figure in the Victory bloc, which was formed in 2024 by Euroskeptic politicians, including former SOR members, was sentenced this week to seven years in prison over alleged financial crimes. She denied any wrongdoing and called the verdict an attempt at political assassination.
How Germany is coercing immigrants into normalising ‘Israel’
By Timo Al-Farooq | Al Mayadeen | August 6, 2025
With a prerequisite residency period of five years, Germany boasts one of the fastest pathways to EU citizenship. But what seems like a gracious timeline comes at a high moral price, depending on where in Germany you live.
In June, Brandenburg, which surrounds the capital Berlin, became the second state in Germany after neighbouring Saxony-Anhalt to make it mandatory for citizenship applicants to recognise “the security and right to exist of the state of Israel”, as the state capital Potsdam’s oath of loyalty form phrases it.
Yes, the same “Israel” that came into existence by ethnically cleansing 750,000 Indigenous Palestinians from their land, is responsible for the longest-running military occupation in modern history, and for the past 21 months has been waging a genocidal war of unvarnished savagery on Gaza, where an entire civilian population is also deliberately being starved to death since March.
“To say that our country is turning into a banana republic with its pro-Israel fanaticism would be a trivialisation of this insanity,” commented Tarek Baé, a German journalist and content creator of Arab descent, on Germany’s latest ploy to silence dissent in the service of a foreign, rogue entity.
Signing over one’s conscience
Brandenburg’s governing centrist Social Democrats (SPD) pressed ahead with the controversial move with neither knowledge nor consent of their left-wing coalition partner, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), which lambasted the SPD’s solo run as “a direct attack on the heart of our democracy.”
The “Israel” caveat to the state’s naturalisation process now requires applicants who wish to become German citizens to sign over their conscience, with the text of the pre-formulated pledge exhibiting the boilerplate false equivalencies inherent to Western Palestine/”Israel” discourse.
Predictably, the form follows the oppressive practice of equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. It also posits that two supremacist wrongs, Nazism and the Zionism, make a right when it says that Germany’s “national socialist genocide” against European Jews justifies its “special and close relationship with Israel,” the rationale behind Germany’s infamous Staatsräson.
“Israel’s” “repressive hybrid regime of settler colonialism, occupation and apartheid” and “Zionism’s urge to Judaize Palestine”, to quote from Israeli activist scholar Jeff Halper’s book Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine, is not mentioned, of course.
Unsurprisingly so, as telling the truth about “Israel” would raise uncomfortable questions about why a democratic country like Germany would want to have a “special and close relationship” with such an ostensibly anti-democratic entity in the first place, let alone force prospective Germans to have one too.
Weaponising migration law
Following October 7, 2023, the wolf in sheep’s clothing that is Germany immediately began cracking down on Palestine advocacy in an hitherto unprecedented manner.
By doing so, it used the Hamas-led attacks on thar day as an excuse to do away with basic democratic rights, at long last shedding the snakeskin of play-acted sympathy for the decades-long plight of the Palestinian people to reveal a deep-seated, racist hatred of them.
Last month, a coalition of prominent Palestine solidarity groups released a landmark report which meticulously details Germany’s expedited metamorphosis from a democracy to “one of the most repressive EU states in relation to Palestine advocacy.”
Among the wide array of authoritarian measures, the report highlights Germany’s “use of migration law as a punitive stick” against “non-citizens involved in Palestine activism.” In this context, the weaponisation of naturalisation law against long-term immigrants has emerged as a creative way to coerce a significant demographic bloc of racialised people into normalising the Zionist project.
Brandenburg’s controversial move is already having an undesirable bandwagon effect in Berlin, home to the largest Palestinian diaspora in Europe and Germany’s epicentre of police brutality against anti-genocide protesters.
Kai Wegner, the city’s Zionist mayor, has voiced strong sympathies for adding a pro-“Israel” Nibelungentreue to citizenship applications in Berlin. He has repeatedly defamed peaceful anti-war protests as violent and antisemitic and spread mendacious copaganda that paints lawless hooligans in uniform who treat Palestine solidarity rallies as beat ’em up video games as victims.
State-sponsored blackmail
Compulsory oaths of loyalty, however controversial the practice, are nothing new in the context of citizenship applications in Western democracies. But they normally require the applicant to profess fealty to the country whose citizenship they wish to acquire.
Extorting signed pledges of allegiance to a third-party entity, particularly one whose “most cruel and machiavellian scheme to kill, with total impunity” has turned Gaza into “a graveyard of children and starving people”, to quote UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini, is an unprecedented anomaly and further cements Germany’s deplorable outlier status even among “Israel’s” most devoted allies.
As a result of Germany’s latest instance of state-sponsored blackmail in the service of legitimising “Israel”, citizenship applicants in Brandenburg will now be forced to make a Sophie’s-choice-like decision between their moral integrity and the secure legal status, political rights, and global mobility that a German nationality provides.
This dehumanising sadism reflects Germany’s overall post-October 7 authoritarianism which is leaving principled people trapped between the proverbial rock and a hard place: either speak out against genocide and risk being brutalised by the police, persecuted by the legal system or fired from your job, or be silent and forced to live with the corrosive effects of a guilty conscience.
Trump Admin DENYING DISASTER RELIEF to Americans Over Israel Stance?
Glenn Greenwald | August 5, 2025
Democracy being trampled in Moldova – Kremlin
RT | August 5, 2025
Tuesday’s sentencing of Moldovan regional leader Evgenia Gutsul is a politically motivated decision and an example of democracy being trampled in Moldova, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
Gutsul, elected head of EU-candidate Moldova’s Gagauzia region, was sentenced by a Chisinau court to seven years in prison on charges of illegally financing the banned Euroskeptic SOR party. She has denied the allegations and called the case an attempt to eliminate opposition to Moldova’s pro-Western government.
“This is truly an example of a politically motivated decision, this is an example of attempts to exert blatant and, in fact, illegal pressure on political opponents during the election campaign,” Peskov told reporters.
He accused the Moldovan authorities of suppressing dissent, stating that “the opposition is being squeezed in every possible way in Moldova. In fact, people are being deprived of the opportunity to vote for those they prefer.”
“The rules and norms of democracy are being trampled in every possible way now in this country,” Peskov added.
Gutsul was elected head of Gagauzia, the autonomous and predominantly Russian and Turkic-speaking region in southern Moldova, after winning the 2023 election as a SOR candidate. She campaigned on promises of closer ties with Russia and opposed Moldovan President Maia Sandu’s push for integration with the EU and NATO.
In March, she was detained over allegations of campaign financing violations and falsifying documents. Gutsul has maintained her innocence and appealed to both Russia and Türkiye to apply pressure on the Moldovan government to defend Gagauzia’s rights.
Moscow has repeatedly condemned the case against Gutsul. In July, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the prosecution an example of “European anti-values in action” and accused Brussels of turning Moldova into a “liberal dictatorship.”
The EU had previously sanctioned Gutsul for “promoting separatism,” maintaining “close ties with Russia,” and allegedly threatening Moldova’s sovereignty.
Her prosecution has triggered street protests in the capital, Chisinau, with supporters describing the trial as a politically driven attempt to neutralize the opposition and accusing President Sandu of authoritarianism.
Trump conditions $1.9B in disaster funds on rejection of Israel boycotts
MEMO | August 4, 2025
The Trump administration has threatened to withhold roughly $1.9 billion in disaster preparedness funding to states and cities that support boycotts of Israel or Israeli firms.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) said in grant notices published Friday that applicants must comply with its internal terms and conditions, which include clauses mandating that entities seeking funding not support efforts to blacklist Israel.
Applicants must not support severing “commercial relations, or otherwise limiting commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies or with companies doing business in or with Israel or authorized by, licensed by, or organized under the laws of Israel to do business,” according to the 2025 fiscal year terms and conditions, posted in April.
EPA Finally Proposes To Rescind The Endangerment Finding
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | July 29, 2025
It’s been a long time coming. But today the EPA, through its Administrator Lee Zeldin, finally began the formal process of rescinding the so-called “Endangerment Finding” (EF). The EF is the 2009 regulatory action by which the Obama-era EPA purported to determine that CO2 and other greenhouse gases constitute a “danger to human health and welfare.” That Finding then formed the basis for all subsequent federal greenhouse gas regulations, including efforts of Obama and Biden regulators to force the closure of all power plants running on coal and natural gas, and to mandate increased vehicle mileage to levels that no internal combustion engine could meet.
EPA initiated the rescission process today by means of an announcement in a speech by Zeldin, who appeared at an event in Indianapolis, and also through this document, titled “Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards.” The document looks to be about a couple of hundred pages long, although it’s hard to know exactly, because the pages aren’t numbered.
Long time readers here will know that I have been an active participant in efforts, beginning when President Trump first took office in 2017, to get the EF rescinded. Immediately after Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, co-counsel Harry MacDougald and I filed a Petition to EPA, on behalf of the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC), seeking the rescission. Here is a post I wrote in April 2017, describing the initiation of the petition process, and also linking to our Petition. But during Trump’s first term, despite the critical importance of the EF in supporting all of the burdensome “climate” regulations, EPA never undertook the rescission process. We continued to press the point, filing some seven supplements to our Petition during the four years of Trump’s first term. For example, here is a post from July 2017 announcing the first of the Supplements to our Petition, based on new research at the time.
Ultimately our Petition was denied in 2022 by the Biden EPA. We then appealed that denial to the DC Circuit, where our appeal was denied in 2023, and to the U.S. Supreme Court, where certiorari was denied in 2024.
Well, the proposal in today’s document will reverse the denial of our Petition. I can’t give you a page cite, but this quote is from the page of the EPA document that contains footnote 15:
If finalized, this action would also rescind denial[] of petitions for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding in 2022 . . . entitled “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Action on Petitions,” 87 FR 25412 (Apr. 29, 2022). . . .
Vindication!
As to the grounds for the prospective rescission, EPA appears ready to take on both the legal and scientific bases of the EF. As to the legal analysis, the following quote comes from the page preceding footnote 42:
Section IV.A of this preamble describes our primary proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding by concluding that CAA section 202(a) does not authorize the EPA to prescribe standards for GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns or to issue standalone findings that do not apply the statutory standard for regulation as a cohesive whole. If finalized, this proposal would require rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations because we lacked statutory authority to issue them in the first instance. . . . Next, we propose that the Nation’s response to global climate change concerns generally, and specifically whether that response should include regulating GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines, is an economically and politically significant issue that triggers the major questions doctrine under UARG and West Virginia, and that Congress did not clearly authorize the EPA to decide it by empowering the Administrator to “prescribe … standards” under CAA section 202(a). Throughout this section, we propose that the Endangerment Finding relied on various forms of Chevron deference to depart from the best reading of the statute and exceeded the EPA’s authority in several fundamental respects, any one of which would independently require rescission to conform to the best reading of the law.
On the subject of “climate science,” the following quote comes from the document’s pre-amble:
[T]he Administrator has serious concerns that many of the scientific underpinnings of the Endangerment Finding are materially weaker than previously believed and contradicted by empirical data, peer-reviewed studies, and scientific developments since 2009.
Then, on the page with footnote 87 there begins a lengthy section titled “Climate Science Discussion.” The gist of this entire section is that the alarmists have not proved their claims. There are lengthy paragraphs reviewing data on all the major “extreme weather” claims, and citing work showing no increasing or accelerating trends in things like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, sea level and the like. Here is a paragraph that reiterates a theme of our Petition, namely that the amount of human caused global warming cannot be separated from what may be caused by natural factors:
The Administrator is also troubled by the Endangerment Finding’s seemingly inconsistent treatment of the nature and extent of the role human action with respect to climate change. The Endangerment Finding attributes the entirety of adverse impacts from climate change to increased GHG concentrations, and it attributes virtually the entirety of increased GHG concentrations to anthropogenic emissions from all sources. But the causal role of anthropogenic emissions is not the exclusive source of these phenomena, and any projections and conclusions bearing on the issue should be appropriately discounted to reflect additional factors. Moreover, recent data and analyses suggest that attributing adverse impacts from climate change to anthropogenic emissions in a reliable manner is more difficult than previously believed and demand additional analysis of the role of natural factors and other anthropogenic factors such as urbanization and localized population growth (2025 CWG Draft Report at 14-22, 82-92).
The process here will likely take until around the end of this year for EPA to formally enact the rescission. And then the legal battles begin — first to the DC Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. The big question: Can the administration get this process to the Supreme Court in time to avoid a reversal of this whole regulatory effort by a Democratic administration that could be elected in 2028? I would think that if the Supremes have upheld this effort of Trump’s EPA before January 2029, it will be very difficult for a subsequent administration to reverse. On the other hand, if the status as of January 2029 is that the DC Circuit has struck down EPA’s rescission and the matter is pending in the Supreme Court, it would be much easier to attempt a reversal. But the ongoing failure of “net zero” energy transition plans in places like New York, California, Germany and the UK may make reversal a dead letter anyway.
I want to offer my thanks and gratitude to the small band of independent thinkers who have fought this lonely battle all these years, in the face of the billions of dollars at the hands of the climate industrial juggernaut. For particular mention: the members of CHECC (including its moving force, James Wallace); my co-counsel Harry MacDougald; the few think tanks that have taken on this issue, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (who filed a Petition for rescission of the EF along with ours) and the Heartland Institute; the CO2 Coalition, including its Chair Will Happer and Executive Director Greg Wrightstone; CFACT; the Global Warming Policy Foundation (I serve on its Board); and Anthony Watts and Charles Rotter at Watts Up With That. I’m sure that there are a few that I have forgotten. Congratulations to all!
EV Update: Will The Market Survive The Expiration Of The Federal Tax Credit?
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | July 26, 2025
How quickly things change.
It was barely more than a year ago that climate activists and federal bureaucrats thought they had maneuvered the internal combustion engine (ICE) automobile to the brink of extinction. ICE vehicles had become like dinosaurs, inferior to their new competitors the EVs, and therefore headed for the scrap heap of history. Customers were flocking to the trendy new EVs, which were seeing rapidly rising sales.
And the all-powerful federal bureaucracy was going to give the final push to put ICE vehicles out of their misery. On June 7, 2024 President Biden’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had issued a final rule (“Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond”) jacking up mandatory average vehicle mileage to 50+ [mpg] as of 2031, with further increases to follow from there. Since no ICE vehicles bigger than a baby carriage could achieve that mileage, the only path forward for vehicle manufacturers would be rapid conversion to making only EVs. NHTSA’s mileage rule had also quickly followed an equally draconian mandate from EPA, finalized on April 18, 2024 (“Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles”) setting strict and declining limits for CO2 emissions that no ICE vehicles would be able to meet by the early 2030s. And meanwhile, 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act had extended a $7500 tax credit to buyers of new EVs through December 31, 2032.
So all the pieces were in place. By some time in the early 2030s, it would be effectively illegal to sell new ICE cars, and they would be rapidly disappearing from the roads.
Well, not so fast. Suddenly, the rapid advance of the EV may have stalled out completely. The federal regulators have reversed their direction. And customer preferences seemingly favorable to EVs may turn out to evaporate as soon as federal tax benefits end, an event now just a couple of months away.
NHTSA’s CAFE standards just got eviscerated by the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act. Although the standards themselves have not yet been rescinded, the OBBB re-set the enforcement mechanism to have a maximum penalty of zero. This is from a July 8, 2025 memo from the law firm Sidley & Austin:
In one of its many changes, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted on July 4, 2025, eliminated civil penalties for noncompliance with federal fuel economy standards. Specifically, Section 40006 of the Act amends the language of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) statute to reset the maximum civil penalty to $0.00. Although the statute and its implementing regulations otherwise remain in place, this amendment removes any civil penalties for producing passenger cars and light trucks that do not meet fuel economy requirements.
As to the EPA-mandated CO2 emissions limits for vehicles, EPA announced on March 12, 2025 that it was beginning a process of reconsidering the vehicle greenhouse gas emissions rule that had just been adopted less than a year before. Excerpt:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency will reconsider the Model Year 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles regulation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. In addition to imposing over $700 billion in regulatory and compliance costs, these rules provided the foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate that takes away Americans’ ability to choose a safe and affordable car for their family and increases the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver.
That one may be in the regulatory grinder for many months, but with little doubt as to what the final result will be, namely full rescission.
And the $7500 per new vehicle tax credit? After just having been extended to 2032 by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the credit has now been modified by the OBBBA to end as of September 30, 2025. From Kiplinger, July 12:
With the passage of President Donald Trump’s 2025 tax reform, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) the federal EV tax credit will expire for vehicles purchased or leased after September 30, 2025. As a result, buyers have only a short window left to take advantage of these federal savings.
All of a sudden, EVs and ICE vehicles are set to compete on a completely level playing field, with no mandates or tax credits propping up the EV side of the competition. How will that turn out? It remains to be seen, but data from the first half of the year indicate that the previous rapid increase in EV sales may already be stalling out. In a reversal for a previously rapidly-growing market segment, sales of EVs in the second quarter of 2025 declined significantly from the same period the prior year. From Cox Automotive, July 14, 2025:
[S]ales of new electric vehicles (EVs) in the second quarter of 2025 were lower year over year by 6.3%, in line with the Cox Automotive forecast. A total of 310,839 new EVs were sold in the U.S, down from 331,853 in the same period a year earlier. Sales in Q2 were higher than in Q1 by 4.9%, and total EV sales through the first half of 2025 set a record at 607,089, representing a 1.5% year-over-year increase.
Cox continues to predict a spike in EV sales in the third quarter of 2025, in the run-up to the expiration of the tax credit on September 30. However, after that, it is entirely likely that there will be a significant decline. Without the government mandates and subsidies, it’s hard to see EVs expanding much beyond being a niche product used as a second (or third) vehicle by affluent buyers.
Moldova Could Disappear If Pro-Western Regime Retains Power – Advisor to Regional Governor
Sputnik – 03.08.2025
CHISINAU – The state of Moldova could vanish from the world map if the pro-Western regime remains in power after the September 28 parliamentary elections, Mikhail Vlah, an adviser to Gagauzia head Yevgenia Gutsul, said on Sunday.
“The romanization of our state has been ongoing since the early days of Moldova’s independence. Back in the 1990s, a significant part of the intelligentsia and political elite set a course for uniting our country with Romania. Unfortunately, this process has not stopped for 35 years… If the pro-Western regime retains power in any way after September 28, Moldova as a state may disappear from the world’s political map,” Vlah said on Telegram.
Governments change and political parties in parliament come and go, but the strategy for incorporating Moldova into Romania remains the unchanging goal of the Moldovan-Romanian political elite, he said.
“In kindergartens and schools, children are taught the history of Romanians, ignoring our own Moldovan history. Our history is ancient and rich, starting with Stephen the Great. All key political and economic processes in the country occur under the direct influence of the neighboring state. The highest state positions are held by Romanians: the president, the prime minister, the parliament speaker. The head of Moldova’s National Bank is a Romanian woman, the judges of the Constitutional Court are Romanians, the leaders of the Information and Security Service, and so on,” Vlah emphasized.
The Moldovan government has been criticized for cracking down on the opposition and arbitrarily arresting its leaders. Gagauzia’s governor was detained at the Chisinau airport in March on charges of violating campaign finance rules and falsifying documents. Opposition lawmakers have been routinely detained at Moldovan airports for visiting Russia, while criminal cases continue piling up against government critics.
The government has also blocked over 100 Telegram channels and shut down more than a dozen media outlets, including Sputnik Moldova and several major TV channels.
Trump Admin Wants DEI for Jewish Students?!
Glenn Greenwald | August 2, 2025
This is a clip from our show SYSTEM UPDATE, now airing every weeknight at 7pm ET on Rumble.
You can watch the full episode for FREE here: https://rumble.com/v6x01gs-system-upd…
Now available as a podcast! Find full episodes here: https://linktr.ee/systemupdate_
Join us LIVE on Rumble, weeknights at 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
The real Russiagate scandal blows away Watergate for crimes and treason by U.S. establishment
Strategic Culture Foundation | August 1, 2025
So the hoax is finally officially acknowledged. “Russiagate” – the mainstream narrative, that is – is now described by American intelligence chiefs as a fabrication that was concocted to overturn the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.
Tulsi Gabbard, the current Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and CIA director John Ratcliffe have both accused former President Barack Obama of engaging in a “treasonous conspiracy” to subvert the constitutional process. It’s not just Obama who is implicated in this high crime. Other former senior officials in his 2013-17 administration, including former DNI James Clapper, CIA director John Brennan, and head of the FBI James Comey, are also implicated. If justice is permitted, the political repercussions are truly earth-shattering.
The potential impact is not confined solely to the violation of U.S. laws and the democratic process – bad enough as that is. The Russiagate scandal that began in 2016 has had a lasting, damaging effect on U.S. and European relations with Russia. The frightfully dangerous NATO proxy war incited in Ukraine, which threatens to escalate into a full-scale world war, was fueled in large part by the hostility generated from the false claims of Russian interference in the U.S. elections.
The allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin oversaw a subversion campaign against the 2016 U.S. election and colluded with Donald Trump to get him elected were always specious. The scandal was based on shoddy intel claims to purportedly explain how Trump defeated his Democrat rival, Hillary Clinton. Subsequently, the scandal was hyped into a seemingly credible narrative by U.S. intelligence chiefs at the direction of then-President Barack Obama as a way to delegitimize Trump’s incoming first-term presidency.
Years before the recent intelligence disclosures, many independent journalists, including Aaron Maté, and former intelligence analysts like Ray MacGovern and William Binney, had cogently disproven the official Russiagate claims. Not only were these claims false, they were knowingly false. That is, lies and deliberate distortions. Russia did not hack emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee to discredit Clinton. Clinton’s corruption was exposed by a DNC internal leak to Julian Assange’s Wikileaks whistleblower site. That was partly why Assange was persecuted with years-long incarceration.
A large enough number of voters simply despised Clinton and her warmongering psychopathy, as well as her sell-out of working-class Americans for Wall Street largesse.
Furthermore, Moscow consistently denied any involvement in trying to influence the 2016 U.S. election or attempts to favor Trump. Putin has said more than once that Russia has no preference about who becomes U.S. president, implying that they’re all the same and controlled by deeper state forces. Laughably, too, while Washington accused Moscow of election interference, the actual record shows that the United States has habitually interfered in scores of foreign elections over many decades, including those of Russia. No other nation comes close to the U.S. – the self-declared “leader of the free world” – in sabotaging foreign elections.
In any case, it is instructive to compare the Russiagate farce with the Watergate scandal. Watergate involved spying by the White House of President Richard Nixon against a Democrat rival in the 1972 election. The political crisis that ensued led to Nixon’s resignation in disgrace in 1974. The U.S. nation was shocked by the dirty tricks. Several senior White House officials were later convicted and served time in jail for crimes related to the affair. Nixon was later pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, and avoided prosecution. Nevertheless, Watergate indelibly disgraced U.S. politics and, at the time, was described as “the worst political scandal of the 20th century.”
Subsequent cases of corruption and malfeasance are often dubbed with the suffix “gate” in a nod to Watergate as a momentous political downfall. Hence, “Russiagate.”
There are hugely important differences, however. While Watergate was a scandal based on factual crimes and wrongdoing, Russiagate was always a contrived propaganda deception. The real scandal behind Russiagate was not Trump’s alleged misdeeds or those of Russia, but the criminal conspiracy by Obama and his administration to sabotage the 2016 election and subsequently to overthrow the Trump presidency and the democratic will of the American people. Tulsi Gabbard, the nation’s most senior intelligence chief, has said that this amounts to “treason,” and she has called for the prosecution of Obama and other former senior aides.
Arguably, the real Russiagate scandal is far more criminal and devastating in its political implications than Watergate. The latter involved illegal spying and dirty tricks. Whereas, Russiagate involved a president and his intelligence chiefs trying to subvert the entire democratic process. Not only that, but the U.S. mainstream media are also now exposed for perpetrating a propaganda heist on the American public. All of the major U.S. media outlets amplified the politicised intelligence orchestrated by the Obama administration, claiming that Russia interfered in the election and that Trump was a “Kremlin stooge.” The hoax became an obsession in the U.S. media for years and piled up severe damage in international relations, a nefarious legacy that we are living with today.
The New York Times and Washington Post, reputedly two of the finest exponents of American journalism, jointly won the Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for their reporting on Russiagate, the official version, that is, which lent credibility to the hoax. In light of what we know now, these newspapers should be hanging their heads in shame for running a Goebbels-like Big Lie campaign to not only deceive the U.S. public but to subvert the democratic process and poison international relations. Their reputations are shredded, as well as those of other major media outlets, including ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC.
Ironically, The Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize in 1973 for its reporting on the Watergate scandal. The story was made into a best-selling book, All The President’s Men, and a hit Hollywood movie starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, playing the roles of intrepid reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Woodward and Bernstein and The Washington Post were acclaimed as the finest in U.S. journalism for exposing Watergate and bringing a crooked president to book.
How shameful and absurd that an even greater assault on American democracy and international relations in the form of Russiagate is ignored and buried by “America’s finest”. That the scandal is ignored and buried should be of no surprise because to properly reveal it would shatter the foundations of the U.S. political establishment and the sinister role of the deep state and its mainstream media propaganda system.
This Hollywood-Backed Bill Would Give Government Power To Block Websites
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | August 1, 2025
Lawmakers in Washington are once again attempting to give the United States a legal pathway to block websites, a power the federal government has never officially held on a broad scale.
The latest push comes in the form of the Block Bad Electronic Art and Recording Distributors Act, better known as “Block BEARD,” introduced in the Senate by Thom Tillis, Chris Coons, Marsha Blackburn, and Adam Schiff.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
On its face, the bill targets foreign websites accused of piracy. But the mechanism it creates would establish something far more significant: a formal, court-approved process that could be used to make entire websites vanish from the American internet.
Under the proposal, copyright owners could go to federal court to have a site labeled a “foreign digital piracy site.” If successful, the court could then order US service providers to block access to that site.
The reach is broad. The term “service provider” here mirrors the broad definition in the DMCA, potentially covering everything from ISPs and search engines to social media platforms, and perhaps even VPNs.
Proponents say this is about protecting the entertainment industry. In reality, it’s about setting a precedent. Once the government has a tool to block certain sites, history shows the definition of “unacceptable” content can expand. Piracy today could easily become something else tomorrow.
The ramifications go beyond the music and movie business. If courts can order an ISP to make a site disappear from view, the same logic could eventually apply to other types of content deemed problematic.
And because the bill has no public transparency requirements, the public could be kept entirely in the dark about which sites are blocked, why they’re blocked, or how long the blocks remain in place.
Supporters in the entertainment industry, including the RIAA and Motion Picture Association, are openly cheering the bill, pointing to similar measures overseas they claim have worked without harming free speech.
But the US is not the same as other countries. The First Amendment’s protection of speech and access to information means this kind of censorship tool carries far more constitutional baggage here than it does elsewhere.
What Block BEARD really represents is a milestone. If passed, it would be the first time the US creates a standing legal process for cutting off access to entire websites at the network level.
The DMCA was sold to the public in 1998 as a way to modernize copyright law for the internet age. But from the beginning, it has been controversial, not just because of its reach, but because of how easily it can be weaponized as a tool for censorship.
The most infamous part of the law is the “takedown notice” process under Section 512. In theory, this allows copyright holders to request the removal of infringing material from websites, search results, and hosting platforms. In practice, it’s often used to silence lawful content.
Artists, journalists, independent creators, and political activists have all been hit with DMCA notices for work that clearly falls under fair use, commentary, or criticism.
Sometimes, companies use the DMCA to scrub negative reviews, hide embarrassing information, or push competing material offline. The burden falls on the person targeted to challenge the notice, a process that can be slow, confusing, and intimidating.
Because most online platforms follow a “remove first, ask questions later” approach to avoid liability, even clearly bogus claims can make content vanish instantly. This takedown system can and has been abused by governments, corporations, and individuals to suppress speech they dislike, with little immediate recourse for the target.
The DMCA was supposed to protect creativity, but its design makes it a ready-made censorship lever. It grants private parties the ability to effectively erase content from the internet without a court order, bypassing the normal checks that protect free expression.
That’s why proposals like Block BEARD raise such red flags. If the DMCA already allows individual posts, videos, or search results to be removed at the click of a button, adding a legal process to block entire websites is the next logical, and far more dangerous, step. It moves the conversation from “this link is gone” to “this whole site no longer exists for US users.”
The DMCA has already shown how copyright enforcement can be twisted into a censorship tool. Giving the government and rights holders a formal way to block entire sites risks creating a far broader, far harder-to-challenge system of online suppression. Once in place, history suggests it will be used for far more than just piracy.
Irish High Court Rejects X’s Challenge to Online Censorship Law
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 31, 2025
The Irish High Court has thrown out a legal challenge by X, dealing a blow to the company’s pushback against Ireland’s new censorship rules for online video-sharing services.
X had taken aim at Coimisiún na Meán, the country’s media watchdog, accusing it of stepping beyond legal limits with its Online Safety Code.
The rules demand that platforms hosting user-generated videos take active steps to shield users from “harmful” material. The company had described the regulator’s actions as “regulatory overreach.”
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley, delivering judgment on Wednesday, found no merit in X’s application for judicial review. The court concluded that the regulator’s code was lawful and that its provisions fell within the scope of both the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and Ireland’s 2009 Broadcasting Act.
According to the ruling, the code does not clash with the Digital Services Act and can function in tandem with EU law.
Responding to the outcome, Coimisiún na Meán said it welcomed the decision and intended to examine the ruling closely before offering more detailed comment.
The case comes as X begins rolling out new age verification systems to meet obligations under the Irish code, alongside compliance efforts aimed at satisfying UK and wider EU digital censorship regulations.
The ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle over who decides the boundaries of online speech and content moderation.
While the court’s backing of the state regulator reinforces governments’ ability to impose strict platform controls, it raises deeper concerns about the growing normalization of surveillance-based compliance measures and centralized authority over digital expression.



